net neutrality

IT Consulting has a nice article on where Clinton, Edwards, and Obama stand on net neutrality and other technology issues.  Predictably, the Republicans are a lot worse on these issues.

Sen. Hilary Rodham Clinton
The New York senator supports Net neutrality in the form of Byron Dorgan and Olympia Snowe’s proposed amendment to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, saying the Internet must continue to have an “open and non-discriminatory framework” to be a place of open discussion without fear of reprisal. Clinton has also sharply attacked President Bush over the secret NSA wiretaps, saying the president lacked legal authority for it.

Senator Clinton’s highly polished exploratory committee Web site has space for a blog, and Clinton is soliciting guest posts for the future.

Although the site contains plentiful videos and press releases, there is no indication as to whether the senator herself will blog - although she is welcoming people to guest blog.
    
John Edwards
While representing North Carolina, Edwards introduced anti-spyware legislation known as the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act, although the bill never became law. He favors Net neutrality, even blogging about it from Gnomedex, although he may not always understand its legislative mechanics. He has also assailed President Bush’s NSA wiretapping program, describing it as illegal and unconstitutional in a televised interview .

The former senator and vice-presidential candidate’s campaign site features blog entries written by himself and many others, although the gap between his last two diary entries was 45 days. The blog’s Arguments & Analyses section contains a lively series of blog posts and comments on everything from war with Iran to Vice President Cheney’s lack of gun control, with post placement at least partly dictated by community votes. Edwards’s Web site is the most tech- and social-network savvy of the major candidates thus far, and his campaign gets big points for allowing free-flowing discussion under its banner.
    
Sen. Barack Obama
In a podcast , Sen. Obama favors the Snowe-Dorgan Net neutrality amendment, saying, “It is because the Internet is a neutral platform that I can put out this podcast and transmit it over the Internet without having to go through any corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge.” Obama has also expressed skepticism about the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping.

The Illinois senator announced his presidential bid via a video posted on Brightcove and YouTube, and although his presidential exploratory committee’s Web site is bare-bones so far, his 2010 Senate reelection website has more detail on his policy views. Unfortunately, neither has a blog, only Sen. Obama’s prepared speeches.

So, opponents of net neutrality are making a big fuss about the supposed "father" of the Internet being against net neutrality.

Bad arguments and flawed reporting aside, how exactly can someone determine who the "father" of the Internet is?  Is it the CERN guys?  The creators of HTML?  ARPANET?  What about the other creator of TCP-IP?

...Al Gore?

The point is, the Internet as we know it is the product of a collaborative effort, and there is no one person that can be credited as its originator.  If someone claims that the "father" of the Internet is against net neutrality, they are full of it.

The beauty of net neutrality is that everyone has an equal opportunity to have a voice and advocate for issues that are important to them. In this sense, it is essential that Internet political activists continue to have the tools to advance their message in an equal setting. You may remember my disagreement with Matt Stoller over HB 6456 and the Governor's role in ensuring net neutrality for Michigan. Ultimately, I think I was wrong about the danger that HB 6456 posed to net neutrality, and I let my personal loyalty to the Governor cloud my judgment. Although I'm sure she didn't mean it, the passage of HB 6456 was harmful to the advancement of net neutrality nationally and may ultimately have consequences for every Internet activist. Although we can't do anything about HB 6456 anymore, the responsibility falls upon us to continue to pressure our elected officials on this issue. Ron Suarez of the Ann Arbor City Council has implemented an innovative technique to get his constituents involved with dealing with the passage of the cable bill. As part of that blog post, he gave the issue of net neutrality extensive coverage. I had the opportunity to meet Ron a few times (like at the Blogger's Caucus at the MDP Convention), and he strikes me as someone who is very passionate about the way politics and technology can come together to achieve useful things. Ron takes an innovative approach to constituent involvement with his blog, and his ascendancy provides a very important case study for netroots activists in Michigan to follow. I'm very interested to see what kind of impact that Ron's work with his constituents will have on net neutrality.

This is the statement on net neutrality put out by the Governor's office:

I support net neutrality and will continue to fight for it on the
state and federal level. HB 6456 creates over 2,000 jobs in Michigan,
improves competition and services for Michigan residents, and it
includes a number of provisions to safeguard consumers. The issue of
net neutrality is far bigger than this one bill. I believe it is more
desirable to pursue the protections necessary to maintain net
neutrality as stand-alone legislation in the coming year rather than
as an amendment to this year's legislation. I am committed to
ensuring that citizens are protected from greater expense or slower
service because of the entry of phone companies into the video/
internet space, and I look forward to working on securing continued
open access to the Internet in the year ahead.

