Teamsters Come Out for Net Neutrality - this affects us all!

[babylonsister]

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1721

Teamsters Come Out for Net Neutrality
by: Matt Stoller
Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 22:50:52 PM EDT

This is significant.

"But today these rights are under attack. Decisions by the Federal Communications Commission and the Supreme Court in 2005 have put at risk the fundamental rights of open access on the Internet. These rule changes would allow a few media multinationals to control the speed at which information can be moved across the Internet, and ultimately control whose information is not moved at all.

"Some believe these rules would foster increased investment in new technologies and create new jobs. I believe, however, that this is a very shortsighted view. For example, what would happen if these workers decided to fight for better working conditions? Would they be able to list their grievances on a web site?

"Just this week, AT&T updated its terms for Internet service. The company will now suspend or cancel Internet service to anyone who speaks out against the company in any way.

"When corporations control communications and the ability to appeal to the public for justice, workers will ultimately lose.

"That was the experience of Canadian telecom workers when they struck Canadian telephone giant Telus in 2005. The company blocked access to voices-for-change.ca and 600 other sympathetic web sites for about 16 hours.

"Consolidation of the mainstream media has already led to a visible decline in coverage of workplace issues. The Internet has become the last refuge for truth and balance for organizations fighting for public safety, public security, workers' rights and the public's right to know.

Equating labor rights with open internet is correct. Both are grouping or organizing tools.

This is wonderful news.

[Hutzpa]

1. Throw caution to wind

friend....you're a little too excited. The internet should be left the *fuck* alone, no teamster, no union or whatever needs tampering where there is no tampering needed. All this is BULLSHIT to me...this is one way of finding control.


:think:

[babylonsister]

3. If it's ignored, no more net neutrality. That will be oxyMORONIC. nt

[Eric J in MN]

4. The point is to stop AT&T from tampering with it.

We don't want them to reserve their lines for those who pay extra fees.

[babylonsister]

6. Thanks. I'm stuck w/AT&T, again. I switched, they bought the co. out.

Or something. I think I switched to SW Bell.

[Eric J in MN]

7. "Save the Internet"

If you want to learn about Net Neutrality, this is a good place to go:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/

[superkia]

9. Wouldnt they be able to control content also?

I thought I read that too.

[Eric J in MN]

12. Step 2. They would start with preferential treatment, and if they got.,,.

...away with it, they'd look into censorship.

The Christian Coalition supports Net Neutrality because the don't want to be charged new internet fees.

Republican Dick Armey wrote an article saying that they should embrace the end of Net Neutrality as an anti-porn measure.

[ConsAreLiars]

14. Are you arguing that the corporations should decide what is allowed?

The Teamsters are arguing that they should not. That is hardly "tampering" by the union.

[Mythsaje]

2. K&R

Those tubes are OURS, not theirs. We license them to provide a service. WE license THEM to serve the public good. The minute they don't, hasta la vista, baby.

[lonestarnot]

5. Yes. And ... FUCK YOU AT & T

[snot]

8. Hallelujah -- maybe more folks are starting to "get" this issue. nt

[babylonsister]

10. I have to do this: "Yo, SNOT!"

:D

[snot]

17. thanks, sis; I needed that. nt

[philly_bob]

11. We need net neutrality. Lots of misinformation on this.

The "leave the Internet alone" argument is a smoke screen.

See, the Internet started out neutral. The designers made it that way. Then a few years ago the free-market, Bushite regulators at the FCC removed the net neutrality provisions.

The telephone and cable companies then saw that they could make money, by charging content providers for using their wires.

Believe me, this is one case where you want the government to "regulate" net neutrality. That is, to return the Internet to the way it was before the FCC screwed it up.

[babylonsister]

13. OK. So inform us, please.nt

[philly_bob]

15. No time this week, but here's links.

Since this is a deadline week for me, BabylonSister, I can give only the barest argument and a few links.

The short version: these guys are right (http://www.savetheinternet.com) and these guys are wrong (http://www.handsoff.org). The latter group, when you look at their membership, is mainly cable and telephone companies. The former group is everybody else who understands the situation.

The missing link is that the condition under which the Internet grew (you pay a fee to your Internet Service Provider (ISP), and they send any Internet page you want, such as DU, to your computer) was changed by the right-wingers on the FCC. Before, the ISP was a "common carrier."

After the change, your ISP can demand a fee from any web page (like DU) for carrying it over their wires. The ISP is no longer a "common carrier."

Naturally, only the big guys will be able to pay the fee, so the mainstream media will grow even stronger.

Net Neutrality restores the Internet to the way it was before the FCC free-marketers messed it up.

P.S. BabylonSister, I greatly admire your work on DU and appreciate your request for an explanation, and I'm sorry I don't have the time to do it justice.

[babylonsister]

16. Thank you for that! And don't worry about it, you have helped! nt

[ConsAreLiars]

18. Great to see unions catching on to this threat and taking a stand..

Maybe the pink tutu Dem contingent will join in the fight? Past practice is not very assuring, but hey, maybe. Proud of my union, but ashamed of most of my party.

(edit because the "," and the "." and "r" and "t" are far too close on the keyboard.)