Insults Compounded by More Insults

[Cluttermagnet]

Senate Bill Attacks Content, VOIP, Analog TVsMore DRM and DRM-like crap here. It doesn't get much uglier than what we've been seeing this past year. Barbarians at the gates? Heck, they're inside already, and they're cutting up the furniture and selling it for firewood. Your furniture. Thieves in broad daylight, ripping you off for everything they can lay their hands on. I am sooooooooooo not buying their products and services. TV is such a vast wasteland. Cell phones are so overpriced. A ball and chain. I don't want them. OK, I'll settle for being a voice in the wilderness. "Stand still, little sheep, to be shorn..." I'm apparently a late-blooming, economically and politically-motivated Luddite. So be it. I'm not anti-tech. I've been a geek for years. I'm anti-ripoff and I'm firmly for putting the control freaks out with the morning garbage. Ship of fools.Oh, yeah- they're gonna revive the broadcast flag, among other horrors. Surprised? Perfectly happy with your present TV? Too bad. They can't control it, so it's gotta go. Et cetera. Rights? Forget it! Privacy? Forget it. What have you done with my country, dudes?!

[epp_b]

Yup, I'm finding less and less use for TV these days. There are basically two shows I watch, and that's pretty much it. If I decide not to ever get another TV, so be it. It's probably better for me anyway. They can't restrict what I don't have.About the VOIP though, that's a bit scary.I wonder how much of these rights-stripping laws would even be introduced if corporate money was disallowed in politics and if politicians knew more about technology than the average chiwawa.

Edited May 9, 2006 by epp_b

[Guest LilBambi]

And the network neutrality thing too. Don't forget that.It's all a big mess and corporate interests seem like they win at every turn these days. :thumbsdown:You know the old saying ... Follow the money.

[Cluttermagnet]

Network neutrality? How could I forget that? My congress critter voted 'wrong' on both votes recently. I made a rare (for me) phone call and registered my strong disapproval. I only got to talk to a functionary, of course. He seems as resolute as the present admin is on many of their issues. I doubt I can move him. This means I may not be able to support him in any future re-election bids. Too bad, as the guy is a Dem, and substantially aligned with my interests. Hrrrrumph! They are even getting to the Dems. Money talks.A small victory, just a skirmish won: Court Skeptical of FCC on Broadband Wiretap Access.

Edited May 10, 2006 by Cluttermagnet

[epp_b]

voip is hated because telco is all about per-minute.

Yup, they're in the same boat as RIAA, MPAA and all those other green-faced corporations with jurassic business models. Too stupid/lazy/blinded by greed to realize that market topology actually changes (what a concept, huh?!) and that businesses need to change with it.Don't get me wrong, telephones are still needed now, but VOIP is a better tool for many tasks and will only get more common. It's completely wrong and unfair for telcos to prioritize communication lines according to which ones make them the most money instead of adjusting their businesses to to properly reflect the market.

[Gary]

They are in the business to make money, just like any other.

[epp_b]

They are in the business to make money, just like any other.

That's too bad. Businesses should be in the business of people and happen to specialize in a particular field.I know that sounds cliche, but how much better off would we be if this is actually how businesses worked?

[epp_b]

Exactly.

[lewmur]

if a business does not help people, but only makes money, is scr*ws people.two doctors, one makes money, one loves people. at the end of the day, both go home with a couple of thousand $'s. but which doctor's patients do better in the long run?

The one's who knows what he is doing. I've never heard of a doctor curing cancer with love.

[Guest LilBambi]

I think that both doctors in Temmu's example would have done the same/similar medical treatment, but the love/caring was what differentiated their overall care of the patient. (Temmu correct me if I misread you on that).Certainly love can't cure cancer by itself, but combined with PMA (positive mental attitude) and some laughter, hope, and medical treatments and care .. it can make all the difference in the world. There are no guarantees on anything in the medical field, particularly with cancer.I think the point here is that a free market is not a bad thing. It's the implementation; the lack of honest ethical behavior that makes the deciding difference in so many cases.If all one can think of in business is how they make their next buck without thought on the impact to their customers ... that's a problem.If they don't care about the customers, at least remember that there is still a lesson to be learned from an old nursery rhyme about killing the golden goose.

