Currently, most residents in New Jersey's 3rd Congressional district have access to only one or two Internet Broadband Providers. This relative lack of choice raises the possibility that Broadband Providers can slap a toll on content (what gets sent on the Net) and service (how fast.) This would lead to a multi-tiered Network where some Websites enjoy premium access speeds to their customers. Websites that are unwilling or unable to pay the toll would be relegated to the proverbial "slow lane."
John Adler believes that this inequitable arrangement would threaten the dynamism on the Internet. John strongly supports Network Neutrality and the innovation and openness that stem from it. In fact, a primary reason the Internet and the World Wide Web have proven so dynamic is the inherent openness and egalitarianism of the Network.
John Adler believes that only by preserving Network Neutrality; ensuring a diversity of media ownership; and bridging the Digital Divide will the Internet thrive as a hub of innovation and free speech in NJ-3 and beyond.
...the key part is that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's staff has been briefing FCC commissioners on changes that will be made to the regulation of Internet lines. The companies in charge of such lines, such as phone and cable companies, have been arguing that new regulations would hurt their businesses. They fear that they may have to open these lines to competitors (God forbid!) or be forced to have rate limits (the horror!). According to the WSJ report, the FCC officials are saying that won't be the case, and instead will mainly be concerned with ensuring net neutrality.
Albio Sires was the only other New Jersey Democrat to sign on to the letter, which is a pretty good hint how bad it is. It's not difficult to guess that they are motivated by money.
So we contacted the Menendez campaign today and they confirmed that they are indeed pro-net neutrality. Here's the senator's official statement on the issue:
Like you, I strongly support net neutrality. As you know, a major point of contention in the United States Senate telecommunications reform legislation is the question of whether action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. I believe all individuals should be able to benefit from the wealth of material available online. The Internet was created to be a venue for sharing information and we must continue to make certain that consumers can access that content without discrimination.
Congress is now back in session and the Senate has yet to schedule a vote on major reforms to telecommunications law.
The pending legislation does not include any meaningful provision to protect the principle of Network Neutrality online even though more than a million people have signed a petition sponsored by the SavetheInternet.com coalition asking Congress to preserve Internet freedom.
The grassroots movement for Net Neutrality drove home that point the week before Congress reconvened by holding petition drops at senators' offices in 26 cities around the country.
Net Neutrality advocates worry that Internet providers will fast-track content from favored Web sites or companies, while slowing down transmissions from everybody else. To stop companies like AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner and Comcast from abusing our online freedoms, we need to restore the federal law that ensures that we are free to navigate the Web to the sites and service of our choice, and not be pushed to companies favored by these Internet giants.
In Newark, New Jersey activists delivered tens of thousands of petitions to the Senate offices of Robert Menendez calling on the senator to "preserve a free and open Internet by stopping the phone company plan to erect new tollbooths and discriminate against content on the Web."
August's nationwide petition delivery convinced at least four senators to go on record in support of net Neutrality, bringing the number of senators in favor of Internet freedom up to 26 as of September 7. Fourteen senators are on the record as backing major phone and cable companies' plans to create a tiered and discriminatory Internet. The rest are either waffling or undeclared on the issue.
These numbers are important, especially for New Jersey.
We're excited to report that at a townhall event last night, Senator Menendez indicated he's pro-net neutrality. It's the first time he's announced his position on the issue.
Yesterday's announcement from Zulima Farber that she will resign marked the first time in modern history that a New Jersey attorney general resigned under pressure. The Star Ledger editorial board explains why she had to resign:
When Corzine took office, he vowed he'd run an ethically tight ship, that ethical lapses, missteps and misjudgments would not be tolerated from his Cabinet officers.
Given that standard, Corzine had little choice but to accept Farber's resignation hours after retired Appellate Division Judge Richard Williams concluded that she had violated three ethics provisions governing employees in the Attorney General's Office.
Home sales in New Jersey are down 16.3% during this past quarter compared to a year ago whereas the national average drop in sales was 7%. Still, prices have remained steady.
The state's unemployment rate rose from 4.9% in June to 5.1% in July. The nation as a whole also experienced a 0.2% increase from 4.6% to 4.8%. While nationwide the number of jobs created numbered 113,000, in New Jersey, we actually lost 3,800 jobs. Since December of 2000, the state has lost a quarter of its manufacturing jobs.
Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Paulsboro) wants to end a different type of "pay-to-play". He wants to ban schools from charging fees for students' participation in sports or other extracurricular activities. The school districts say they have resorted to fees to keep the activities going at a time when school budgets are being cut.
