June 8, 2006 6:30 PM PDT

House rejects Net neutrality rules

The U.S. House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept of Net neutrality on Thursday, dealing a bitter blow to Internet companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google that had engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign to support it.

By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others.

Of the 421 House members who participated in the vote that took place around 6:30 p.m. PT, the vast majority of Net neutrality supporters were Democrats. Republicans represented most of the opposition.

The vote on the amendment (click for PDF) came after nearly a full day of debate on the topic, which prominent Democrats predicted would come to represent a turning point in the history of the Internet.

"The future Sergey Brins, the future Marc Andreessens, of Netscape and Google...are going to have to pay taxes" to broadband providers, said Rep. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat behind the Net neutrality amendment. This vote will change "the Internet for the rest of eternity," he warned.

Net neutrality's crowded field

Bill numberLead sponsor(s)What it proposesStatus
S.2360Wyden (D)No two-tier InternetStill in Senate committee
S.2917Snowe (R) and Dorgan (D)No two-tier InternetJust introduced
HR5417Sensenbrenner (R) and Conyers (D)Antitrust extended to Net neutralityAwaiting House floor vote
HR5273Markey (D)No two-tier InternetStill in House committee *
HR5252Barton (R) and Rush (D)FCC can police complaintsNet neutrality rejected
S.2686Stevens (R) and Inouye (D)FCC will do a studySenate committee vote expected in June

* Republicans have defeated similar language twice as an amendment to a telecommunications bill

Source: CNET News.com research

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 broadband providers such as 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 the final House vote drew closer, lobbyists and CEOs from both sides began 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.

Defenders of the COPE Act, largely Republicans, dismissed worries about Net neutrality as fear mongering.

"I want a vibrant Internet just like they do," said Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican. "Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it...I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet."

The debate over Net neutrality had become more complicated after earlier versions of the COPE Act appeared to alter antitrust laws--in a way that would have deprived the House Judiciary Committee of some of its influence.

But in a last-minute compromise designed to placate key Republicans, the House leadership permitted an amendment (click for PDF) from Smith that would preserve the House Judiciary Committee's influence--without adding extensive Net neutrality mandates. That amendment to COPE was approved.

While the debate over Net neutrality started over whether broadband providers could block certain Web sites, it has moved on to whether they should be permitted to create a "fast lane" that could be reserved for video or other specialized content.

Prohibiting that is "not a road we want to go down, but that's what the Markey amendment would do," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican. "The next thing is going to be having a secretary of Internet Access (in the federal government)."

See more CNET content tagged:
Net Neutrality, broadband provider, amendment, Internet company, Republican

102 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Who do I sign my checking account over too?
So getting my email will now cost me how much? Will that tune
from itunes now have a "service" fee for the extra bandwith it will
take to download? Will skype calling now cost me more than
nothing? And will I ever be able to afford video conferences or
movie downloads?

If I was a repulican I guess I would never have to ask.
Posted by nerantzis (14 comments )
Reply Link Flag
free markets
There is, never was and certainly will never be, "free markets".
Oil companies say that they are about "free market' yet they get
billions in subsidies, tax breaks and other "evil socialist
governement" handouts. Cable companies get to be the only
game in town via contracts with those evil g-men types. And no,
adding Verizon to the game will not help. Prices have a way of
stabilizing at a certain level--CD's have always been about the
same price regardless of who the seller is , despite so many
sellers. Another example is the cell phone companies. They
setteled on a price, everyone followed. NO ONE undersells the
established price. All they do is add minutes that most people
will never use. Marketing us into believing we are getting
something (free or reduced phones are just a come on so don't
argue for its value -which is nothing by the way).

Companies are about making as much money as possible, in any
way that they can. Your interests will never be valued only your
money -can will all say Enron. And yes they were a much valued
and praised company all they way to the end.

So, point is, stop saying free markets will always be good. Even
in this case, those "free market" companies with the soon to be
exclusive internet pipes, have been guaranteed proctections by
government from the very "free" market forces that they cry for.
Posted by jrzshor (102 comments )
Link Flag
How about access from europe
This is so stupid. This will do nothing but cost consumers money, time, effort and slow down the adoption of the internet. Unbelievable in a place where freedom is suppose to be supreme we are constantly seeing big business spoon feed big government all at the demise of our basic rights. I can't wait for the day when I can get internet access from a foreign company that just wants to deliver high speed internet and stop all of this bulls*it. I use to think the US wanted to be number one, now I think we are sinking farther and farther down a hole we can't get out of. I for one think it is a shame.
Posted by tashman (42 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Now you get it
The US peaked after World War II. Now we are on an accelerating downward trend.

Big business, politicians and the voting/consuming public have all proven repeatedly that they can not be trusted to do the right thing.