[Cluttermagnet]

There are parallels, no doubt. The telco situation reminds me of the turn of the 20th century. A lot of lawsuits going on, a lot of suppression or theft of emerging technology. Review the sad case of how David Sarnoff and evil RCA ripped off Major Edwin Armstrong, inventor of the superheterodyne receiver (still in use today) and FM radio. FM was a perceived threat to the AM broadcast industry of the time, so it was effectively suppressed for decades and didn't really emerge until about the late 1940's. See any parallels to POTS (plain old telephone service) and VoIP? I sure do!

[lewmur]

I think that both doctors in Temmu's example would have done the same/similar medical treatment, but the love/caring was what differentiated their overall care of the patient. (Temmu correct me if I misread you on that).Certainly love can't cure cancer by itself, but combined with PMA (positive mental attitude) and some laughter, hope, and medical treatments and care .. it can make all the difference in the world. There are no guarantees on anything in the medical field, particularly with cancer.I think the point here is that a free market is not a bad thing. It's the implementation; the lack of honest ethical behavior that makes the deciding difference in so many cases.If all one can think of in business is how they make their next buck without thought on the impact to their customers ... that's a problem.If they don't care about the customers, at least remember that there is still a lesson to be learned from an old nursery rhyme about killing the golden goose.

IMO, ethical behavior is a necessary component of good mental health. But "Enlightened Self-Interest" is in no way unethical. Businesses which practice ESI seem to thrive over the "long-haul," where those who's only concern is "bottom line," don't. Taking care of customers and treating them fairly is part of ESI. But it doesn't require that one "love" one's customers.The same thing holds true for doctors. Helping patients maintain a PMA is part of a doctor's ESI. But it doesn't require the doctors to "love" their patients. In fact, too much "caring" can be detremental to both the patient and the doctor. It can lead to a loss of objectivity, which can harm the patient. And it can lead to "burnout" of the doctor. A doctor is a scientist and not a priest.`In closing, I think that "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is sound advice. Whereas "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is pure poppycock. Edited May 12, 2006 by lewmur

[epp_b]

The same thing holds true for doctors. Helping patients maintain a PMA is part of a doctor's ESI. But it doesn't require the doctors to "love" their patients. In fact, too much "caring" can be detremental to both the patient and the doctor. It can lead to a loss of objectivity, which can harm the patient. And it can lead to "burnout" of the doctor.

Speaking as someone who's been in the hosptial probably more in the last 20 years than most of you have been in your life, "by-the-book" workers in the medical field who aren't there for the patients are the most frustrating because, as a patient, it makes you feel very uncomfortable and mentally disconnected from your illness (trust me, when someone is poking needles in you and stuffing six feet of cotton up your honker, it's more than just nice to have a friendly person).But, anyway, that's not the issue at hand here...the point is that a business's customers should be their friends more than their profits are. Edited May 12, 2006 by epp_b

[Cluttermagnet]

IMO, ethical behavior is a necessary component of good mental health. But "Enlightened Self-Interest" is in no way unethical. (snip)In closing, I think that "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is sound advice. Whereas "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is pure poppycock.

Lewmur-Good points all, but in the closing paragraph you differentiate between two things that are essentially the same. At least in my mind they are. "Do unto others" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself" are mutual restatements of each other. And BTW they are a very tall order, quite spiritually advanced. For some reason, "...as thyself..." does sound harder, doesn't it? I agree with you, there. Funny thing, language. But not poppycock, these ideas. Not hardly. Advanced, yes.The world is essentially value-neutral. We decide, individually and collectively, whether to make it heaven or ****. It's a bit of both, don't you think?

ethical behavior is a necessary component of good mental health

Yes, yes! Edited May 13, 2006 by Cluttermagnet

[lewmur]

Lewmur-Good points all, but in the closing paragraph you differentiate between two things that are essentially the same. At least in my mind they are. "Do unto others" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself" are mutual restatements of each other. And BTW they are a very tall order, quite spiritually advanced. For some reason, "...as thyself..." does sound harder, doesn't it? I agree with you, there. Funny thing, language. But not poppycock, these ideas. Not hardly. Advanced, yes.

