Comments on: Republicans defeat Net neutrality proposal

House Republicans defeat Net neutrality proposal backed by Democrats and companies including Google and Microsoft.

[jasonj86]

Republicans aren't saying there shouldn't be net neutrality

It should be on a case by case basis. Not blanket regulated by some government agency.

[jdbwar07]

It's more black and white than that.

Their choice was either to preserve the internet as it is (and what made it so great), or to allow it to be detrimentally altered. Out of greed, they chose the latter.

The FCC now just works for the republicans and you can't count on them to do anything for consumers.

[ZeroJCF]

Bottom Line: Revenue Stream

This is not GOP Vs. Dems. It is true however, that this is quickly becoming a political hot button. I believe that Companies who provide bandwidth should be able to charge Customer Companies more for using up (above and beyond) said bandwidth (which already happens in certain cases). This cost however, should not passed on to consumers, as we create the "market" for both Bandwidth Providers and Bandwidth Based Service Providers.

I do not think that a tiered service is in the best interest of anyone, exception: Bandwidth Providers. All this does is allow for the internet to turn into a "Rich" Vs. "Poor" environment, where one Service can reach people at great speed and the other is just acceptable. Example is that I might use ESPN instead of CBS Sportsline or vice versa, depending on the speed which I can get my scores & news. This happens anyway for other reasons, but it could have more play. This brings me to my next point.

I don't think I have to tell anyone here, that the internet world and a majority of it's users are not patient. Everyone wants technology to produce results/speed now...now...now. People will not wait for a service if they can get it faster. We all know this. I can also see this playing a huge role in startup Content Service Providers. This can cause a ripple effect all the way down to Start-Up Capital. This is why I think this needs to be debated among Consumer Groups, Government Officials, and Telecos in a public forum. It can't be one of these "hot button" "drive by" issues that seem to always come up before election times. ;-)

There are good & bad arguments on both sides of the isle, but the bottom line is, that in it's current state, this is only another Revenue Stream for Providers.

[ender.krum]

"The Economist" weighs in

Keep it simple
Mar 9th 2006
From The Economist - http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5603431

"Defenders of 'net neutrality' should be careful not to harm the very thing they want to protect"

"...It sounds worrying. Yet some packets are already favoured, even on today's internet. Businesses routinely pay a premium for fast, secure ?tunnels? through the network. Firewalls and virus filters discriminate against suspicious traffic. Big companies already pay extra for hosting and ?content delivery? services to make their websites download faster. This has not hampered innovation. And telecoms operators insist that they have no intention of blocking or slowing existing traffic.

An overly prescriptive set of net-neutrality rules could prove counterproductive. For a start, it would mean that all new network construction costs would have to be recouped from consumers alone, which could drive up prices or discourage investment. Ensuring ?neutrality? could require regulators to interpose themselves in all kinds of agreements between network operators, content providers and consumers. If a network link is too slow to support a particular service, does that constitute a breach of neutrality? Strict rules could also hinder the development of new services that depend on being able to distinguish between different types of traffic, imposing a ?one size fits all? architecture on the internet just as engineers are considering novel ways to improve its underlying design (see survey).

While the two positions might appear to be incompatible, there is in fact a sensible path that should suit everyone. A minimal set of rules to protect net neutrality would still leave room for operators to experiment with new premium services. Even Edward Whitacre, the boss of AT&T, says he is happy to go along with the simple rules proposed by America's telecoms regulator that forbid discrimination against particular websites or services. Blocking or interfering with existing traffic on the internet is unacceptable; but if operators want to build fast lanes alongside it, they should be allowed to."

[NJSolly]

Sanity at last

Thanks, Ender -- I was really getting tired of the rants from people with little or nothing to add except venom. Once again, too many of the complainers have gone off on the tangent of "they want to take away my ability to go anywhere, see anything I want on the Web." That's not what Net Neutrality's about.

[hahne59]

Net Socialism Not Needed or Wanted

The internet is an open market. If Google wants to pay more for reserved bandwidth, let them. Someone wants to buy something, someone will sell it to them.

[philpacker]

Not needed if we want to be a third wolrd country

To think that "Net Neutrality" is socialism one must have clearly
drunk the Rebulican cool-aid. The issue is keeping the net open
so that competition exists and continues to be a force to create
new products and services at lower costs. Remember that when
we had a monopoly phone company, the courts had to mandate
that companies had the right to even attach a modem to phone
lines. That is because natural monolopies such as networks
don't insure that new ideas, technologies, or services are
introduced. In fact, they are discouraged because they cost
money.