Here is the text of the Governor's letter to Larry Page:

Dear Larry:

Thank you for all of the expertise Google has brought to Michigan on the issue of net neutrality. I have certainly appreciated our conversation on this subject. While I am pleased we were able to extend some of the consumer protection provisions in HB 6456, I believe it may be more desirable to pursue stand-alone legislation to further extent consumer protections by enacting net neutrality next year, rather than as an amendment to this year's legislation.

I strongly agree that consumers should not be charged extra for, or otherwise disadvantaged from, reaching certain sites on the internet that those providers wish to provide for free. Nor do I believe that service providers should be able to restrict access to sites that their consumers have always been able to access. I believe strong consumer protection is important for government to provide, as well as an effective tool to stimulate economic growth in Michigan and elsewhere.

In the interest of taking incremental steps towards improving competition and services for Michigan consumers, it's best that the Legislature complete work on video franchising this year. I look forward to working with Google and others next year to ensure continued open access to the internet for all Michigan residents.

Sincerely,

Jennifer M. Granholm
Governor

Watch in a Video Player

Listen in an Audio Player

UPDATE:

Matt Ferguson writes:

Floor statement from Sen. Patty Birkholz (R-Saugatuck). Taped and will transcribe later. Says Google wanted a net neutrality clause, but ultimately decided they didn't want to derail the whole bill.

Both Birkholz and Sen. Gilda Jacobs (D) pulled their amendments dealing with net neutrality. The issue never even came up for a vote.
Birkholz says the Governor has promised to take up net neutrality on its own in the next session.

The bill passed 26-12 with no net neutrality provision. I'm inclined to believe that the Governor is going to follow through with this. Then again, given the posturing of the various sides at the national level, people who are pessimistic about it are more than justified in not counting on net neutrality legislation next session.

SECOND UPDATE:

Matt at Michlib transcribed Rep. Birkholz's floor statement:

Thank you, Mr. President. As we have had some very deliberative debates today on this huge issue before us, I wanted to remind my members about the net neutrality issue - and how important it is to consumers across the state, especially those in the more rural and suburban areas.

Yes, this needs to be addressed by the federal government. Yes, the federal government is working on it, but, as we know the federal government lately has been very slow to react to states' needs and we as states have found ourselves leading the federal government - not behind them in the parade. Unfortunately, we do not have the net neutrality amendment on this bill. But it is still very important to look at in the future. It's become known as the Google amendment - and they feel very strongly that Michigan needs to insure consumers' access to all forms of video services - not just those that are offered by cable and phone companies. But they have also indicated their support of increased competition for Michigan consumers and decided that they had no desire to derail the whole process.

So, in deference to them and to my constituents who have e-mailed me and snail-mailed me, and phoned me about this very issue, because they feel so strongly, I have decided that I would not put the amendment on as you know.

We've also been in contact with the governor's office, and it's my understand that the governor's office has suggested to Google and the other supporters of net neutrality, that they will pick up the bill again next year in standalone legislation.

Therefore I did not put the amendment on, but I want members to be aware of the fact that this is a huge issue facing us and we need to continue working on it in the future.

Thank you for your support.

Fascinating...

UPDATE 3:

Matt Stoller updated MyDD readers with the results of the MI Senate vote on HB 6456. See our discussion on the way the Michigan and national progressive blogs reacted to this issue for more information.

Although the vote is now over, we can use this as a learning experience to more effectively confront these kinds of challenges in the future.

On my end, I should have spent a lot more time trying to understand net neutrality and cable franchising from a political standpoint before even beginning to speak on this issue. There were political dynamics taking place here that I was completely oblivious to (mainly due to my own recent time constraints), and that had a significant impact on my ability to talk about this authoritatively.

Now, we need to determine what we want to do to rectify the situation. Assuming we want to continue to pursue this, it means stuff like getting a commitment from the governor to push for net neutrality at the state level, lobbying John Dingell and John Conyers to bring it to the agenda at the national level, and holding the phone/cable companies accountable (especially on the "jobs" ploy).

Although not including net neutrality in this bill sets a bad precedent for other states, I have hope that net neutrality can still be introduced in Michigan. I believe that Granholm is going to come out strong on net neutrality, and by taking back the House we have a much better shot at getting it done.

