Now everyone knows that it is not polite to intrude on people in their private moments. The problem is that big brother doesn’t seem to know that peeking into people’s private communication is wrong and it should be illegal. Unfortunately President Bush wants to continue to grant immunity to telecommunications companies in the name of the so called ‘war on terror’ which in actuality is a war on the American people and the telecommunications infrastructure is the front line in the gradual diminishment of civil rights that Congress has permitted in recent years.

We need representatives in Washington DC who support protecting Americans instead of distrusting us. As a candidate for federal office I support legislation to abolish the Department of Homeland Security, that Orwellian agency constructed in the days after 9-11, which has crafted the war on the American people and their rights since. I support the elimination of FISA loopholes and the closing of Guantanamo Bay and the return of all detainees to their countries of origin. I believe that the American people deserve full and open disclosure on all activities related to government spying conducted against her citizens. Finally, I support the elimination of discreet, undocumented funding of the Central Intelligence agency.

Our rights are not negotiable. Telecommunication companies have violated those rights and have broken the law in order to appease a corrupt and power hungry administration that is willing to throw out Habeus Corpus, the right to privacy and international law in a reckless drive down the road to never-never land. Corporations must be held accountable and the President and his cronies must be called to account for violating our basic constitutional rights. Unfortunately, Senator Obama has been a disappointment on this issue and has refused to honor his commitment to filibuster this legislation. As a result, we are once again adrift without a rudder, a captain, a ship or an engine, being dragged along by the tides of fear.

It is time to reject the efforts of George Bush and anyone else who wants to grant retroactive immunity to corporations that spy on Americans. Congress has proven itself to be too weak-kneed to stand up to the fear mongers, but there is a new line of candidates running for office who are not so willing to roll over and play dumb. Treason is not patriotic. We all know that the government spying on us is wrong, and that any agency or corporation that assists in breaking into our most intimate communications is not behaving in a democratic fashion. The new reality is that our privacy is being compromised until we roll back FISA protections and strip immunity for corporations that spy on Americans.

For more information on this issue please visit: http://www.usalone.com/no_following_orders.php

They already control your Internet connection and now want to use that gatekeeper status to be able generate more income for themselves by charging content providers for faster access to your Internet connection. If you speed up some, it goes without saying that you must slow down others. Net Neutrality is important to ensure that small independent sites like Clarksville Online can continue to compete and provide an important alternative voice to corporate media.

Clarksville, TN will not be at the mercy of these corporations with alternatives available like CDE’s Fiber to the Home service which is coming soon.

PBS’s program NOW did a show on this important subject. Lets take a look.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Save the Internet Campaign compiled a frequently asked questions (F.A.Q) to help explain why Net Neutrality is important, why you should care, and steps you can take. Check it out:

What is this about?

This is about Internet freedom. “Network Neutrality” — the First Amendment of the Internet — ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.

But Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. If Congress doesn’t take action now to implement meaningful Net Neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk.

To learn more, read Network Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction

What is Network Neutrality?

Network Neutrality or “Net Neutrality” for short, is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Net Neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With Net Neutrality, the network’s only job is to move data, and not to choose which data to privilege with higher quality service. Net Neutrality prevents the companies that control the wires from discriminating against content based on its source or ownership.

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It’s why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement and free speech.

Learn more in Net Neutrality 101.

Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation’s largest telephone and cable companies — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner — want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won’t load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking their competitors.

These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services — or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls — and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.

What’s at stake?

Decisions being made now will shape the future of the Internet for a generation. Before long, all media — TV, phone and the Web — will come to your home via the same broadband connection. The dispute over Net Neutrality is about who’ll control access to new and emerging technologies.

On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control — deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There’s no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.

The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us.

What’s happening in Congress?

Congress is now considering a major overhaul of the Telecommunications Act. The telephone and cable companies are filling up congressional campaign coffers and hiring high-priced lobbyists. They’ve set up “Astroturf” groups like “Hands Off the Internet” to confuse the issue and give the appearance of grassroots support.