The Philadelphia Inquirer has a great story on Newark mayor Cory Booker's mission to clean up the city and make it safe again in order to attract jobs and residents. Some residents say they're already seeing a change: "You see more police since he's been in," Fuld resident Alicia Sly says. "It's changing. It's not going to happen overnight."
Recently I wrote to the Governor expressing my concerns about Verizon’s plans for the future of the internet. This past week I received his reply( to view the full letter click here: RedBankTV)
“From Gov. Corzine
Dear Mr. L******
Thank you for contacting my office regarding Verizon’s plan to restrict internet access for New Jersey residents. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.
Due to the federal nature of your correspondence, members of New Jersey’s Congressional Delegation are the appropriate officials to address your concerns. At this time I would recommend that you contact your representatives and make them aware of your thoughts on this issue.�
I will be writing back to the Governor hoping to convince him that Net Neutrality is of great concern to New Jersey residents and that we should not wait for the federal government to act on our behalf.
I am asking the Governor to use his conditional veto powers to ask the State Legislature to revise the state wide franchise bill to include Net Neutrality provisions. Many other states are taking the Net Neutrality issue and making it local, you can read about other state’s efforts here: Net Neutrality fight moves to states
NJ's Local newspapers are calling on the Governor to use his conditional veto powers to push for changes to this bill regarding coverage and tax issues. I am encouraging my fellow residents to ask the Governor to ask for provisions in the bill that would require state wide cable franchise applicants to guarantee that they will uphold the tenets of Net Neutrality.
Please join me by writing the Governor and telling him that you are concerned about Verizon’s plans for the future of the internet.
The NJ house passed the state wide cable TV franchise bill about a month ago. From my recollection Governor Corzine has 45 days sign the bill into law. I have been keeping an eye out but I have not seen any updates in the news regarding Governor Corzine’s plans.
I and others have encouraged the Governor to consider the telecommunication’s industry plans for the future of the internet as he decides whether or not to sign the bill into law.
While cable TV competition is good for NJ cable consumers, the Telco’s Anti-Net Neutrality plans are anti-competition and could have a much more lasting impact on NJ consumers than cable TV competition.
If anyone has more information on the Governor’s plans regarding this legislation please drop me an e-mail at tom @ redbanktv.org
“He’s gong to sign it� That’s a quote from Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg in an article on Bloomberg talking about NJ legislation(ACS-804/SCS-192) that was voted on and passed yesterday. Meanwhile, Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Governor Corzine declines to comment on the legislation, instead saying “We're going to take the time to review the details of the bill�
Aside from being smug enough to read the mind of the Governor, Verizon has spent millions of dollars on what the Asbury Park Press calls “a long, expensive lobbying campaign that featured advertising, phone banks and many other trappings of elective politics.�
The cable franchise legislation that passed has no Network Neutrality wording in it. Verizon’s NJ cable TV franchise will be delivered to consumers over their high speed FiOS internet connection; thus it is appropriate to talk about Net Neutrality as part of NJ’s cable franchise discussion.
Cable competition is only one form of competition in NJ’s high speed internet connection boom. Not only do we want competition for cable TV service but we want to ensure that internet competition is not hindered on those very same wires.
If competition and keeping the internet a level playing field is important to you than I urge you to contact Governor Cozine and ask him to raise the issue of Net Neutrality prior to signing this legislation into law. Contact the Governor
Another contact within our state government is the Department of the Public Advocate. Public Advocate Home
A bill in the NJ Assembly, A2064 would allow cameras only at accident- or fatality-prone intersections and limit photos to rear license plates.
The Bergen record has a story about the amount of overtime worked by state employees over the last 3 years saying that last year, nearly half the state's workforce of more than 80,000 put in extra hours.
The Star Ledger discusess net neutrailty about the trust me method being employed by telecoms saying
It looks like a home run for the telecom companies, which have spent billions of dollars deploying high-speed fiber optic lines across the country. They demand freedom to offer premium services -- heart monitoring, perhaps? -- and promise they won't rile consumers by blocking content.
Verizon put out a press release today titled: “Verizon Sets the Record Straight on Cablevision's False Advertising Campaign; Calls on Cable Monopoly to Step Aside and Allow Cable Choice and Competition for Consumers to Flourish in New Jersey�
Surly I’m not the only one who sees the irony in this. Verizon, and all the telcos for that matter, want to have their cake and eat it too and they are none too embarrassed to say so in public.
A Taste Of Their Own Medicine
Verizon says: An ad published yesterday in the Asbury Park Press, as well as radio ads being broadcast on WKXW-FM and other radio stations around the state, use scare-tactics and distortions to lobby for legislation that would protect Cablevision's cable-TV monopoly.
