Bad, bad news for the future of internet democracy.

According to the linked article, the telcos will also place future internet video services under the FCC's oversight. Goodbye boobs, hello hundred thousand dollar fines. Looks like the Right wants to control what we watch on the internet, too.

Satellite communications: the last remaining hope. At least until the Right creates legislation that forces us all to wear tin-foil hats to prevent us from receiving evil thoughts beamed from space.

What is Microsoft doing to fight to keep the internet free to all? Anything?

Microsoft, are you kidding? As far as they're concerned, they're the only tech company that exists. Why should they care? (and in case you think you meant that sarcastically, you'll be astonished at the MS-loathing here in their hometown and even - gasp - in Redmond. Money talks! Day turns to night! News to nobody.)

Slow down Hijacked.

Microsoft is lobbying on behalf of the good guys in this fight. I believe Amazon is also lobbying for net neutrality.

Hell, even Reichert voted for Markey's amendment.

Looks like I spoke too soon! I stand corrected. Of course, MS and Google would also be shelling out the most under this legislation, so I suppose it's not too surprising. Plus it's good PR.

I read an interesting article on this that made the arguement that much of the infrastructure that the internet operates on is carried over public right-of-ways, and because of that, should be considered public property.

When you consider that the national telecommunications infrastructure was heavily subsidized by the taxpayers, and that the Internet was developed by the US government, it makes even more sense that the net should stay neutral.

But Congress - particularly this Congress - works in mysterious ways.

Catalina,

Check out the bill's sponsor, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), speaking on the floor of the house as his net neutrality amendment went down.....

CONGRESSMAN MARKEY: Let me just make this point once again. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the creation of the Internet. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the development of the World Wide Web. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the browser and its development. In fact, AT&T was asked if they wanted to build the Internet, the packet-switched network in 1966. They turned the contract down when the government went to them. And so a company named BB&N, Bolt, Beranek, & Newman got the contract, a very small company — not AT&T. They had nothing to do with the development of the Internet, but now, at this late date, they want to come in and to create these bottleneck control points that allow them to extract Internet taxes, Internet fees from companies and individuals who have been using the Internet for a generation. It is this absence of non-discriminatory language in the Manager’s Amendment and in the bill to which I object.

Mr. Markey is of course 100% correct. It took the Bells thirty years to figure out the internet was interesting. And now they're working hard to ensure that thirty years from now, the US will be ... thirty years behind the rest of the developed world in technology deployment. We'll all have fiber-optic connections to our house, but we'll be paying $250 a month for them, and the only thing we'll be able to get on them is network TV and crappy phone service.

Thank-you for allowing viewers to observe the efforts of many bright minds. Your site is educational and a pleasure to review.