Net neutrality gets a boost from leading Democrat
Net neutrality supporters got a boost Thursday when Chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said he had added himself as a co-sponsor to the Net neutrality bill introduced by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
The House Energy & Commerce Committee oversees the Federal Communications Commission. Waxman said during a hearing for the subcommittee Thursday that it was time to make sure rules were imposed to keep the Internet open.
"Industry will benefit from clarity, consistency, and predictability with regard to Net neutrality," Waxman said at the hearing. "I think that the time is right to formally establish, through legislation if required, the rules of the road with respect to Net neutrality."
The bill, which was introduced by Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), would prevent Internet service providers from blocking or prioritizing content on the Web.
Advocacy groups that helped elect President Obama last year have been pushing hard for Net neutrality legislation or regulation. And they applauded Waxman's support.
"The addition of Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Henry Waxman as a co-sponsor of H.R. 3458, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, is a major and welcome step in Congressional support of the open Internet," Markham Erickson, executive director, Open Internet Coalition, said in a statement. "On behalf of our 77 members, we thank him for his strong leadership on this issue."
Large broadband providers, such as AT&T, Verizon Communications, and Comcast, have argued against a Net neutrality law. They say they need to be able to manage their networks. Most supporters of Net neutrality agree that service providers should also be able to provide "reasonable network management," but they think safeguards should be in place to make sure service providers don't abuse their power.
Republicans indicated they would likely fight legislation. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said she is "weary of talk of efforts to increase regulation." She said there was no case to do so.
There is no clear definition of the term "Net neutrality." But in general it refers to the concept that Internet users should have unfettered access to content and services. In other words, service providers should not be allowed to either impede or favor access to particular sites or applications.
The debate over Net neutrality began heating up about three years ago, when congressional leaders first started holding hearings on new laws to ensure that Internet service providers couldn't monkey with traffic. The discovery that the nation's largest cable operator, Comcast, had slowed down certain kinds of peer-to-peer traffic on its network fanned the flames and sparked public outrage over such practices.
But the fight to create new laws to protect Net neutrality languished after the FCC, which regulates the communications industry, publicly admonished Comcast for violating its Net neutrality principles. These principles aren't regulation and the FCC is somewhat powerless in imposing any real punishment for violating the rules, but the public slap on the wrist coupled with public outcry was enough to get Comcast to change its practices.
A federal appeals court is reviewing the FCC's citation last year of Comcast.
For many folks in the industry, the FCC's handling of the situation and the public response seemed to be sufficient. And support for passing new laws or regulation that might later have unintended consequences appeared to wane.
The U.S. Congress has already rejected at least five bills that would impose Net neutrality regulations.
Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie. 
"Waxman said it was time to make sure rules were imposed to keep the Internet open."
So handing over more control to the government is supposed to increase our freedoms...
Just like the other government takeovers were supposed to lower costs and increase efficiency right?
Becuase the private sector has been so succesful with the banking system?
Oh, because the private sector has been so successful with lowering the cost of cheap chinese garbage at wall mart, great example.
Maybe you should move to Alaska
"Currently we have private toll roads - so the model for teired access exists and is legitimate."
Tiered access for Internet service plans refer to upload and download speeds. No definition of Network Neutrality I have heard mandates a particular speed, just that speed is not lowered on the basis of the application. The model for private toll roads has never set different speed limits for different non-commercial vehicles, nor dictate a subset of street legal vehicles that can't access that road. Although I do admit HOV lanes prioritize certain types traffic.
"Additionally, tiered access could benefit the poor and not so privileged in circumstances where bandwidth is shared (such as cable) and those of us who cannot afford greater access are getting [shut] out by bandwidth hogs."
In fact, the kind of special treatment that would prioritize traffic of higher tiered customers, beyond keeping the lower tiered customers within the data rates of their plan, is just one of the kinds of tactics Network Neutrality legislation might prevent. The situation you mention is more an issue of an ISP being able to sustain the data rates for which their customers are paying than a Network Neutrality issue.
Health insurance is expensive BECAUSE of government regulations. Government dictates what has to be covered. Why should a 23 year old male need to pay more on his insurance to help offset the cost of pregnancy? Why can't insurance companies compete across state lines? Medicare / Medicaid pay low prices, but the cost to perform those services has to be made up, so they charge more to an insurance company. We are subsidizing Medicare and Medicaid through our premiums as well as our tax dollars. The costs are also high because of defensive medicine. Doctors have to charge more because they have to pay a high insurance themselves, which of course is passed down to the consumer like everything else on the planet. All of this can be fixed with government action and inaction as the case may be, but to blame the private sector is just ludicrous.
The collapse of the financial industry is Barney Frank and the democrats fault. They pushed banks to make loans to people who could not afford them. The banks found a way to profit from these by bundling them and selling them with good loans. They kept passing these bundles around and finally it got to where AIG couldn't afford to pay the banks back. That is what happened. Government caused the problem and they still haven't fixed it. In fact, Barney Frank is proposing to exacerbate the problem even more!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Dems-push-expanded-Community-Reinvestment-Act-dismiss-evidence-that-CRA-contributed-to-financial-meltdown-Republicans-cite-ACORN-connection-59501737.html
The reason prices are so expensive for American made goods is precisely because of government regulation. Most of the regulations are pointless. To be sure, many are important for safety reasons, but the vast majority of them are pointless and cost a business more to comply. They have to make up that cost, so they pass it on to the consumer in the price of the goods or services. Basic economics must be hard for you.