The telcos will put the screws to the internet users until we have been raped sufficiently that the politicians can no longer take the screaming masses or it directly impacts them in a negative manner. If it is the screaming masses, the politicians will legislate that the masses wear gags. If it is because the politicians are negatively impacted, they will legislate themselves a loophole and gags for the masses to muffle any screaming that may ensue. Kick the currently crooked politicians out of office and big business will buy itself a new batch. Rinse and repeat.

Grab your ankles boys and girls....and get ready for the next ride on the pain train.
Posted by (63 comments )
Link Flag
Isn't it about time
That the rest of the world built their own internet infrastructure, so that 90% (?) of the traffic does NOT have to go through the US ?

I understand frustration of Europeans (my family in England, included) - being detrimentally (although that has yet to be determined) affected by the decisions made by US politicians. But you DO use the US infrastructure for the majority of internet traffic.

If you don't like it - build the infrastructure you need & stop mooching off the USA !
Posted by DryHeatDave (79 comments )
Link Flag
victory
finally some politicians have some sense. I don't understand why the republicans would want this, Am i starting to favor democrats?????????
Posted by komradkyle (12 comments )
Reply Link Flag
No Surprises Here.
I'm not surprised this happened, the traditional telco's business model is constantly being challenged by Internet based services. LONG DISTANCE, once the main bread and butter of the telcos, WILL DIE. They just cant accept that they'd be relegated to simply supplying the pipe to consumers and content providers. Allowing telcos to throttle traffic going in or through their IP networks undermines the basic principles of the Internet(ie free, unfettered exchange of information). Question, does a mall operator charge a shop owner extra when customers flood the store? I dont think so, so shouldnt telcos.
Posted by sundance_tree (16 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Good Point
sundance_tree,

I think you made a good point with the mall analogy. But I doubt any changes will come from this. Because of the competition in the market if one provider started to tax its users then people would abandon it in favor of a tax free provider. And if there are no other choices for tax free providers then I am sure anti-trust law suits would be brought. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.
Posted by hybris06 (66 comments )
Link Flag
Question, does a mall operator charge...
From above...

Question, does a mall operator charge a shop owner extra when customers flood the store? I dont think so, so shouldnt telcos.

This is a bad example:
In a mall stores pay by location and by size.

If you want space in a prime location it will cost more than the one by the emergency exit.

If you want a big store to handle a lot of customers then you pay more.

For me the internet questions is different.
Content providers pay extra for the bandwidth they need.

Customers pay extra for higher bandwidth. I pay a premium for an 8Mb line compared to somebody on a 1Mb line.

So, we are already paying extra for the bandwidth.

Also, for streaming unless every provider on the link from the server to the client is optimized the connection will not be fast.
Streaming is like a driving on a road which is full of cars.
If sections of the road are 70mph and others are 30mph because the road if full all the time then the maximum speed the whole road can go is 30mph.
So, to me this extra guaranteed bandwidth is not guaranteed to my door unless the WHOLE internet is going fast.
Posted by ahickey (177 comments )
Link Flag
Malls do
Rents are based on Sq Ft plus a set percentage of profits. So the answer is YES.

Truckers pay more taxes cause they damage the roads more than other traffic.

A special lane just for car pool vehicles.

VIP seating for rich schmucks

The best concert tickets now going to auction. Think you will ever again get a reserved seating ticket unless you can pony up big bucks like the "too rich to give a sh%t" crowd?

Special treatment for people named McKinny and Kennedy.

Get used to it. If you dont have money to spend and powerful friends it's "BOHICA" time. ( bend over here it comes again)
Posted by R Me (196 comments )
Link Flag
Well - you might pay
If the customers simply flood the store, no. But if they buy, that may be a different story. The larger malls generally charge their premises stores a percentage of their gross, in addition to their monthly rent.
Posted by Xat Nam (28 comments )
Link Flag
VOTE THEM OUT
SIMPLE...Find out how you Government Representative voted, if its not to your liking, return the favor in November.

Greed cannot ruin the internet!
Posted by LarryLo (164 comments )
Reply Link Flag
greed?
Cool down... no body want to ruin the internet.
However I do agree with the House. Wire or Wireless, nothing is
free. You pay one way or the other for the signal come to you...
the www was invented at lab that paid by tax payer too. Take a
breath of the existing condition, just consider you are lucky to
get all your initial trail "free" (including all the google beer and
free dinner), R&D relatively free, got way ahead of your
competitor, etc.etc. Now get back to work for a living (for a
change)... World out there in real place are not "free", including
Japan, EU, etc. Since you are still belong to the same category as
the rest of the Human...not imaginary virtue world, la--y-lo...
Posted by 1st (104 comments )
Link Flag
Not an option
Unfortunately in our system of government you must vote someone else in. Given the current campaign system any one who can win will support their constuents: those who financed the campaign and their next one. Money talks and BS walks.
Posted by (7 comments )
Link Flag
reform
The vote was along party lines. So you are advocating a straight line dem vote. Thats the problem.