UPDATE 4: Everyone who has been following this issue needs to see matt's post on what happened with net neutrality in the Michigan State House today. I agree -- we got a very late start, and just ran out of time before we could even get our bearings.

Matt Stoller weighed in on InterrupT's response to his second post on MyDD. I decided to copy it to the front page:

Here's my response to InterrupT. You guys couldn't more wrong, and more than that, your failure to take these arguments seriously is going to really hurt our ability to save the internet. You have no reason to trust me, and it's not personal against your Governor, but the choices she's making are going to hurt us badly.

No amount of bargaining would change the telecoms minds about setting up a two tiered Internet. It would take a lot more than just allowing AT&T to provide terrestrial video services in Michigan to get them to change their minds.

Their entire strategy is predicated around getting video franchising. That's what they want, and if they get it they will dedicate all their power to preventing any other legislation from coming through.

People who have been around the lobbying business for a long time tell me that this is how they operate. You can't just beat these guys, you have to outflank them.

Let's give the new Democrats in congress a chance to address this important issue at the national level. I know that they are aware of the issue, I have written Senator Levin about the issue myself. He sent me a back a nice letter stating that he supports a neutral Internet and would support a bill outlawing a two tiered Internet.

The new Democratic Congress is split on the issue, and they will not affirmatively make net neutrality a priority unless they have to.

Please don't take my comments or anyone else as assault on you or on net neutrality.

But that's what they are. You're a smart guy, but you're being played by the telecoms.

Plus the titles "Governor Granholm Selling Out the Internet?" and "Why Jennifer Granholm Really Is Helping Destroy the Internet," didn't really help you with Michigan readers. I don't think anybody is saying that this bill is perfect; it still needs provisions insisting the service be rolled out to all parts of the state not just the wealthy, most profitable parts. I think most people want a neutral Internet, but in order to be taken seriously we need to make the best possible argument.

AT&T is going to fuck you guys over, you watch. You could have passed a different bill with an incoming Democratic legislature, but Granholm isn't doing that. It's just terrible negotiating because she's feeling intense heat from the telecom companies.

And here's his response to Christine.

I have a sinking feeling that there is more to this issue than what I (and we) originally thought.

After they posted their initial Granholm "sell out" post, I posted a response in the MyDD thread, and InterrupT followed as well. More discussion on it took place over at Michlib in an unrelated thread. We let them know that we weren't totally on board with what they were doing, and the general sentiment was that it wasn't fair of them to attack Granholm or get involved without at least talking to us first.

Matt (Stoller) initially replied to the comment in my thread, and then created a follow-up post based on some of my and InterrupT's comments on the MyDD Granhom "sell-out" post. I also got an e-mail from someone at MoveOn (not a mass e-mail) responding to what I wrote. On one hand, its great to see that they actually listened to us and acknowledged that we weren't comfortable about this, as opposed to dismissing us outright. On the other hand, I'm becoming increasingly more aware that this issue is very complex and tough to figure out based on secondhand info only. They are clearly making an effort to reach out to us now and explain their side of things, which I appreciate.

We're talking about this on the MI-bloggers list a bit, and my "gut feeling" is that there is validity to wanting to get this done now.

UPDATE: InterrupT has more on Matt's follow-up:

Your argument has a fatal flaw, it assumes that we have to bargain for a neutral network. No amount of bargaining would change the telecoms minds about setting up a two tiered Internet. It would take a lot more than just allowing AT&T to provide terrestrial video services in Michigan to get them to change their minds. AT&T already owns at least half of Dish Network, so they are already providing video services in Michigan (along with Internet and telephone services), they just also want to provide terrestrial video services. If every state that hasn't done so already, denied them franchising rights to their state, they would instead improve their Dish Network service so more people could get a better signal. Also we can't forget that Verizon isn't asking for franchising rights in Michigan yet would still be allowed to operate in Michigan even if the new bill in enacted. So what do Verizon have to bargain for? They can just as easily enact a two tiered network as anyone else.

Your argument is also flawed in that you assume that this bill allows for a two tiered Internet, and the point in my post that you link to is that it does not allow such a thing (but it also doesn't stop it). You are right however that this bill could allow for a greater abuse of the telecoms power.

It is true that the Telecoms have an insanely powerful lobby, which is why a bill has yet to be passed at the national level, but that doesn't not mean that they will always win. Let's give the new Democrats in congress a chance to address this important issue at the national level. I know that they are aware of the issue, I have written Senator Levin about the issue myself. He sent me a back a nice letter stating that he supports a neutral Internet and would support a bill outlawing a two tiered Internet.