In an apparent effort to cloak Cablevision's involvement, the ads note
that the sponsor is CSC Holdings. However, CSC Holdings is the operator of Cablevision Systems Inc.
Verizon and the telcos are the kings of Astroturf, that is “cloaking� their involvement with ads or faxes, and they have the gal to call out a competitor for using the same tactics.
Hello, Can you hear yourself now?
The presser continues: "It's time for Cablevision to step aside and allow true competition flourish in New Jersey," said Dennis Bone, president of Verizon New Jersey.
This could easily be re-written: "It's time for Verizon to step aside and allow true competition flourish in New Jersey,"
Verizon’s plans for the internet are anti-competition and anti-consumer.
They continue: "The consumers throughout the state have clearly spoken: They want choice and competition, and they want it now," said Bone.
Yes! Yes we want choice and competition. We want the choice to invest in municipal Wi-Fi if we choose, we want the choice to have A La Carte Cable service and we most definitely want the choice to use our fiber broadband connections any way we want.
What do we want?
More from the press release: In May, both the state Senate and Assembly overwhelmingly approved legislation that will streamline New Jersey's antiquated, anti-consumer video franchise rules. In a procedural move, the Senate is required to vote again, and that vote could come next week. “We encourage members of the Legislature and the governor to focus on the many benefits of the video franchise legislation," said Bone. "With it, New Jerseyans all over the state will soon benefit from cable choice and competition.�
To the Senate members and Governor Corzine I say follow Verizon’s advice and voice your concerns over competition. Voice you concerns about Network Neutrality and how it is bad for competition in New Jersey. This issue needs to be addressed and New Jersey is the best place to address it.
Our house delegation has a lot to be ashamed of today. 10 out of 12 of our Representatives voted in favor of the COPE Telecom bill last night (Mike Ferguson is a co-sponsor), which besides being a big wet sloppy kiss to the telecom industry, does not include a provision to protect network neutrality. You can say goodbye to the internet as we know it, and if you think I'm being hyperbolic, read this.
Only Congressmen Holt and Payne voted against the final bill. Andrews, LoBiondo, Saxton, Smith, Garrett, Pallone, Ferguson, Pascrell, Rothman and Frelinghuysen all voted for it. No doubt Verizon put a good deal of pressure on all of them. To be fair, all Democrats voted for amending the bill with a provision to preserve net neutrality. Unfortunately, their vote for the final bill, which did not include that protection, has the effect of scrapping net neutrality. That's really not an excuse, because the bill itself was crap to begin with.
Although the bill does allow for municipal broadband, it's also a giveaway to the telecom industry. Although it would create a national franchise to make it easier for telephone companies to compete with cable, it doesn't contain any "build-out" requirements, which will leave rural and low-income customers in the dark. The bill would also turn over consumer protection enforcement from local and state entities to the FCC, which not only is incapable of handling all the complaints, but also won't be able to offer consumers refunds for problems they experience. On top of all this (and more), there is no net neutrality provision.
The only chance now is in the Senate. Contact Senators Frank Lautenberg (202) 224-3224 and Bob Menendez (202) 224-4744 and let them know that you want them to vote to preserve the internet and support net neutrality.
Last night the Markey Net Neutrality amendment was defeated 152 to 269 and the COPE Act passed with a vote of 321 to 101. If the COPE Act passes into law it will remove the requirement for telco companies, such as Verizon, to gain local or state cable tv franchises.
In other words our own, yet to be signed into law, state-wide cable TV franchise legislation will soon be obsolete. This is all the more reason for Governor Corzine to press Verzion on Net Neutrality before signing New Jersey’s legislation into law. If our own legislation will soon be trumped by federal legislation then I say there is no risk in holding up the signing due to Net Neutrality concerns.
Governor Corzine has a chance to show that New Jersey is a technology leader and that we know that Verizon’s plans for the future of the internet are bad.
I am asking Governor Corzine to hold up the signing into law of the state-wide cable franchise legislation till he is satisfied with Verizon’s plans for the future of the internet.
Please help me get the message to Governor Corzine that he should hold Verizon’s feet to the fire on Net Neutrality prior to singing the legislation into law.
I feel that Verizon’s plans for the future of the Internet are bad for New Jersey. I encourage all New Jersey internet users to read up on the issue of Network Neutrality and find out what a Tiered Internet would mean to New Jersey businesses and consumers.
I have written the following letter to Governor Corzine and I am trying to make him aware of the issue. I need help getting the word out; please write to the Governor and tell him that you want him to help Save the Internet.