I don't find language to be a funny thing at all. Not if you examine it closely. The first statement has to do with my actions and the latter with my emotions. Not the same thing by a long shot. My neighbor is an obnoxious SOB whom I don't like, much less love. But that doesn't mean I can't treat him politely. I think it is a waste of time telling people how they must feel. What counts is how they act.

[Guest LilBambi]

I don't know ... I have seen many people get burned out:Burned out by burning both ends of the candle at the same time (for many reasons, some entertainment, some thirst for knowledge and need for school expenses, some for wanting to gain monetary possessions, some for giving of themselves till it literally hurts them) ... no matter what, there still wasn't much left in the middle to thrive on. Burned out by doing to much in too little time; whether that was self motivated or selfless motivated.Those who find time to keep in touch with themselves and/or their maker (whoever they perceive that to be), can accomplish much more and for longer than those who just run on and on, without taking time to replenish what's inside them. It is not an endless flow, it must be replenished by some means.Even if one takes the time to replenish, if they have allowed anger, hate and bitterness to flower in their lives, the replenishing time doesn't seem to have it's intended benefit and even if it benefits some, it doesn't seem to last as long.But getting back to the doctors Temmu was talking about.I have great respect for the amount of time dedicated doctors have spent and invested in pursuit of their chosen calling. And I know many very good and dedicated doctors who truly do have a love for mankind. It has made all the difference in the world to members of our family.But I have also seen a gravitation, especially since 'specialties' started where even this mighty calling is being affected by the desire to make use of their calling as just a lifetime means to acquire and maintain wealth. There will always be a need for a doctor, right? And they make good money, in most cases. Some have even gone into medicine solely because they can make very good money in this career or business.If a doctor does all they can, given knowledge gained through education and experience, yet they still somehow miss out on realizing they need love for their fellow 'man' (meaning mankind), one patient at a time ... or in the case of any career (the goose that laid the golden egg for that profession) ... they will often do only what is necessary from that standpoint alone.They may be very good at what they do, but what if the problem the patient is experiencing is not a standard problem with standard answers. Some doctors, even then, are very, very good at diagnostics and could get by regardless especially if they at least have a good bedside manner. (being nice and not condescending doesn't hurt).But, I have seen many people who have had problems that were not part of the statistics, some were even really painful problems that no one seemed to have an answer for, so they kept trying to find a doctor who would actually take the time to figure it out.Sure maybe a doctor gets wealthy by specializing in one area and shoving more and more patients into his schedule till he physically spends a whole 2-4 minutes with a given patient ...but the overall care can degrade with some of the health puzzles that can be faced by patients.And in some cases, even if the doctor has good intentions to begin with, the service may ultimately degrade further if the doctor finds they can still make money by giving less of themselves; not taking the time to really get to know their patients, not going that extra mile for that patient unless they have the money to make it beneficial, maybe not even realizing they are making mistakes along the way because they make assumptions on past experience and education, or prior diagnostics alone.Maybe not really taking the time to find out what's fully going on, assess the problem on limited information, and make a judgment call for treatment and hope for the best. There are no guarantees anyway, right? And they are helping lots of people.Just get as many of those patients in and out, and collect the ever inflated rates for visits and tests, hospital stays and treatment. They become wealthy on the medical treatment they 'practice' on others. And God forbid anyone question them or their ethics. They may even justify this thinking .. no one can fault the motivation because they paid their dues in medical school (which they have) and now they can live the good life (which they should) but not at the expense of the calling they took on by becoming a doctor. There seems to be something way wrong with that rationalization that slowly seems to take root in so many in business. But patients have a right to expect more than a business relationship with their doctor. They put the trust of their very lives in their hands.Sure, this might work for cosmetology or cosmetic surgery or some other non-life-threatening fields, but it doesn't work well with debilitating or obscure problems that many patients may face.Here's where the added element of love for their fellow 'man' (meaning mankind) helps the doctor in his assessment and treatment. Knowing more about the person, not just the body. The illnesses that humans face are not always strictly body problems, they are often affected by many outside forces. If the doctor doesn't take the time to really know what is going on in a person's life, they may miss an important element to that person's recovery. Medicine alone doesn't always make one well, or keep one well.There is the added benefit to both the doctor, and the patient, of understanding more than just the past experience with previous patients and education or even being a good diagnostician, but knowledge on various levels about *this* patient. Taking the time to learn more than the obvious.Maybe this patient has symptoms and it's not something that is conclusive with test results (which both doctors could likely do just in diagnosing such as a well known and defined treatment for infection based on the problem and the person's medical history including possible allergies to some antibiotics). This particular problem may resemble very closely one thing, but may in fact be something entirely different, or maybe something similar but a different treatment might be more effective, and based on things they may not be able to glean from the 'medical' records. In these types of cases based on knowing more about the patient; their life, their belief system, their desire to live even - their mental, physical and emotional condition as a whole could make all the difference. I am talking about everyday people with real problems in their lives that stress their systems in ways that can cause or aid the progress of many diseases/conditions.By putting the patient's needs above the need to fit more patients in the schedule in a day, they actually do more good overall to 'mankind as a whole. They treat the whole person, not just the obvious symptoms. This is not a cookie cutter medical practice.I would say that either doctor with excellent training and experience will do pretty well for their patients, but the doctor who couples that with love for their fellow 'man' (meaning mankind) will give their patients the best care overall.Side note: Membes of our family, as far back as my grandfather on my Dad's side has had Charcot Marie Tooth disease (an hereditary debilitating and often very painful disease where the nerves and muscles deteriorate over many years). This disease is now one of many included in an array of conditions/diseases known as CMT, and they have only now - in the last 10 years or so - really begun to unravel these dreaded diseases/conditions with such a wide variety of symptoms that appear to be many things or nothing in the early stages. There was a time when initial symptoms were regarded as being in people's mind because very few doctors understood what these poor people were going through. So a physician with a love for mankind makes all the difference in the world, believe me.This of course, is just my two cents, your mileage may vary.