Please don't take my comments or anyone else as assault on you or on net neutrality. This bill has been a hotly debated topic in Michigan, gaining a lot of press about it and a lot of talk on the blogs. Plus the titles "Governor Granholm Selling Out the Internet?" and "Why Jennifer Granholm Really Is Helping Destroy the Internet," didn't really help you with Michigan readers. I don't think anybody is saying that this bill is perfect; it still needs provisions insisting the service be rolled out to all parts of the state not just the wealthy, most profitable parts. I think most people want a neutral Internet, but in order to be taken seriously we need to make the best possible argument.

UPDATE: In retrospect, I may have overreacted a bit. The "selling out" title seemed kind of provocative, and I replied without thinking first.

Their argument for doing this now is that once the cable/telecom companies get franchising rights, they will no longer have an incentive to "trade" anything for net neutrality, and we'll be locked out of th process. What do you all think?

Anyway, here's the original post:

This is my response to Matt Stoller's post on MyDD implying that Governor Granholm is somehow "selling out" the Internet. I look up to Matt (I'd even added him as one of my Facebook friends), so reading that post on MyDD was disappointing.

WTF.

I read MyDD religiously. I consider it to be one of the best sources of political information for progressive activists, and the philosophy and approach of this site played a very key role in my own development as a blogger.

That's why it really bothers me to see this kind of unsubstantiated attack coming from here about Granholm. To refer to the article and imply that she is "Selling Out the Internet" is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.

First, we don't know what Granholm is going to do with this bill yet -- to my knowledge, she hasn't given any indication as to whether she is going to sign it into law in its current form or seek changes after Google raised its concerns. When her spokesperson says that they don't want to "disadvantage consumers," they could be referring to some of the other drawbacks to the bill (such as the loss of revenue to local government). By saying that she is "selling out," you're insinuating that she wholeheartedly supports the bill and is opposed to net neutrality, which is clearly not the case.

Secondly, you can bet that the net neutrality issue will be pushed next legislative session regardless of what happens with this bill. The Google announcement was one of the major turning points of the campaign (I was there), and she is likely well aware of the critical role that Google played in her re-election. Right now (in the lame duck session), we have Republican majorities in both the MI House and MI Senate that want to concede as little territory to her as possible. Ken Sikkema (the current Senate Majority Leader) is on the record opposing net neutrality, and I'm almost positive that Craig DeRoche (current speaker) is opposed to it as well. Now that we have taken back the House and made substantial gains in the State Senate, its going to be a lot easier to deal with issues like net neutrality next term. Sikkema is term-limited (I don't know Bishop's position on the issue) and the new House Speaker has a good relationship with the Governor, so we have a much better chance of getting this through. Offhand, the Chair of the Michigan Republican Party is on the record as supportive of net neutrality.

For the record, I support net neutrality and would like to see it adopted here in MI as soon as possible. If we were able to tie it to this bill, I'd be thrilled. Given the current political environment (everything is about jobs), it is simply not realistic to block this bill because net neutrality has suddenly become an issue. The bill does have several other drawbacks unrelated to net neutrality that need to be addressed, but that's another debate entirely.

You do not have the unanimous support of the Michigan netroots on this. There are a lot of progressive bloggers here in Michigan who support net neutrality but don't think that this bill is the place or way to do it. Matt of Michigan Liberal is probably the most widely read progressive blogger that talks state politics -- he thinks that net neutrality should be a should be dealt with separately from this bill. Also worth reading is InterrupT's thoughts on HB 6456 from the day the article you refer to was released.

Its also worth noting that while a lot of people perceive Granholm to be a "DLC" or "establishment" type, she understands the potential of the netroots and is more supportive of us than any of the rest of the party establishment here in Michigan. She reads us every day, reaches out to us personally, and supports our work while understanding that we aren't under her control and are going to be critical of her from time to time.

When the time comes, I look forward to fighting for net neutrality in Michigan. I just don't think that this is the way to do it.

Net neutrality isn't a Democrat or a Republican issue... it is a fairness issue. From Saul's blog:

Net neutrality is just plain common sense. You pay for certain bandwidth and/or speed from your carrier, cable/phone/or other provider, and should be able to send, access and/or go wherever you want.

We pay taxes or tolls for our roads. Just think if the transportation department could tell you that only Fords and Toyota’s are NOT allowed on this road, with out their customers paying an additional toll or the manufacturer paying it for you, thereby forcing them to increase the price of their vehicle when they sell it to you...while GM and Honda get to drive on these roads.