On June 8, the House of Representatives passed the “Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006,” or COPE Act (H.R. 5252) — a bill that offers no meaningful protections for Net Neutrality. An amendment offered by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), which would have instituted real Net Neutrality requirements, was defeated by intense industry lobbying.

It now falls to the Senate to save the free and open Internet. Fortunately, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) have introduced a bipartisan measure, the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006″ (S. 2917), that would provide meaningful protection for Net Neutrality.

On June 28, the Snowe-Dorgan bill was introduced as an amendment to Sen. Ted Stevens’ (R-Alaska) major rewrite of the Telecom Act (S.2686) [now HR.5252]. The committee split down the middle on the measure, casting a tie vote of 11-11.

Though meaningful Net Neutrality protections were not added to Stevens’ bill, the fight for Internet freedom is gaining serious momentum as the bill moves toward the full Senate later this year. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has threatened to place a “hold” on the entire legislation unless it reinstates Net Neutrality and prevents discrimination on the Internet.

Heading into August recess, the Senate Commerce Committee reclassified the Stevens bill as the “Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunities Reform Act” (HR.5252) to speed it to conference committee should it pass.

Call Congress today: No senator can in good conscience vote against Internet freedom and with the telecom cartel.

Isn’t this just a battle between giant corporations?

No. Small business owners benefit from an Internet that allows them to compete directly — not one where they can’t afford the price of entry. Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web.

But Net Neutrality doesn’t just matter to business owners. If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected. Connecting to your office could take longer if you don’t purchase your carrier’s preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes.

Independent voices and political groups are especially vulnerable. Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips, silencing bloggers and amplifying the big media companies. Political organizing could be slowed by the handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups or candidates to pay a fee to join the “fast lane.”

Isn’t the threat to Net Neutrality just hypothetical?

No. By far the most significant evidence regarding the network owners’ plans to discriminate is their stated intent to do so.

The CEOs of all the largest telecom companies have made clear their intent to build a tiered Internet with faster service for the select few companies willing or able to pay the exorbitant tolls.Network Neutrality advocates are not imagining a doomsday scenario. We are taking the telecom execs at their word.

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.

The cable and telephone companies already dominate 98 percent of the broadband access market. And when the network owners start abusing their control of the pipes, there will be nowhere else for consumers to turn.

Who’s part of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition?

The SavetheInternet.com coalition is made up of hundreds of groups from across the political spectrum that are concerned about maintaining a free and open Internet. No corporation or political party is funding our efforts. We simply agree to a statement of principles in support of Internet freedom.

The coalition is being coordinated by Free Press, a national, nonpartisan organization focused on media reform and Internet policy issues. Please complete this brief survey if your group would like to join this broad, bipartisan effort to save the Internet.

Who else supports Net Neutrality?

The supporters of Net Neutrality include leading high-tech companies such as Amazon.com, Earthlink, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Skype, Vonage and Yahoo. Prominent national figures such as Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig and FCC Commissioner Michael Copps have called for stronger Net Neutrality protections.

Editorial boards at the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Seattle Times, St. Petersburg Times and Christian Science Monitor all have urged congress to save the Internet.

What can I do to help?

Sign the SavetheInternet.com petition.

Call your members of Congress today and demand that Net Neutrality be protected.

Encourage groups you’re part of to sign the “Internet Freedom Declaration of 2007″.

Show your support for Internet freedom on your Web site or blog.

Tell your friends about this crucial issue before it’s too late.

* Save the internet’s network neutrality FAQ included without permission. Cartoon by Matt Wuerker  originally created for http://www.itsournet.org/  used here with minor modifications.

CDE has a 70 plus year track record of proven ability to deliver low cost, reliable, electrical services to the residents of Clarksville. They will use that experience in delivering the telecommunications services that the voters of Clarksville will authorize them to deliver in November.

They are building the fiber network not because of the additional services, which will be used to reduce the costs of building, maintaining, and operating the network. Instead they will be laying fiber to enhance their ability to deliver advanced electrical products and other services that cater to the user like select billing. Catering to the customer is something that is alien to Charter Cable.