[lewmur]

I don't know ... I have seen many people get burned out:This of course, is just my two cents, your mileage may vary.

I still maintain that one can choose to act in a loving manner but on cannot choose to love. I think one of the silliest statements ever is when one marital partner tells the other "You don't love me anymore." As if it were a concious choice.

[ross549]

This of course, is just my two cents, your mileage may vary.

Two cents....? I think that may be worth $3.50! :DAdam

[lewmur]

lilbambi - wow, quite an essay. as adam said, def. worht more than 2 cents!love is giving of yourself to others. could be time, talent, money. is there emotional reward? to you, sure. from someone that you've loved? maybe, or not. doesn't mean you didn't love. love doesn't look for a return on an investment. i disagree with lewmur's thought about love being a choice;

What you are saying falls under the heading of "acting in a loving manner." I stated that that was a choice. What isn't a choice is actually *feeling love* for my obnoxious neighbor.And I think what LilBambi is describing is compassion and not love. Some people are naturally more compassionate than others. And that is a good quality to have in some medical professions. But I don't think it counts for much in, say, a surgeon. My "primary care" doctor is a "nice guy." And if he wasn't, I'd find one who was. But I really don't care whether my proctologist is nice or not. Edited May 14, 2006 by lewmur

[Cluttermagnet]

Wow, have you guys ever hijacked my thread- and I love that! (Which is a choice). Er, ah- OK, I have an affinity for that, lewmur. Heh!

[Cluttermagnet]

"Do unto others" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself" are mutual restatements of each other. And BTW they are a very tall order, quite spiritually advanced. For some reason, "...as thyself..." does sound harder, doesn't it? I agree with you, there. Funny thing, language.