Bandwidth/speed is the equivalent of a “weight limit” on the roads. Those who want basic service pay a “normal” license fee and “gas tax” for the use of the roads and drive our cars and SUVs accordingly. Those who need high speed or “heavier truck” loads, pay for more bandwidth or speed to suite their needs.

But I think it’s outrageous for government and/or profit making companies to now come in and argue they should not ONLY charge you for bandwidth, but also charge you extra to use streaming video, VOIP, send attachments or go to certain web pages because they CAN and profit from that. No one should be allowed to charge for the same product (bandwidth) twice, especially since it’s become such a basic part of our everyday lives.

We are paying for certain bandwidth and if our PAID FOR bandwidth can handle the service, let the user use it. NO censorship…NO new taxes…NO new revenue streams at the expense of the consumer.

It only seems logical that if you buy a certain amount of high-speed bandwidth, that you would get to use it any way you want. The hidden implication in AT&T charging you first for the bandwidth and then some one else again for a certain kind of data (content) is that the representation that you are buying the right to move your data at a certain speed is a falsehood. All content is data, and it technically makes no sense to identify one bit of data as Included in the bandwidth you buy and another as not included but due a transmission tax, just because the data is not controlled by the company that sold you the bandwidth.

Net neutrality is not only fair…it makes common sense. We should not let greedy companies profit even more by having government regulate away our current “net neutral” roadways because of their lobbying prowess, power or cash.

The Progressive States Network sent out an e-mail detailing their opposition to HB 6456, citing concerns about lack of commitment to universal build-out of services, net neutrality, and loss of revenue for local government.

On the other hand, InterrupT argues that Michigan badly needs more competition in terrestrial video services. He also argues that the issue of net neutrality could be more effectively dealt with in a new bill or in the next session with a Democratic legislature.

I've copied the text of the e-mail below. If you're interested in this issue, you should also make sure to read InterrupT's post.

[E-MAIL TEXT FOLLOWS]

MI: Opposition to Video Franchise Bill that Fails Michigan's Communities

Like many other states, Michigan is struggling with how to build a technology infrastructure that can grow the state's economy and educate its children. Unfortunately, meeting in a lame-duck session, the Michigan's State Senate is considering an industry-backed bill, HB 6456, to create statewide franchises for video services by cable and telephone companies that will just increase company profits at the expense of consumers, low-income families, and technological innovation. Opponents of the bill range from the Michigan Municipal League protesting the destruction of community control to groups, led by Free Press, demanding Net Neutrality in access to Internet services.

The Progressive States Network outlined its full concerns about the bill in a letter sent to Michigan legislators, but the summary of problems with the bill -- like so many of these statewide "video franchising bills," includes:

• No real commitment to universal build-out of services: In exchange for abolishing existing local franchise agreements for video services, the bill requires that no more than 50% of households get service from these new statewide franchises. This will just institutionalize the digital divide where companies cherry-pick the most profitable areas within the state without having to serve all consumers, a recipe for continuing monopolies in many regions.
• Ignoring how broadband Internet is reshaping the video environment and key issues like Net Neutrality: Given the emergence of YouTube and other Internet-based video services, the bill is oddly fixated on past regulatory issues involving telephone versus cable companies, but does not specify build-out requirements for high-speed broadband Internet access to deliver these emerging video options. And while the bill creates "must-carry" provisions for broadcast television, there is no parallel discussion about assuring Net Neutrality and non-discrimination in access to Internet-based video sources for those using high-speed Internet services.
• Undermining municipal innovation in providing Internet services: The Michigan Municipal League has estimated that local governments may lose between $25 million and $35 million in in-kind services as part of franchise agreements (plus additional cash franchise fees), a loss that could undermine a range of local experiments underway in Michigan to promote universal broadband Internet access.
• Lacking an adequate regulatory structure: The bill eliminates the ability of local communities to negotiate fair treatment of consumers through local franchise agreements, yet fails to give the Michigan Public Service Commission adequate powers or funding to protect consumers and the public interest. And by exempting cost studies, customer usage data and other vital data from state Freedom of Information Act disclosure requirements, the public will be denied crucial information for public oversight of the industry.

Hopefully, the State Senate will vote down the current bill and take the time to craft a new bill in the 2007 legislative session that builds towards universal access to the telecommunications infrastructure needed for a 21st century economy in Michigan.

[END OF E-MAIL]

A lot of this depends on what direction Granholm decides to go with it.