Competition is competition; it doesn’t matter that CDE is a public entity, if it saves the consumer money and provides more reliable service. 

In Fayetteville, TN Charter cables delivers their expand basic cable service to residents for $28.30 per month. In Clarksville, TN it’s $49.50 per month. The only difference is in Fayetteville, TN  Charter has competition from the local power provider. That’s a savings of $21.65 per month or $259.80 a year. I don’t know about you but I sure could find a use for that money.

Charter receives benefits from being a private company that CDE doesn’t get, and visa versa. But, you won’t hear CDE whining about them being at a disadvantage with Charter, and in certain areas they really are. I frequently hear Charter whining about the possibility of them having to “GASP” actually compete. Competition is the lifeblood of capitalism. Without it you have a monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly none of which benefit Clarksville residents

CDE doesn’t receive taxpayer funds. This 88 million is not being taken from the City budget or from your property or sales taxes. It’s actually 56 million over 20 years; the 88 million figure quoted by Charter includes interest over the 20-year term. If CDE pays it off quicker than 20 years then the costs will be reduced. I bet you will find this venture will generate enough money to pay it off much quicker than that.

Out of 665 Public power systems offering telecommunication services, only 4 have ceased offering them. That’s .006%, which have stopped offering their telecommunications services. 99.994% are meeting their cities expectation or exceeding them.

CDE has promised that they will deliver the same level of service with their telecommunications services, as they do for their electrical service. Service will be available 24×7x365. If you have a problem at 3am they will fix it that day. This means no 3-week outages as are commonly experienced with Charter cable. That promise covers their Video, Data, and Telephone services.

The taxpayers are not obligated with a revenue bond. Oh but Charter will say but taxpayers are ratepayers. Which is true if you twist the facts. But in reality that is the primary difference between a Revenue bond, which CDE is getting, and a General Obligation bond.

I may have this number off somewhat as I am quoting it from memory but 83-84 cents of every dollar you pay to CDE goes to pay for the electricity purchased from TVA. So only 16-17 cents of every dollar goes to delivering the service, paying employees, for maintenance, and upgrades on their delivery network.

CDE’s current debt load is an amazingly low $7.9 million. Most electrical companies run debt loads between 100-200 million. Sounds like CDE can live in a budget, unlike Charter, which has a 19 Billion-dollar debt load.

CDE revenues come from city residents, and I would much rather see our hard earned cash going to benefit the local economy than being shipped off by Charter to Washington State and Paul Allen’s bank account.

CDE is a local business, operated for local people, by local people. They deserve the chance to provide us the advanced services that we as a community need for the future. Charter had their chance, and they failed Clarksville and it’s residents on their services, price, and reliability.

If Charter meets consumers demand for new products, if their service is reliable, and/or they charge less, then they can successfully compete against a public entity. They are currently doing so in 7 municipalities in Tennessee and they are making a profit in each one. Charter has not left one single market where a public entity is offering telecommunications services.

Charter’s services are not currently reliable. Charter’s services are not priced competitively. Charter’s product offerings lagged behind other areas in Tennessee and the nation, that is until CDE started talking about building Fiber to the Home and offering additional services. Charter neglected our City. It’s time they paid the piper for that.

Private enterprise has proven that they are not interested in breaking Charter’s stranglehold on this town, so CDE has stepped up and offered to do so at the request of their customers.

It would be different if CDE was saying let us be the only provider of Telecommunications services for Clarksville residents. Not one single voter would approve that; even I would oppose that. But the voters should approve choice and competition in our local marketplace on November 7th. Vote yes for CDE to offer additional services.

CDE has corrected some of the misinformation that Charter and other opponents of the Fiber Referendum have been clouding the air with. CDE calls it misstating, I call it lying. Well CDE has to be political on this subject matter, I however do not. They have launched a new web site, Vote Yes CDE. They are also holding their yearly Electric Expo on Saturday at the CDE office.