Last-minute political maneuvering over Net neutrality regulations erupted Thursday before a scheduled vote in the full U.S. House of Representatives.
In a floor debate that fell almost entirely along party lines, Democrats lambasted a telecommunications bill for not including stiff Net neutrality regulations and said they would oppose it unless amendments they favored were adopted.
"This bill should not see daylight," Rep. Anna Eshoo, a California Democrat, said during a floor debate. "We can do better than this."
Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, warned that the bill without Net neutrality regulations "will do nothing for ordinary citizens--it is a shameful bill."
A vote on the Net neutrality amendments is expected this week, probably Friday.
At issue is a lengthy measure called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Act, which a House committee approved in April. Its Republican backers, along with Verizon and AT&T, say it has sufficient Net neutrality protections for consumers and more extensive rules would discourage investment in wiring American homes with higher-speed connections.
The concept of network neutrality, which generally means that all Internet sites must be treated equally, has drawn a list of high-profile backers, from actress Alyssa Milano to Vint Cerf, one of the technical pioneers of the Internet. It's also led to a political rift between big Internet companies such as Google and Yahoo that back it--and telecom companies that oppose what they view as onerous new federal regulations.
As a final house vote nears, lobbyists and CEOs from both sides have been stepping up the pressure. eBay CEO Meg Whitman e-mailed more than a million members urging them to support the concept, and Google CEO Eric Schmidt on Wednesday called on his company's users to follow suit.
Rep. Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican, said during Thursday's debate that the current version of the COPE Act is sufficiently consumer friendly. "The proponents will say there's nothing there," Stearns said. But, he added, the Federal Communications Commission would receive "explicit power to go after companies that violate Net neutrality principles."
Much of the Democrats' criticism centered on the procedures that the House Republican leadership had chosen to set rules for votes on the telecommunications bill. The leadership has done the following:
• Permitted Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, to offer his Net neutrality amendment (click here for PDF) that had been rejected by the Energy and Commerce Committee. It would effectively ban broadband providers from offering a "fast lane" for favored content.
• Rejected a proposal from the House Judiciary Committee to enforce Net neutrality by extending antitrust law. This is part of a turf battle between two House committees.
• Allowed an amendment (click here for PDF) from Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, that would preserve the House Judiciary Committee's influence--without adding extensive Net neutrality mandates.
• Rejected an amendment proposed by Rep. Charles Gonzalez, a Texas Democrat, that would have extended Net neutrality principles to major commercial Web sites such as Google, Yahoo and eBay--on the theory that those sites enjoy near-monopolies of their own.
• Permitted an amendment (click here for PDF) proposed by Rep. Gil Gutknecht, a Minnesota Republican, that would explicitly extend "universal service" taxes to companies providing voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services.
Why shouldn't the providers of connectivity charge both sides? Don't they already do that with cellphones? So why don't telephone companies require that when calling some destinations the call would be completed only if the other side agrees to pay for the call (i.e., certain destinations can only receive collect calls from you. Of course the phone company can still charge you for the phone call in addition for what's charged from the other side.).
This is quite what we're talking about when considering non-neutral net connectivity. I don't really see why this should be prevented. What regulators should do is forbid those that provide this kind of connectivity from calling it "internet access". If they don't grant the customer full access to the internet then the regulator should require them to state CLEARLY to the customer that "INTERNET CONECTIVITY IS NOT GUARANTEED WITH THIS PACKAGE". Another thing the regulator should require is that if full internet connectivity is provided as an alternative to some kind of limited connectivity to "premium" or "selected" destinations then that connectivity providers don't overcharge for this to subsidise their plans to convert the internet into another kind of cable TV that sends limited content made to lowest common denominator...
Both "customers", AND "content-providers" DO pay for network-data transport. "Net-Neutrality" is about insuring that "access providers" cannot arbitrarily charge, based upon "data-content" or "commercial-origin". And also, so that, those that hold "monopoly-positions" over the main thoroughfares of the Internet, cannot intentionally "degrade" services, or competitors, that they wish to discourage.
So, this is really about preventing unfair manipulation of Internet-users and businesses, by preventing unfair business-practices, such as "double-dipping", or tying the hands of competitors.
In short, you pay for telephone-connectivity... You DONT pay extra based upon what you discuss, or whom you call in your local-area.
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
This is quite what we're talking about when considering non-neutral net connectivity. I don't really see why this should be prevented. What regulators should do is forbid those that provide this kind of connectivity from calling it "internet access". If they don't grant the customer full access to the internet then the regulator should require them to state CLEARLY to the customer that "INTERNET CONECTIVITY IS NOT GUARANTEED WITH THIS PACKAGE". Another thing the regulator should require is that if full internet connectivity is provided as an alternative to some kind of limited connectivity to "premium" or "selected" destinations then that connectivity providers don't overcharge for this to subsidise their plans to convert the internet into another kind of cable TV that sends limited content made to lowest common denominator...
So, this is really about preventing unfair manipulation of Internet-users and businesses, by preventing unfair business-practices, such as "double-dipping", or tying the hands of competitors.
In short, you pay for telephone-connectivity... You DONT pay extra based upon what you discuss, or whom you call in your local-area.