"Thought precedes action". There is rarely, if ever, a thing done by man which is not first imagined by man- because we are mainly thinking, reasoning creatures. We are not closer to automatons, say like carnivorous hunter-killers, who function much more from instinct ('programming') and less from conscious decision. Unless one is defective (dysfunctional) in their self-love, "do unto others" is a very tall order indeed, because it is a spiritual imperative which implores us to act towards others in no less a loving way than we would act towards ourselves. It's an ideal, to be sure, but that's what it's asking of us. We'll only rarely live up to it, but that is what it asks. If you want to 'look at trees', you can take a linguistic approach and correctly conclude that one statement is about thought, the other about action. If you prefer to 'see the (entire) forest', you'll have to allow they might have both moral and functional equivalence. At least that's how I see it. "You pays your money, and you takes your choice". "Do unto others" isn't letting us off with merely being civil with ugly neighbors, it is demanding that we actually love our neighbors. OK, so we usually don't manage that, but let's not cheapen the concept, because it is one of the two major takeways that even outsiders can see from a study of the Christian tradition, from which these values, in part, spring.OK, now I don't want to open that entire can of worms about religion, because this is my thread and I did not start a thread about religion. Feel free to start such a thread elsewhere, you guys. Yet I find a need to make brief reference to religion to tease out the concepts which illuminate my own thinking. My thread is actually about greedy corporations 'killing the golden goose', as Fran correctly zoned in on. But let me say this. Putting aside the salvation and perhaps the trinity teachings of that religion, which are both political and were both added many years after the time of Jesus, the main takeaway you have from the prophet himself is the following:when pressed by angry clergy who felt threatened by his teachings, demanding that Jesus recite the law, Jesus told them that they should (1.) love their God with all their hearts and minds, and (2.) love their neighbor as themselves, and that that was the entirety of the law. Simple, direct, and highly challenging advice. In that spirit, and in that light, the two phrases are functionally equivalent.

[Marsden11]

I believe VOIP will fade from the market from security issues not greedy big business.

[Guest LilBambi]

Senate Bill Attacks Content, VOIP, Analog TVsMore DRM and DRM-like crap here. It doesn't get much uglier than what we've been seeing this past year. Barbarians at the gates? Heck, they're inside already, and they're cutting up the furniture and selling it for firewood. Your furniture. Thieves in broad daylight, ripping you off for everything they can lay their hands on. I am sooooooooooo not buying their products and services. TV is such a vast wasteland. Cell phones are so overpriced. A ball and chain. I don't want them. OK, I'll settle for being a voice in the wilderness. "Stand still, little sheep, to be shorn..." I'm apparently a late-blooming, economically and politically-motivated Luddite. So be it. I'm not anti-tech. I've been a geek for years. I'm anti-ripoff and I'm firmly for putting the control freaks out with the morning garbage. Ship of fools.Oh, yeah- they're gonna revive the broadcast flag, among other horrors. Surprised? Perfectly happy with your present TV? Too bad. They can't control it, so it's gotta go. Et cetera. Rights? Forget it! Privacy? Forget it. What have you done with my country, dudes?!

Network neutrality? How could I forget that? My congress critter voted 'wrong' on both votes recently. I made a rare (for me) phone call and registered my strong disapproval. I only got to talk to a functionary, of course. He seems as resolute as the present admin is on many of their issues. I doubt I can move him. This means I may not be able to support him in any future re-election bids. Too bad, as the guy is a Dem, and substantially aligned with my interests. Hrrrrumph! They are even getting to the Dems. Money talks.A small victory, just a skirmish won: Court Skeptical of FCC on Broadband Wiretap Access.

One thought would be to help the battle abit.SaveTheInternet.comI posted a couple items about this subject on my blog here and here.Temmu was right when he said that they don't need us individually, they need us as a whole ... paying their monthy bills -- otherwise we can't be their 'golden goose.'I don't know how much good it would do individually ... but I do know that there's not much water in a drop of water, but a LOT of drops of water can make a flood.

[BoardFlak]

I barely need to chime in after that one, but I will anyway. The concepts are indeed the same. Love thy neighbor as thyself is simply more concretely stated. Perhaps if the admonition were simply TREAT thy neighbor as thyself, it wouldn't be resisted as much. The idea is still the same. Consider your neighbor with the same concern you have for yourself. Be that "neighbor" an actual neighbor, a spouse, parent, child, or complete stranger, their needs and welfare is as important as your own. Humans, of course, always have the "yes, but..." response, ready to point out how this one or that one - or in the case of bigotry, this group or that group (bigotry is rarely individual) - should be excepted from that requirement. However, there are no exceptions ever stated, so no exceptions exist. "Who is my neighbor?" Everyone.