- Start Letter Text -
Dear Governor Corzine, as a software engineer and avid technologist, I am deeply concerned about Verizon's intentions to restrict internet access for New Jersey residents. Verizon wishes to be the de facto gatekeeper on the internet, determining which content travels at what speed for the portion of its journey that travels over Verizon's wires. Verizon's plans violate the tenets of Network Neutrality that have fueled growth and enabled healthy competition on the internet. I fear that their plans will limit the choices for New Jersey internet users and could put New Jersey businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
Since Verizon also plans to use the internet connections they provide to also offer cable television service, it is appropriate that their plans for both internet access and cable access be considered before passing new statewide cable TV legislation. I am asking you to ask Verizon clear-cut questions about their business roadmap for offering internet access to their customer base, and whether their plans include limiting internet access based on the type of content delivered, or based on relationships they have with certain content providers. For the sake of New Jersey's online businesses and consumers alike, please consider how Verizon's actions may negatively impact the obvious advantages of the present free market, before signing new cable TV legislation into law.
Sincerely yours,
Tom L******* ( last name withheld on this post )
tom@redbanktv dot org
- End Letter Text -
Thanks for reading, please help get the word out and feel free to stop by the blog at: Red Bank TV
I just got an e-mail from Mike Premo, Linda Stender's campaign manager. Assemblywoman Stender supports net neutrality.
This is really good news, as the kind of wonky phrase "net neutrality" obscures what is really a major fight for the little guy against monied interests.
All traffic on the Internet -- e-mail, video, this web site, etc. -- is sent in what are called "packets." Once a packet leaves a computer and enters the Internet it is sent at the same speed as every other packet, regardless of who sent it or what it contains.
Just wanted to forward an e-mail from Tim Karr of savetheinternet.com. There seems to be some work being done on a compromise Net Neutrality bill today. If you support Legislating Net Neutrality then you will find Tim's e-mail interesting.
I feel that we should push Gov. Corzine and the State BPU to raise the Net Neutrality question when it comes time to approve Verizon's state-wide cable TV franchise.
Tim Karr of Free Press and the SavetheInternet Coalition here. A
critical vote is going down in Congress right now and we need you and your
readers to get phones ringing off the hook on Capitol Hill.
The House Judiciary Committee is beginning to "mark up" a good Net
Neutrality bill at around 11am (EST) this morning. Then they're going to
vote on whether to bring it to the full floor. Many in the Committee are
being pressured by AT&T, Verizon and other major telcos to vote down
the net neutrality provisions in this bipartisan bill.
Below are the members who need to hear from you and your readers to
support this important bill. Urge them to support the
Sensenbrenner-Conyers "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006" (HR 5417) in the
Judiciary Committee -- and to support it without amendment. (Saying
without amendment is key as the telcos want to re-write it in a way that
guts Internet freedom).
Here are the members who need to hear from you and your readers right
now:
The state Assembly passed legislation yesterday allowing Verizon to apply for a statewide cable TV franchise. Due to a procedural mistake the state Senate must re-vote the measure on June 19th. After that vote it is up to Governor Corzine to sign the legislation into law.
This gives NJ proponents of Net Neutrality two opportunities to raise our questions prior to Verizon going before the state Board of Public Utilities to formally apply for a state wide franchise.
If you are in support of Net Neutrality there are two things you need to do:
1.Contact your state Senator and make them aware of the issue, tell them about Verizon’s future plans for the internet and how it will stifle competition on the internet and how it could prevent the next great internet company, one that could be based in New Jersey, from ever having a chance to compete with the big boys.
2.Contact Gov. Corzine and let him know that he has an opportunity to help New Jersey small businesses, independent artists, and plain old web surfers by choosing not to side with big business. Tell him that you want him to question Verizon on their future plans for the internet; tell him that he should be in favor of keeping the internet a level playing field and not for tollbooths on the information super-highway.
Now is the time to act; don’t wait for federal legislation that may never come to be.
We still need to find out more about the BPU, if anyone out there knows how the cable tv approval process will work at the BPU please contact me.
If Net Neutrality is important to you then please give me your attention for a few moments.
Now is the time for New Jersey residents to take a stand for keeping the internet a level playing field. Verizon, with its deep pockets, has managed to push legislation through the Assembly that now allows them to apply for a state wide cable TV franchise. We have a period of 45 days from the time that this law is signed into office till the State Board of Public Utilities approves Verizon’s franchise. We must pull out all stops to tie Network Neutrality to Verizon’s application for a cable TV franchise.
