[Moogs]

I urge all of you to take a look at this site, read a few of the articles and then contact your local congressional reps. I can verify that your reps will receive the email and you'll get notices back in many cases. You won't get any newsletters or anything unless you specifically fill out the fields to do so AFAICT. Either way a very important and respectable cause that will have an effect on all of us if we don't stand up and say something.

http://www.itsournet.org/

[Brad]

Another big one is:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

And its front page it's nearly as annoying as the one you posted.

[Moogs]

Whaddya mean, the one I posted is a pretty clean design. Anyway I really hope people make some noise. If the telcos -all big lobbyists in DC- get a hold of this thing and twist it to their advantage, we'll most likely never get it back the way we have it now.

[atomicbartbeans]

Unfortunately, though, legislators in DC are being bullshitted to by their morning paper (use a login from here; dragonxpoopoo worked for me). These people ought to be hung for publishing that article... presumedly, big telco had its hand down the editor's pants.

Meanwhile, there are powerful arguments on the other side. If you want innovation on the Internet, you need better pipes: ones that are faster, less susceptible to hackers and spammers, or smarter in ways that nobody has yet thought of. The lack of incentives for pipe innovation is more pressing than the lack of incentives to create new Web services. You can see this imbalance in Wall Street's low valuation of Internet infrastructure firms such as Verizon (price-to-earnings ratio: 12) and its infatuation with Internet service firms such as Google (price-to-earnings ratio: 69). You can see it, too, in the fact that U.S. broadband infrastructure lags behind that of East Asia and Europe. Allowing builders of Internet infrastructure to recoup their investment by charging the Googles and Amazons for use of their network would balance the incentives for innovation more closely. Ironically, a non-neutral net would accelerate the spread of zippy broadband that can deliver movies, allowing hobbyists with camcorders to take on Hollywood studios. The neutrality advocates who criticize corporatized cable TV should welcome that.

Um... fuck you Washington Post!

By the way, here's a formal rebuttal of the article.

[Banana]

ABB,

There's your answer:

Originally Posted by The Washington Post[/quote (The Washington Post Co. owns broadband networks that might charge Web sites for fast delivery. It also produces Web content that might be subject to such fees, so it has interests on both sides of this issue.)

Three guesses as to which way their interest lean.

[kgarchar]

This whole situation is such bullshit. Money-Hungry pricks.