[Marsden11]

This summary sounds a bit different.SummaryOn Monday May 1, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) introduced S.2686, the Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006. The legislation, which consists of 10 separate titles, aims to reform existing communications laws to promote competition, cost savings for consumers, and the speedy deployment of broadband services to all Americans. Co-Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) co-sponsored the bill. The Committee will take up the bill during a two-step process. First, the Committee will hold two public hearings to consider the bill. Following this period of review, the Committee will hold an Executive Session after the Memorial Day recess to markup the legislation. Hearing dates and the Committee markup of the bill are to be determined. The Senate Commerce Committee has provided a title-by-title summary. The 132-page bill is available online at http://www.benton.org/benton_files/06telcom6.pdf

[Marsden11]

S.2686 I snipped this last article from the PDF.10 TITLE IX—INTERNET11 NEUTRALITY12 SEC. 901. NETWORK NEUTRALITY.13 (a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning 1 year after the date14 of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications15 Commission shall report annually to the Senate Com16 mittee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the17 House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Com18 merce for 5 years regarding—19 (1) the developments in Internet traffic proc20 essing, routing, peering, transport, and interconnec21 tion;22 (2) how such developments impact the free flow23 of information over the public Internet and the con24 sumer experience using the public InternetMay 1, 2006 (12:47 p.m.)1321 (3) business relationships between broadband2 service providers and applications and online user3 services; and4 (4) the development of and services available5 over public and private Internet offerings.6 ( DETERMINATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—If7 the Commission determines that there are significant8 problems with any of the matters described in subsection9 (a) the Commission shall make such recommendations in10 its next annual report under subsection (a) as it deems11 necessary and appropriate to ensure that consumers can12 access lawful content and run Internet applications and13 services over the public Internet subject to the bandwidth14 purchased and the needs of law enforcement agencies. The15 Commission shall include recommendations for appro16 priate enforcement mechanisms but may not recommend17 additional rulemaking authority for the Commission.Where is the harm in this?

[Guest LilBambi]

If there is network neutrality, there is no need for our tax dollars to pay for such an undertaking in the first place.

[Marsden11]

Where does it say that in Article IX?

[lewmur]

"Who is my neighbor?" Everyone.

The concepts are indeed the same.No they aren't and I don't think you beleive that either because later in your statement you wrote:Perhaps if the admonition were simply TREAT thy neighbor as thyself, it wouldn't be resisted as much. That would be closer to the Golden Rule but still not the same. "Treat thy neighbor as you would have your neighbor treat you." would be an acceptable translation. But the fact is you *wish* that the adominition were "Be as *concerned* for thy neighbor as you are *concerned* for yourself." And that is simply NOT what the Golden Rule commanded. And I believe you know that.

[Guest LilBambi]

Just remember ... the question was asked. Net Neutrality Moves on to the Next Round on Capitol Hill

The net neutrality debate continues to rage on in Congress this week. Yesterday, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) introduced the “Network Neutrality Act of 2006,” a bill which outlines specific rules geared to preserve net neutrality. The bill - which is being co-sponsored by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Virginia), Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-California) and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Washington) - is strikingly similar to Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-Oregon) “Internet Non-Discrimination Act,” which was introduced in the Senate several months ago.“… if we don’t protect the openness of the Internet for entrepreneurial activity, we’re ruining a wonderful model for low barrier entry, innovation, and job creation,” Rep. Markey said as he introduced the bill on the House floor yesterday. “Broadband network owners should not be able to determine who can and who cannot offer services over broadband networks or over the Internet. The detrimental effect to the digital economy would be quite severe if such conduct were permitted and became widespread. The deterioration of significant policies of nondiscrimination by the imposition of artificial bottlenecks by broadband network owners imperil economic growth, innovation, job creation, and First Amendment freedom of expression on such networks.”“The Network Neutrality Act of 2006 offers Members a clear choice,” Rep. Markey added. “It is a choice between favoring the broadband designs of a small handful of very large companies, and safeguarding the dreams of thousands of inventors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses. This legislation is designed to save the Internet and thwart those who seek to fundamentally and detrimentally alter the Internet as we know it. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this bill and urge the House to take a decisive stand in favor of network neutrality.”Net neutrality is the concept that everyone, everywhere should have free and unfettered access to all that the Internet has to offer, and that network operators should treat all data equally as it traverses their networks.

