He was on this issue back in May when the House was voting on it.  The following blogs all covered that fact and included below was his press release. The Austin part of TX-21 is more than average aware of it being the tech center that it is.

Captiol Annex
MindSpeak
Just Another Matt

LAMAR SMITH VOTES AGAINST NET NEUTRALITY      
Vote shows Smith "out of touch"
Austin, TX-     May 30, 2006

Lamar Smith showed again recently that he is out of touch with his constituents by voting against a bill that would stop Verizon, AT&T and other broadband providers from operating in a discriminatory manner.

Smith voted against The Internet Freedom and Discrimination Act of 2006, which requires broadband providers to adhere to Network Neutrality rules stipulating that they may not do anything that would impair their customers' access to Web content offered by their competitors in the industry, such as slowing down an individual's Internet access when they are using a competitor, or censorship via blocking access to specific web sites for all users.

John Courage had this to say: "Smith's vote sends a clear message to his constituents that he believes it is acceptable for major providers to monopolize access to the Internet.  Smith either does not understand that people's access to the Internet is in danger, or just does not care.  His vote against Net Neutrality underscores his disconnect from his constituents who use the Internet everyday."  

It was Lamar Smith who voiced the loudest opposition to the bill, saying he would prefer "to leave these decisions to the courts to work out on a case-by-case basis under the antitrust law."  The existing bill is far too regulatory and could "put a straightjacket on this important sector of the economy," Smith said.

Under measures supported by those who disagree with Net Neutrality, major providers would be permitted to selectively restrict internet access based on financial agreements. For example, a user could buy a song on iTunes and be faced with excessively long download times if their Internet service provider had reached an agreement with a competing service.  

The bill's passage "shows that the politicians are listening to the vast number of citizens who don't want the Internet to become the private domain of the cable and telephone monopolies," a spokesman for the grassroots SavetheInternet.com Coalition said.  

The SavetheInternet.com Coalition launched a little over a month ago, the group's spokesman said.  Since then, more than 700 groups "spanning the political spectrum" have joined, including MoveOn.org, the Christian Coalition, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Gun Owners of America, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Library Association, and Craig Newmark of Craigslist.

###                        
http://www.courageforcongress.org

I sent this to Sen. Kennedy here in Mass.:

Matt Stoller over at MyDD is listing supporters of the Snowe-Dorgan amendment to the Stevens telecommunications bill. I assume that he must know what he is doing in asking for this to be pushed forward. It looks like there is a lot on the plate already, but I am sure this is important too. Thank you for the time spent reading this!.

Now I will find Kerry.

---------------------------------------- --
You may be interested to know, if you use Firefox browser, and have stuff like "Kennedy" buried deep within folders, you can:

Hit: +Bookmarks+ > +Manage Bookmarks+ > +File+ > +Export+ > +Save (to desktop)+

That creates an HTML page on your desktop which can be opened by the browser itself. You can open it and use | +Edit+ > +Find in This Page+ | to find any word in any folder in your bookmarks. When it finds the word, it will arrive at a link in that page, hit the link, and you will go to the site it points to.

Am I right that a follow-up mark-up session is scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday), to try to deal with all the other amendments they didn't get to yet, including NN?  I listened to last week's session (no video available, but audio was) in the background while I worked on other things.  It was pretty interesting and more freewheeling than most hearings, in that the Senators were dealing with each other, not witnesses.  It may be a piece of audio worth archiving.

Lautenberg and McCain co-sponsored a pro-muni bill last year and, as far as I know, the Stevens bill has a muni provision that's different than what they proposed in ways I couldn't figure out (talk about dense, run-on sentences with vague references).  I don't know where they stand on NN, the Snow-Dorgan amendment or Stevens long, vague list of consumer protections.

There are so many "special" interests and issues addressed in this bill, its ridiculous. I'd guess that Stevens has a pretty clever strategy planned for horse trading and bullying that plays all these issues and constituencies to his advantage.  Telecom is a hornet's nest of subsidies and regulations that are hot button issues in some states but not others (a lot of it is rural vs. urban, with the former currently getting substantial subsidies).

I haven't read the whole bill, but the parts I read were so vaguely written that I'd hate to see it become law, period.

I tend to agree with skeptic06 on this (if I remember his comment correctly), that it'd be best to see no legislation now.  Then, the Dems will hopefully win control of at least one house, and we can try again in the future, when the Dems have more control of the process.

One big question that looms for me is what will a conference bill look like?  COPE and the Stevens bill are very different in scope and also in how they treat some key issues.  My sense is that the main thing the telcos want is expedited video franchising.  Maybe they'll end up stripping a conference bill down to mainly that, and throw cable a few bones on the franchising issue(e.g., letting them get out of franchise obligations themselves, and putting some restrictions on telco "redlining") and probably screwing cities in the process.

Which gets back to your point, Matt, about how many Senators can be bought off to accept nice-sounding but toothless NN language?

I have a similar question related to the muni-broadband provisions. I am regrettably naive (and nauseated) as to the ways of Congress.

I have asked Lincoln Chafee and the three candidates for his seat in RI to provide positions on net neutrality.  Sheldon Whitehouse's campaign told me they were researching it.  That was about 8 weeks ago.  

I'm surprised Chafee is not taking a position on this.

Said that since we Floridians are gonna send him back to DC this fall, he might as well support the Snowe/Dorgan.

Matt,

Go to this link at the washingtonpost and see someone trash you about net neutrality in response to anothers person's assertions that net neurtrality is good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/discussion/2006/06/22/DI20060622007 91.html

I would have posted the comment but it pissed me off too much.

I mailed all the leaners.

Here are their contact pages please send them a message that the PACKET TAX is bad and that Net Neutrality needs to be protected by law.

http://rockefeller.senate.gov/services/e mail.cfm
http://www.senate.gov/~bennelson/contact /email.cfm
http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/ema il.cfm
http://lautenberg.senate.gov/contact/
http://www.senate.gov/~pryor/contact/

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fusea ction=Contact.Home
http://www.senate.gov/~hutchison/e-mail. htm
http://gsmith.senate.gov/public/index.cf m?FuseAction=Contact.Home
http://allen.senate.gov/public/

Montana's other statewide Democratic candidate, Monica Lindeen, who's trying to displace right-winger Denny Rehberg (who voted against NN), supports Net Neutrality.

Her campaign is being overshadowed by the Senate race and can use some funds.

Help her out!