Democrats revive another Net neutrality proposal

The only Net neutrality proposal to encounter some measure of success in the U.S. Congress is back again for another try.

As foreshadowed at a March hearing, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) on Thursday reintroduced the Internet Freedom and Non-discrimination Act, which passed by a 20-13 vote in the same committee in 2006. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) is co-sponsoring the bill, but so far, it is not clear whether any Republicans have signed on.

Just like last time, the bill would rewrite U.S. antitrust law to prohibit network operators like AT&T and Comcast from blocking, impairing, or discriminating against "lawful" Internet content, applications, and services or charging extra fees for "prioritization or enhanced quality of service."

"The Internet was designed without centralized control, without gatekeepers for content and services," Conyers said in a statement. "If we allow companies with monopoly or duopoly power to control how the Internet operates, network providers could have the power to choose what content is available."

The five-page measure would provide exceptions for things like "reasonable and nondiscriminatory" network management necessary to keep the network running smoothly and compliance with other laws and court orders.

The bill's introduction comes on the heels of a hearing earlier this week about a Net neutrality proposal in a competing House panel, the Energy and Commerce Committee, which traditionally engaged in turf battles with the Judiciary Committee over certain matters.

Net neutrality, of course, is the idea that network operators shouldn't be allowed to prioritize information that rides on their pipes. Advocates of legislation--including Google, Amazon.com, eBay, and a variety of consumer advocacy groups--argue rules are necessary to keep the Internet free, open, and democratic, so that small start-ups can be on a level playing field with more established companies. Network operators, by contrast, say new rules will stifle investments in new broadband networks and deprive them of the flexibility they need to keep their services running smoothly.

[Al57]

Typical Liberals/Socialists/Democrats. Let's punish companies for doing network management. We should get rid of express lanes on the roads and every traffic signal should be timed to the same length. Since not every street has a left turn lane, we should stop that loophole too. Make everything equal.

The whole tech industry should be against this. It is not a good idea to allow government regulation of the internet. As soon as it gets out of hand, science and entrepreneurship will be put in the backseat because lobbying will become the single most important aspect of building a business plan. As we all know, only the big companies can afford lobbyists, so the small companies will suffer.

As usual, this is 100% in the wrong direction for Liberals/Socialists/Democrats. The unintended side effects will be a disaster. But instead of admitting mistakes, the Liberals/Socialists/Democrats will just create more laws to "help" people screwed by this - all shaped by lobbyists. Soon, we'll have a patchwork of laws that will require all sorts of lawyers to figure out.

Oh well, so much for the startup!

Open your mouths and help shut this down.

[Leria]

You are not winning many people to your side with a bunch of hyperbole, which is basically what this is.
I've seen through it, everyone else I know has seen through it, and so has basically everyone else in the world except for idiots like you.

Comcast wasn't doing 'network management' with their Bittorrent thing: they were fradulently breaking connections at all times of the day, congested internet or not.
Now, I would understand if they would limit my connections to the internet or slow down my connection..... but NOT forge reset packets like they were doing, just to get me to use THEIR services.
Comcast made it VERY apparent why we need 'net neutrality' legislation and some regulation of ISP's and other internet companies.

[Al57]

Leria, no, we do not need the government to get in on this. So Comcast shut some people down. Well, boo-hoo. None of us should want the government to start meddling in the internet. How many people are we talking about? A few thousand?

If Comcast gets bad enough, then more competition will come online. If the government gets involved, then the lobbyists will be deciding who wins and loses.

Come back to Earth, take a deep breath and think through the ramifications of opening the internet to the government.
Everyone complains about the telcos and wireless. Do you realize that some of the issues are directly related to how the government regulates these organizations??? Then people complain when the lobbyists or paid-off congressmen get involved. Well surprise, more government hurts us all. We need to be real careful about how much government we let in.

Pressure can be put in Comcast in all sorts of ways; growing government regulation should be a last resort.

[fafafooey]

This issue shows where the hypocrites are. On one hand, they want government's hands off the Internet (which I agree with), but when it comes to this "net neutrality" crap, they do want what amounts to government regulation of the Internet. You can't have it both ways. If you let the government's nose under the tent, even though you think it is "just this one time", the whole camel will be in the tent soon. And then you'll be sorry.