[jdbwar07]

No wonder...

"AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon spent $230.9 million on politicians from 1998 until the present, while Amazon, eBay, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo spent only a combined $71.2 million. (Those figures include lobbying expenditures, individual contributions, political action committees and soft money.)"

That's why. As usual, neocon politicians make their decision based on greed, sacrificing what's right for America and the public in the process.

[tpwk]

What are we afraid of?

Myself, I am far more afraid of opening the Pandora's box on
governmental regulation. I think it is strange that we have so much
faith in the government to sort things out, when they are the very
entity that should have the least to do with a free Internet. We are
better off with an governmental policy toward the Internet that is
truly neutral, and doesn't play favorites.

[tpwk]

What are we afraid of?

Myself, I am far more afraid of opening the Pandora's box on
governmental regulation. I think it is strange that we have so much
faith in the government to sort things out, when they are the very
entity that should have the least to do with a free Internet. We are
better off with an governmental policy toward the Internet that is
truly neutral, and doesn't play favorites.

[oldhats]

slippery slopes!

I agree, Kevin. I'm not willing to trust Congress with this kind of legislation...it's a very slippery slope, imho...what kind of taxes and regulations will they want to impose next?!

[oldhats]

slippery slopes!

I agree, Kevin. I'm not willing to trust Congress with this kind of legislation...it's a very slippery slope, imho...what kind of taxes and regulations will they want to impose next?!

[oldhats]

slippery slopes!

I agree, Kevin. I'm not willing to trust Congress with this kind of legislation...it's a very slippery slope, imho...what kind of taxes and regulations will they want to impose next?!

[oldhats]

Afraid of the Slippery Slope!

I agree, Kevin. I'm not willing to trust Congress with this kind of legislation...it's a very slippery slope, imho...what kind of taxes and regulations will they want to impose next?!

[gerard rotonda]

Capital Investments could be impacted

This continues to show a partisan divide between
Republicans and Democrats on Internet regulation.
Yes, this could deter capital investments. Credit.











Trump

[acarey1]

Shimkus Makes a Good Point

Rep. Shimkus makes a good and ofter overlooked point about the whole net neutrality legislation debate. The sky is not falling, in other words, there is no need for Congress to act and legislate on this issue because there is no problem that needs to be fixed. Wise man.

[paulaner01]

Let's just wait and see

I'm inclined to see where this goes before turning to Congress of all places to 'set things straight'. There's no chance that this is going to end up as bad as these naysayers say it will, because there's no way the American consumer would put up with it. We haven't needed regulation up to now, and I see nothing that suggests we need it going forward.

[oldhats]

will they stop?

My concern is that if Congress starts legislating they won't know when to stop.

[paulaner01]

Let's just wait and see

I'm inclined to see where this goes before turning to Congress of all places to 'set things straight'. There's no chance that this is going to end up as bad as these naysayers say it will, because there's no way the American consumer would put up with it. We haven't needed regulation up to now, and I see nothing that suggests we need it going forward.

[alexbill]

They better not we already pay tons of money

If they do this our internet is destroyed forever even this website. If this happens Vonage, Chat Rooms, Yahoo, Google, Hi5, Xanga, and every website (even mine) on the entire internet will be destroyed by ISPs. If we let this happen online businesses will suffer.

We need to petition these ISPs that want to control and regulate our speeds/websites/Vonage/pay services even if we pay for a higher package we will still be controled and regulated.

I am already paying $44 dollars a month to Roadrunner. Whats great about paying for the internet if we have to pay more, more, and loads.

If congress allows the "internets destruction by ISPs" bill then I will refuse to stay in business with my ISP and cancel internet service.

I already canceled Netflix for sending me broken DVDs, and delayed service.

[alexbill]

Heres petitions to help Net neutrality and stop net control

http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet
http://www.netfreedomnow.org/

Please moderators, and editors please don't consider this spam, or delete this because this is real important. If we don't sign we might not even have any website to goto.

[DavesTechShop]

My Conversation with Larry Boucher about Net Neutrality

Larry Boucher was kind enough to share his thoughts about net neutrality with me in an email conversation; and to allow me to then post that conversation on the web. The whole conversation is posted at my blog: http://blog.davestechshop.net/