We need reform.

No more political parties!
No more electorial congress!
No more lobby contributions!

One vote - one count!

Ranked Voting. Vote in order of preference.

That would have given us
pres - Kerry
vp - bush
or
pres - bush
vp - Kerry

Revolt by passive resistance. What if they held an election and N0-ONE came? Imagine the ripple effect of a presidential election with 10% participation. Or what if the winner was "Bozo the Clown" by a write-in vote.

That is the only way we will have reforms. They will never come from the efforts of elected officials or the public by voting.
Posted by R Me (196 comments )
Link Flag
That is why
The US should NOT have control over the Internet. The prevailing interest in the US is that of the major companies, not of the consumer, and ESPECIALLY not on the consumers from other countries.

Myself I am Norwegian, and I do not know what effects this will have on my own personal Internet usage, however I do not like what is about to happen.

The Internet is supposed to be some sort of "digital library" and as we all know libraries aught to be free to use, with the all-out truth and nothing but the truth, not a place where money rules.
Posted by Mertal (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
agree...but
Who will pay for the backbone?
Will the Scandinavian countries, with some of the highest percentages of connected users pay on a population based percentage? Would Norway pony up for $10b to share the expense of a decentralized EU backbone to separate non US traffic?

Skip the fact of the origins of the Internet. You seem to forget who pays for the majority of traffic to keep flowing. What you are seeing is capitalism at both its best and worst and only G'mnet interference will change what it presently happening.

Or is it that you want your G'mnet to control the Ineternet. Or maybe the UN, which cant even change their own diapers without two years of meetings, a dozen new councils and a cry for more money and then another two years to further study the problem as they try to figure out a way to side-step the huge US inluence while still trying to force the US to pay the majority of costs.

Or maybe the EU, the new political joke, can do it. Finance it for you by further suing large US based corporations. I would love to see the internal squabling that would result in trying to split up that pie.

The non US world keeps trying to push us out but does not want to pay for what they are even now getting. This only does one thing, it highlights the failure of socialism. While capitalism may not be fun, it does manage to pay its own way.
Posted by R Me (196 comments )
Link Flag
That is Why?
You mention that you dont like what is about to happen. In fact, nothing is about to happen. If you were a little more knowledgeable about how the US government works, you would know that this bill has no chance of becoming law. I dont fault you for that. You have got your own government, not to mention the mess that is EU government, to worry about.

The US doesnt control the internet, but it does have a good deal of influence because so many of the companies that dominate it are American. It didnt have to be that way, but although it was a Brit who in effect invented the thing, it was the American government in conjunction with American research universities that developed it at first for private use and eventually for public use.

That is the reality and there is simply no reliable international entity qualified to regulate it. At that, you Norwegians couldnt have all that much to say about it either because the EU can over-ride so much of what your government does. It would be a different story if the EU had a truly democratic construction, but it is a long way from having that and will never have it the presently proposed Constitution is ever adopted. That thing was the brainchild of a conservative former French politician and is an abomination because there is little that is democratic about it.
Posted by gmcaloon--2008 (72 comments )
Link Flag
YouTube, BrightCove, Skype and Vonage should worry
What do the telecom carriers want? They want the right to charge extra for certain applications at their discretion. Consumers pay about $40 - $60 a month for unlimited internet access. The carriers are rethinking "unlimited" in cases where applications consume huge amounts of bandwidth. Things like video, IPTV, and VoIP could be the target of extra charges from the carriers. Companies like YouTube, BrightCove , Skype, and Vonage might be asked to pay surcharges for bandwidth.

What is the problem? What happens if Verizon decided to charge Skype and Vonage extra for VoIP but allows its own VoIP service to go over its network for free? What happens if Comcast decides to charge BrightCove and other IPTV companies extra and has its own competing IPTV service? What happens if Comcast and Verizon coincidentilly decide to add a surcharge YouTube traffic? What happens if they decide to add a surcharge to Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft just becuase they have billions of dollars and can afford it?

I wrote an in depth blog on this subject today. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2006/06/what_is_net_neu.html" target="_newWindow">http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2006/06/what_is_net_neu.html</a>
Posted by Don_Dodge (64 comments )
Reply Link Flag
re: YouTube, BrightCove, Skype and Vonage should worry
These bandwidth hogs should invest more in HI-BANDWIDTH INTERNET ACCESS via hi-speed, symmetrical BROADBAND over POWERLINES !!!

FYI: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://broadbandoverpowerlines.blogspot.com/" target="_newWindow">http://broadbandoverpowerlines.blogspot.com/</a>
updates the Global trend of broadband over powerlines or BPL/PLC !!!
Posted by 200mbpsBPL (102 comments )
Link Flag
Funny
How they say the government should not get involved here, yet they want to get involved in how I raise my childern by attacking Video Games.