@cary1
I want a vast, unaccountable bureaucracy to control my access to the Internet and have the power to shut it down whenever they want. <rolls eyes/>
Don't put stop valves on the "Series of Tubes"
If you like the way that the cable companies charge you for 500 channels of garbage, then charge you extra for the 3 channels that you want to watch. Then you vote against neutrality.
Television sucks for a very good reason. Cable company control of what occupies the channels.
If you are against small business startups, and new ideas (though by definition conservatism is against new ideas) .
If you value the profits of corporations and the ability to 'control the message', over the freedom of the individual to choose what he or she wants to view on the internet.
then you vote against neutrality.
And yes, I value the profits of corporations because that is what makes America the greatest nation in the planets history. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in history because it relies on human nature; not on some intellectual theory.
And you're confusing the definition of conservatism. There is the traditional definition and there is the political philosophy.
Capitalism has held more people down then it has help, at least as it is practiced in the US. Human nature is greed, take what you can and screw everyone else. Hardly a good starting point. Regulations are necessary to keep the greed in check, otherwise we would all be working for $1 an hour, our food and water supply would be dangerous and the air would not be breathable.
You cannot be any more wrong. If capitalism held down more people, then China and Russia would have the wealthiest, most prosperous citizens compared to a capitalist society. What is considered poor in the US is middle class in western Europe. How in the world do you think we have held people down compared to other nations and other systems? I'd love to hear your take on how the US system has held back people.
You're correct in that human nature tends toward greed. That's why capitalism is so great and how it helps others. I'm "greedy" that I want to buy a PS3, so I produce something that someone else is "greedy" for and they pay me money, which I in turn use to purchase my PS3 that I'm so greedy to buy. Sony is greedy for my money and I'm greedy for the PS3 they make, so it is a mutual benefit between both parties. This is why capitalism works and helps society grow.
Typical over zealous capitalist. Don't make a law that says I can't screw you until after I screw you.
Apple used this image (http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/09/apple-ipod-sept-09-1283-rm-eng.jpg) to compare iPhone to a computer, but sadly it comes nowhere near.
First of all don't equate a device with the Internet. Net Neutrality is needed for ISPs. ISP that only deliver a Internet connection is not and has never been the problem. The problem has been with ISP that also deliver other content like Time Warner and Comcast. If a company that delivers content want's to also be an ISP then they must be forced to keep the two separate.
They should not be allowed to give preference to their own traffic and block or delay other content providers. I have no problem if traffic is slowed down during times of peak network usage but it has to be across the board not for a given protocol. One exception may be time critical services but that's something that would need to be looked at more closely.
The same goes with the cell phone carriers. One they decide to give Internet access on a device they should not be allowed to to block any specific protocols or services, such as VOIP, texting services, such as Google Voice, or any other service. They can do what ever they want on the Voice side but once you supply Internet access then it should be hands off other than data caps.
This included tethering, bits is bits and one you pay for them you should be able to use then anyway you want. You shouldn't have to pay another $30 to access the data service you've already paid for just because it comes from a tethered device. If they wanted to charge an optional fee for more than 5GB of data that's fine but if I'm staying within by data cap then they need to keep their hands off and out of my pocket.
As far as iPhone Apps their should be fairness. I can accept monitoring content such as porn apps but apps like GoogleVoice should not be banned and I don't think would have or couldn't have been if Net Neutrality had been the law of the land.
I really agree with most of what you posted. I do have a response to the following:
"I have no problem if traffic is slowed down during times of peak network usage but it has to be across the board not for a given protocol. One exception may be time critical services but that's something that would need to be looked at more closely."
For most ISPs, you pay based on the upstream and down stream throughput a tiered plan advertises. Even during peak hours, they should be able to provide you with what you are paying for. Most recent home routers I have seen provide Quality of Service options, and provide presets to prioritize common time sensitive traffic with a single check box. It is better to let consumers decide how they want to prioritize the traffic on their pipe than to be locked into the ISPs profit driven interpretation.
That being said, I don't have some unrealistic expectation that an ISP is going have a pipe to accommodate the atypical demand, like all customers making full use of their connections at the same time, for example. However, It should be able to accommodate typical demand of customers staying within the speeds of their plans, including during peak hours. The only time I would consider traffic prioritization "reasonable network management" is as a fail-safe during those atypical periods.
I'm getting so bloody sick of this lie it's not even funny anymore. Someone explain to me how a TCP_RST packet, forged by an ISP to look like it came from another network device (your ethernet card, for example), "slows down" traffic. Maybe I just stroked out or something, but my understanding of basic networking indicates a TCP_RST packet *TERMINATES* the connection, rather than affecting the connection speed.
Please Marguerite, if you're going to do nothing more than regurgitate con-job's often regurgitated LIES then at least point out to your readers that you have either been paid to lie to your readers or admit your gross incompetence as a reporter.
Corporate apologists are a sad lot.
I hope that FFC will step in and get done with Net neutrality isse
While government regulation is not necssarily bad, any Net Neutrality laws need to apply to government as well as providers. For example, the Federal ban on gambling websites diverts millions of US dollars to foreign operators. Under true net neutrality, such legislation would be banned.
Thanks
- by Csipa1 October 9, 2009 8:01 AM PDT
- Its time to regulate pricing of Monoply Comcast, they unbelievable expensive, you don't get nothing for you money except that BS McCaffe, that kills your system. Now they have the speeds under control.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(32 Comments)If you just wanted to sign up for a straight up account on their website you can't, because all they have is a bunch of BS offers. If you don't want their crappy TV service, your Internet fees go up with 10 bucks, ***?
FTC & FCC needs to do something, Monopoly Comcast robs the citizens blind!!!!!!