Continuing the years-long saga of whether or not net neutrality laws will be passed in the U.S., the Bush Administration has finally taken an official stance:

They’re against it. (As reported by CNN here.)

Think what you will about the current leadership of this country; this move was not at all unexpected. The Bush Presidency has made no secret that it’s all for reducing regulations on private enterprise, at any cost; in fact, that’s been its main platform from day one. And it’s arguably a praiseworthy, maybe even a necessary, political position to hold in a country that thrives on capitalism.

However, looking at the issue as purely black or white just doesn’t work with net neutrality. As we’ve stated before, this is an issue where regulation isn’t a bad thing; it’s an exception to the rule, where regulation ultimately helps people, and even helps the very democracy that, as a partner to capitalism, makes this nation great.

Furthermore, it’s highly unusual for a federal law enforcement department to take part in a political debate that pertains in no way to law enforcement. What do you think? Is the Justice Department out of line here? Or do you agree with this position? Leave a comment and let us know what you think.

We’re not going to go into much detail on this one, since we’re not interested in piling on AT&T or singling them out for anything, but the following article serves as an interesting amendum to last week’s Pearl Jam / net neutrality controversy (Missed it? Check it out here).

According to the Bulldog Reporter:

… Wired.com reported Friday that it had received an email stating that Webcasts from the Bonnaroo Music and Arts Festival in June had also been edited. Specifically, comments made during the John Butler Trio show when a band member remarked on the government’s lack of response during Hurricane Katrina were deleted, as were comments from the group Flaming Lips about George Bush screwing up.

AT&T originally said that it only edits Blue Room Webcasts for profanity since the site is available to all age groups. But a group calling itself the Future of Music Coalition, counted 20 instances of curse words being used during the Pearl Jam Webcast that were not censored by the content monitor.

“It’s clear AT&T has not made a mistake. They or the companies they’ve hired to monitor Webcasts have engaged in a clear and consistent pattern of silencing free speech,” Jenny Toomey, executive director of the Future of Music Coalition, said in a statement.

“This censorship speaks to the heart of plans by AT&T and other big telecoms to set themselves up as gatekeepers of Internet content,” Toomey continued. “If AT&T can’t be trusted to Webcast the political stage banter of a few rock bands, why would we turn the keys to the Internet over to them? Their promises to not block Internet content now ring hollow.”

The question remains: Is this a troubling development that’s connected to the net neutrality debate? Or is it simply a harmless mistake? Let us know your thoughts below.

Read the entire article here.

If you haven’t heard, people are talking this week about Sunday night’s Lollapalooza concert in Chicago, in which Pearl Jam’s headlining performance was edited by an AT&T webcast that carried the concert. Lyrics critical of President Bush were apparently bleeped out of the webcast, which was carried by AT&T’s “blue room” web page.

Now, whether or not you believe it to be appropriate for musicians to voice opinions on political matters during their concerts, there’s a deeper underlying concern here: Advocates of net neutrality claim that this incident foreshadows a more widespread censorship that could occur should net neutrality fail to become law. (What’s net neutrality? Click here to find out.)

For its part, AT&T claims that the edit was a mistake made by a third-party contractor. Its blue room website currently offers an apology to its customers and to Pearl Jam. This kind of mistake, they say, will never be allowed to happen again.

Nonetheless, feathers have been ruffled. Because AT&T financially sponsored the event, and because it is a private corporation and not a government entity, it has the right to alter its webcasts in any way it sees fit. However, AT&T also has an enormous market share, and some believe that actions such as these bear the mark of censorship, a word that’s almost taboo in our free society.

The Washington Post’s Kim Hart offers a nice summary of the controversy.

What do you think? Is this issue connected to the net neutrality debate? Do you think it’s being blown out of proportion, or does it serve as a warning of what can happen when large companies control huge parts of the market? Sound off below and let us know your thoughts.

As you may know, Aplus.Net has been following the net neutrality issue for some time now. (Click here for a brief rundown on what the issue means, and what position we’ve taken.)

Basically, whether you’re for it or against it, you have to acknowledge that if the net neutrality legislation fails, there are going to be some big changes in the way the Internet works. And for most of you, big changes to the Internet mean big changes to our lives, businesses, and the way we interact with the modern world.

With this in mind, supporters of net neutrality may be happy to learn that some of America’s most powerful and notable musicians are banding together in an event called Rock the Net. Kicked off on March 27, 2007, Rock the Net features hundreds of acts, most of them obscure. However, some big names are involved too, like R.E.M., Pearl Jam, Cake and Death Cab for Cutie.

So, what do you think? Is this a worthwhile effort to help a good cause, or another example of celebrities abusing their fame by speaking out on issues that don’t concern them? We’d love to know what you think.

Check out the Rock the Net website here.

As the Net Neutrality debate gets closer and closer to a legislative solution, the topic has inevitably become more and more partisan. As featured in today’s Washington Post (”Neutrality On the Net Gets High ‘08 Profile: Tech Issue Gains Traction in Election“), Democrats and Republicans are setting into their party stances, supporting or condemning the Net Neutrality provisions on fairly straightforward party lines.

This may be cause for concern. It’s no secret that partisan ideas now dominate American politics (and maybe today’s entire American culture as well), so it’s only natural for this debate to be framed in traditional “left vs. right” language. But we’d like to encourage all of our customers to look at the bigger picture, and try to see beyond party lines. The Washington Post article may help us to do just that:

The debate’s partisan nature has surprised and disappointed some advocates … The Christian Coalition of America, in its policy statement, said net neutrality is “extremely important to America’s grassroots organizations and those Americans who want to ensure the cable and phone companies controlling access to the Internet will not discriminate against groups like Christian Coalition of America.” Michele Combs, a spokeswoman for the Christian Coalition of America, said that net neutrality is a nonpartisan matter and that “the conservative side has not been educated on the issue.”

MoveOn.org officials agree that net neutrality should transcend political lines. “There’s a growing online people-powered movement that has increasing relevance in our politics,” said Adam Green, a spokesman for MoveOn.org. … “Every Republican and Democrat who uses the Internet is threatened by corporations that want to control which Web sites people can access.”

(Please take a look at previous blog entries for a quick recap on the Net Neutrality issue, and the stance Aplus.Net has taken.)