[Leria]

No, we won't be sorry. Companies like Comcast have proven that they cannot be trusted, and this is one case where the government is right to step in with a little regulation.
Net Neutrality is not 'crap'. The only people who say that it is are people who work for these companies and have a hidden motive (usually planning on toll lanes on the internet and express lanes on the internet).

[Al57]

No, Net Neutrality is crap. The exact opposite will happen over time if it is implemented.

What is wrong with managing their network? We all want more bandwidth because a) there isn't enough and b) we'll just need more. Who is going to pay for it? Many engineers go to school for network management and companies like Cisco specialize in network management. It is an integral part of any business when there are limited resources and unequal demand. We all benefit from these companies abilities to squeeze as much usage out of every line.

I see that Comcast is looking at overage charges. That may just take care of it and then we don't need this "Net Neutrality" bs.

Network management is good. "Net Neutrality" is just a result of the Socialist tendencies to take over successful endeavors. It's so obvious because all of the ingredients are in place: a) a villain (Comcast), b) a solution requiring Liberals (government), and c) ignoring any contrary facts or unintended side-effects. I don't see the supports of Net Neutrality ever talk about any potential unintended or destructive side-effects. I don't find this strange because they want control and they really don't care about the users.

Back to Comcast's overage trial-balloons: it won't be enough because the Liberals want control. They will find any and every way possible to tear the idea apart.

[mikele11111]

Why is it anytime someone tries to protect consumers after countless abuses and millions of dollars of campaign and PAC contribution some Republican claims it is the evil work of "Liberals/Socialists/Democrats"?

I love it when they tell us natural market mechanisms will protect us and how regulation will cost us more and stifle innovation. Meanwhile, they are looking in their closet to see if their lubrication collection is big enough for what they want to do to us.

[KWalshZ]

Only in Washington would anyone seriously contemplate legislation that makes it illegal to offer "enhanced quality of service."

I can understand the desire to prohibit blocking, etc. (but even this is best left to market mechanisms--businesses that abuse their customers don't tend to fare well), but to outlaw positive things (like better quality of service) is ridiculous.

I can see the Big Brother posters already: "Offer faster service, go to jail." Surely this will be followed by federal agents making telecom execs do the perp walk for offering faster video downloads.

[KWalshZ]

Only in Washington would anyone seriously contemplate legislation that makes it illegal to offer "enhanced quality of service."

I can understand the desire to prohibit blocking, etc. (but even this is best left to market mechanisms--businesses that abuse their customers don't tend to fare well), but to outlaw positive things (like better quality of service) is ridiculous.

I can see the Big Brother posters already: "Offer faster service, go to jail." Surely this will be followed by federal agents making telecom execs do the perp walk for offering faster video downloads.

[oconnmic]

Why was the FCC created?
It was the radio industry that went to the government and said we want you, the government, to assign exclusive frequencies to us so others don't interfer with our broadcasts. You know the rest of the story.

[Al57]

KWalshZ, you said "Only in Washington would anyone seriously contemplate legislation that makes it illegal to offer 'enhanced quality of service.'" We are dealing Modern Liberals (Liberals/Socialists/Democrats). They live for a Utopian vision where everything is equal. When they use the word "peace", they are referring to a place/mindset where there is a nothingness - nothing to kill or die for and nothing to live for. You can see this in action because they try to make sure anything that is successful is torn down. You never see these Modern Liberals talk about helping poor people become richer; it's always about scheming to make rich people poorer. They do this with everything. So Comcast is one of the created villains. CEO's are villains. Pharma companies are villains. Even families are villains - because there are single parents out there and it isn't fair so they tear down families. At every step of the way, they tear down what is good, successful and right while elevating what is evil, failed and wrong so everything is equal - and there is nothing to kill or die for or be for. This is where Net Neutrality comes from. Everyone should watch the video "HOW MODERN LIBERALS THINK". You'll need some quiet time and it is phenomenal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

[oconnmic]

Why was the FCC created? It was the radio industry that went to the government and said we want you, the government, to assign exclusive frequencies to us so others don't interfer with our broadcasts. You know the rest of the story.

[benjaminstraight]

How complicated.