While the Net Neutrality fight in Congress gets all of the attention the real fight has landed on our doorsteps. We can not rely on federal legislation; Verizon’s lobbyist pockets are too deep, I don’t want to wait and see what the outcome is there. No, the fight for Net Neutrality just landed here in New Jersey and we have a month and a half to take a stand.
(I approved the ad because it's important to have this dialog. This fake grassroots-looking site is the work of Ed Whitacre (CEO of AT&T), the person paying Mike McCurry and the rest of the gang trying to wreck the internet. Due to pressure from the big telcos, the FCC changed long-standing net neutrality principles 9 months ago, with a 12 month moratorium on implementation of the rules. If the people running this ad get what they want, in 3 months, the internet as we know it is over. But don't take my word for it - Ask a Ninja explains it much better. And for more information on this ad campaign, read this. - promoted by jmelli)
Take a look at the ad on the bottom right of this page. It was probably conceived by telecom lobbyist/ pretend activist Mike McCurry. (McCurry is a former press secretary for Bill Clinton.)
What if back in the early 20th century, paving and construction companies were given control of the roads instead of the government? The argument was that we had roads because of them and that they won't be able to develop improvements like traffic lights if we don't give them "freedom"? They said, "why should trucking and bus companies get to make a profit from our roads?" The trucking and bus companies fought this and the paving and construction companies would say, "this is unfair, why should the shipping industry make money from our roads."
They would have paid off a formerly respected political operative to form a lobbying firm "Hands Off Our Roads"
PS If you want to help me make an ad for this website defending government preservation of internet freedom email me at jennypenny at crumiller dot com.
Update: I'm glad to learn that I was wrong. Paul Aronsohn says in the comments that he supports net neutrality. The second half of the post is still important, so read ahead.
First we had Congressman Pallone cast a bum vote against the internet's version of the First Amendment - net neutrality (before he voted against it). Now it seems Paul Aronsohn may not be sure he completely supports it. From Camille Abate's website:
When Paul Aronsohn was asked his stand on net neutrality, he professed not to be familiar with the concept. But then our blogger discovered that he was having a fundraiser in New York City next week – with the guest of honor being Mike McCurry, a former Clinton aide. Mike McCurry now happens to be the chief lobbyist for the telecom giants, who has been in Washington for months trying to ram through this legislation.
When our blogger called Aronsohn on this, and demanded to know why he had claimed unfamiliarity with net neutrality when his guest of honor was the telecom giants’ chief lobbyist, Aronsohn again did not answer her question but accused her of "attacking" his good friend, Mike McCurry, and how dare she do that. After a number of emails back and forth where she couldn’t get an answer, our blogger gave up and just sent me the entire correspondence.
A diverse coalition - from MoveOn to the Gun Owners of America - have joined forces to support net neutrality. McCurry has mocked these efforts and claimed that the internet has not been regulated up to this point, so why fix what's not broken?:
The Internet has worked absent regulation and now you want to introduce it for a solution to what? What content is being denied? What service is being degraded? What is not right with the Internet that you are trying to cure?
But as Matt Stoller points out, this is flat out wrong:
what McCurry did not tell the public was that during the Clinton years, the FCC actively enforced net neutrality — the Internet’s First Amendment – against his telecom clients. Common carrier statutes have in fact been a bedrock principle of telecommunications law since 1934, and in 1996 Congress ratified that with a commitment to network neutrality.
There's nothing complicated about this issue. The elimination of net neutrality would mean that any access provider could degrade your ability to access Blue Jersey, google, or any other legal site or service on the internet. It's not hyperbole to say that it could spell the destruction of the most democratic medium we have. In fact, that's the purpose. It's that simple, and it's not a negotiable issue.
Unfortunately, this time it's not just Mike Ferguson selling out our interests. It's Frank Pallone as well.
There was a big vote on internet freedom (or 'net neutrality') that took place in the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday. And Frank Pallone sold out the internet, big time.
Here's the deal.
Right now your broadband ISP isn't really allowed to block legal web sites or services to their customers. A bill that passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee lets them. It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist. Pretty soon your broadband provider will be allowed to block Google, Vonage, or your favorite blog if a competitor pays them, if they develop a competing service, or if they just don't like you. This sort of undermines the whole internet thing..
The vote took place in two stages. One was the Markey amendment, which was the amendment to a larger telecom package. This was voted down. Then the whole package without that amendment went through the Committee. Frank Pallone is a member of this Committee, and while he voted for the Markey amendment to protect internet freedom, when that amendment was defeated, he voted for the whole bill anyway. In other words, he pandered on internet freedom, and then voted against it in the end. Oh yeah, and he received $28,500 from telecom and cable interests in the 2006 cycle.