According to Gongwer, HB 6456 is going to the Senate Technology and Energy Committee to be discussed on Wednesday. If you're in Lansing and interested in net neutrality, I'm sure it will be an interesting meeting to check out. Committee meetings are open to the public -- you just have to sign in as a visitor near the front of the House Office Building.

Based on what I've read, HB 6456 doesn't directly deal with Internet services. My understanding is that Google would like to add net neutrality to the bill because its going to be passed soon and because it deals with some aspects of how the Internet is delivered.

Gongwer also has some updates on the posturing around the bill. Its subscription only, so I won't copy the whole thing:

Meanwhile, Google ran a full-page advertisement in some newspapers saying the bill could allow "big phone and cable TV monopolies" to block such Internet services such as YouTube (which Google recently announced it was buying).

And the Michigan Chamber of Commerce issued a statement urging the Senate to pass the bill as it came from the House.

(snip)

The measure has been flagged by Mr. Sikkema as one he wants to see completed during the lame duck session. Governor Jennifer Granholm has indicated she has objections to some elements of the bill as it came from the House.

But local governments intend to push amendments that were rejected in the House that will give them greater protection over the abrogation of cable contracts and to ensure they do not totally lose revenues cable TV licenses now generate.

And Google got into the fray last week when it announced its concern over the bill's potential effect on net neutrality. The advertisement it ran on Monday urged readers to contact the Senate to urge support for "an open Internet."

(snip)

On Tuesday, an organization called SavetheInternet.com said it plans to filed petitions signed by 18,000 residents challenging the bill as it came from the House.

But the Michigan Chamber, in a memo sent Senate members, said that wholesale changes should not be made to the bill. "A small number of genuine technical amendments" could be made, but the bill as it passed the House largely meets the goals the chamber set for the legislation.

The issue of net neutrality should not be decided by the state but by the federal government, the chamber said in its memo. Any attempt to deal with the issue at the state level should not be attempted until separate legislation can be introduced next year, it said.

According to a recent Gongwer article (via Michigan Technology News), Google is looking to add provisions for net neutrality to a bill in the MI House.

Google Senior Counsel Michael Yang in a release to the media said that customers should benefit from competition "between all forms of video services, not just those offered by cable and telephone companies. What we're asking for is very simple: protect the consumer by making sure telephone and cable companies don't restrict the services that are available."

Google was already a prominent supporter of net neutrality, but has even more of a stake in it now that it owns YouTube. On the other hand, the telecom industry is an influential presence in Lansing and would almost certainly not support net neutrality. This is because they can charge content providers more money without net neutrality, and may potentially see services like YouTube as a threat. Up until now, Google would probably not have made progress on this issue. Given that the State House is now Democratic (and we still have a Dem governor), Google's side is more likely to be considered. Still, any new legislation on net neutrality would have to make it through the Republican-controlled Senate, where they barely hold a majority.

At the very least, Google's case for net neutrality will be heard by the Granholm administration, possibly because of the critical role that Google played in Governor Granholm's re-election campaign. The Google announcement to open a branch in Ann Arbor was an optimistic moment in what was an otherwise depressing set of circumstances. It provided evidence that the Governor's Jobs Plan was starting to work, and it was great evidence to counter the claim that Granholm's administration was somehow responsible for talented young people leaving the state.

As you all know, I strongly support the principle of net neutrality (which shouldn't be a surprise, given that I'm a blogger). Here's what I had to say about the issue way back in one of my first posts:

many people don't mention (or realize) that the reason why the telcos are in their position is because of regulation establishing their status as a "common carrier." This basically means that they are subject to different laws and regulatory models -- for example, they aren't liable for the nature of the content that is being transmitted. This is why its hypocritical for them to talk about leaving everything to free market system -- they are benefiting from entitlements that other content providers don't get! If they can trample on net neutrality they shouldn't be able to keep their status as a common carrier either, because in a true "free market" system they wouldn't be able to have it both ways.

According to the article, the legislation would likely not be debated over during this "lame duck" session. It is unclear if they'll try to amend HB 6456 or if a new bill will be introduced next session. This appears to be part of an effort to bring net neutrality as an issue to the state level.

[Rep. Mike Nofs] suggested Google's concerns could be dealt with in a new bill next term, adding that it appears companies like Google are seeing net neutrality, debated in Congress for over a year, is not likely to come to fruition this term and are now approaching the issue state-by-state as legislatures make changes to their telecommunication laws.

Look for more posts on net neutrality in Michigan as it begins to be considered.