Then they talk about the House bill:

According to Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Commerce Committee and author of the bill, the main goal of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act is “to increase price and service competition to cable, while speeding the rollout of high-speed Internet service.”Many feel the bill is likely to be approved because of its national video franchise component, which has overwhelming support: Both opponents and proponents to net neutrality agree that video franchise reform is needed (so regardless of whether the bill ultimately addresses the issue of Internet access, it seems unlikely that either side will be willing to “throw the baby out with the bath water”). There remains a possibility, however, that additional amendments pertaining to net neutrality will be tacked onto this bill (as well as to the others now being considered) as it moves through the legislative process.

And further, in the article they get to the Senate bill:

Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Stevens, who chairs the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, yesterday introduced yet another telecommunications bill designed as a replacement for the Telecommunications Act of 1996.Unlike the aforementioned House bill, Sen. Stevens’ “Communications Act of 2006” will not create a national video franchise, but rather will streamline the current franchise process. The sweeping, 135-page bill includes, among other things, provisions for re-vamping the Universal Service Fund – a phone tax which is used to subsidize rural telephone carriers. It does not, however, include specific rules pertaining to net neutrality. Instead, it would merely require the FCC to study the issue for five years and then seek rule-making authority if it sees a problem. Net neutrality proponents say this is tantamount to completely avoiding the issue.

And this Communications Act of 2006(PDF of the actua bill) FULL bill draft must be used in conjunction with, or read along side the reading of any 'working' proposals for changes to that bill because they make continual references to the ACTUAL bill throughout the pdf and you must cross reference constantly where the 'working' PDF Marsden11 posted makes changes it only references the actual verbage but doesn't list the actual verbage it's modifying on the existing bill.I truly believe that there is a real danger to Network Neutrality with either of these two current Senate and House bills. The two bills being proposed are dangerous to the freedom of the Internet. So far, only the two previous bills (Markley and Wyden) had proposed would have afforded network neutrality.The following information is from the FAQ on SaveTheInternet.com.

Isn't the threat to Net Neutrality just hypothetical?No. So far, we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. But numerous examples show that without network neutrality requirements, Internet service providers will discriminate against content and competing services they don't like. * In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service. * In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute. * Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to "enhance" competing Internet telephone services. * In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com — an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.This type of censorship will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good.Won't more regulations harm the free Internet? Shouldn't we just let the market decide?Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and telephone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.Either we make rules that ensure an even playing field for everyone, or we have rules that hold the Internet captive to the whims of a few big companies. The Internet has thrived because revolutionary ideas like blogs, Wikipedia or Google could start on a shoestring and attract huge audiences. Without Net Neutrality, the pipeline owners will choose the winners and losers on the Web.And when the network owners start abusing their control of the pipes, there's nowhere else for consumers to turn. The cable and telephone companies already dominate 98 percent of the broadband market. Only 53 percent of Americans have a choice between cable and DSL at home. Everyone else has only one choice or no broadband options at all. That's not what a truly free market looks like.

Big corporations do not make the right decision for anyone but themselves and their bottom line. This has been proven over and over to consumers chagrin. Apparently being a cash cow isn't enough for big business to cater to those who actually pay the bills: those who consume the products.It will be a full time job of our government (read: our tax dollars) to monitor and deal with constant complaints if these are passed. And who will win in the end? Those with the Gold seem to always think they will because they have the deepest pockets and a vested monetary interest. They can wait out the consumer because they believe they know that in time consumers will be confused by all the talking points, and the time it takes to fix something once it's broken and tire of the battle. Big business counts on this...no they BANK on this.And network neutrality is ONLY ONE of the many bad things about the house and senate bills being proposed. Cluttermagnet had already discussed some of the impact on the other areas, but I think those should be equally addressed, because THEY ALL WILL affect so many areas of consumer's lives; whether it be privacy, fair use, network neutrality, broadcast flags for both video and audio digital content, how you use the very things you purchase in fact.These are likely not going away easily, these are being pushed by entertainment, telcos, and cable and satellite operators. They are not as large a group as the consumers of their products, but they have more money to throw around because they have a 'mission.'Chapter IX is a joke, it has no teeth or motivation.Just my two cents.