Guess they just haven't learned to talk out of their mouth instead of their a--.
Posted by umbrae (1073 comments )
Reply Link Flag
an alternative 3rd broadband access: Broadband over Power Lines !!!
Rejection of Net Neutrality will force Bandwidth hogs to find new Internet access like Broadband ove PowerLines... globally, BPL is gaining such support too. Read more BPL updates: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://broadbandoverpowerlines.blogspot.com/" target="_newWindow">http://broadbandoverpowerlines.blogspot.com/</a>
Posted by 200mbpsBPL (102 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Just what we need...
...is my broadband being as unreliable as my power. :/

This is not really a solution to this problem. As there is still an ISP involved that can still charge a premium to content providers for access to the fast pipes. Internet over powerlines is ONLY the way to get the connection to the end users. Other than the end-user deployment, the technology is no different than ANY OTHER ISP OR TELCO.

As such, this is just an off-topic post...
Posted by umbrae (1073 comments )
Link Flag
Just say no to BPL!
BPL causes major communications problems with radio signals. Amateur radio operators that live in areas where BPL is being tested will tell you that. Do you really want to kill the airwaves?
Posted by ddesy (4336 comments )
Link Flag
There Are No Alternatives
And then the power companies will exercise the same kind of control as the cable/telecos want to have. The internet over power lines wouldnt solve any problems. It would just add another player.
Posted by gmcaloon--2008 (72 comments )
Link Flag
KORPORATE AMERIKA
If anyone doubts that the current US administration/government has been hijacked by interests that are inimical to the public (at large) good, then this result should settle any questions.
Posted by mnemonician (21 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Net Extortion is a conservative value
The Telcos are used to defending their regional monopolies, they have more political acumen than the internet companies (and they are more RED than the internet companies). The Telcos have under-delivered the American customer, if you take a look at Cell-phone industry, Phones and Services in Europe and Asia (including the developing parts) are far better and inexpensive than that are in North America. Try calling International with your cell-phone, you would be dished nice huge bill, where as in other countries International calls are being given at the "Calling Card" rates.
The broadband, is another area where Telcos are exploiting, sure they are coming up with Fancy marketting campigns, but the US household braodbands are lesser than most of the developed world.

I would not want to give the benefit of "Good faith" to the TelCos, they have mis-used their previleges and have abused their regional near-monopoly status, if the Congress wont reign them in, the fat-cat execs of these companies are going to suck the blood of hardworking companies as well as individuals. It is just matter of time these "Net Gatekeepers" kick full gas on their "Extortion Racket" and well, our Conservative friends will get their share of funding for campaign about "Values".
Posted by YankeePoodle (785 comments )
Link Flag
Big money wins again!
This is just complete C R A P! I'm so SICK AND TIRED of our government getting paid off by the big money!!! Once again, the little guys loss.
Posted by bobby_brady (765 comments )
Reply Link Flag
REMEMBER THIS IN NOVEMBER
Don't forget what the crooks have done!!!!! Post it online!
Spread the word! Our, er, I mean the Korporations'
"representatives" failed---and all for big $...

Wish I could say I was surprised....
Posted by canubelieveit (17 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Questions for the pro-neutrality crowd
That Congress chose not to take control of the Internet is a good thing. If you really think it's a disaster, go on record with some answers to these questions. In five years...

a) I will be paying much more per megabit of bandwidth
b) I will be paying much less per megabit of bandwidth

a) I will have fewer choices of service providers than I do now
b) I will have more choices of service providers than I do now

a) The will be Internet-based competiton for cable TV
b) There will not be Internet-based competition for cable TV

a) My ISP will provide access to fewer Web sites
b) My ISP will provide access to more Web sites

Folks, you really don't want Congress dicating the architecture of the 'net. The term is socialism -- gov't dictating markets -- and it results in scarcity, no matter how good the intentions.

I think that techies and their customers should be making the call. Congress doesn't even know what a packet is...

More <a href="http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/net_neutrality_and_municipal_wifi/">here</a>.
Posted by ORinSF (57 comments )
Reply Link Flag
So which telecom do you work for?
Usually, it's only folks "on the take" that are taking this stance...
Posted by canubelieveit (17 comments )
Link Flag
None. Care to stay on topic?
Seems like you might have found some sort of political dictionary. Very cute. I don't work for any of the interested parties, but nice of you to ask.

If it's too black-and-white, let's get into specifics then. Packet prioritization -- is it being used now and does it provide benefits? Should it be illegal? Would the Markey amendment make it illegal?

This is an issue that should be decided by network experts, not Congress. Looking forward to answers to the above.

(Sorry for the double post, hit the wrong link earlier.)
Posted by ORinSF (57 comments )
Link Flag
Free market only works when there are many competitors.
Free market only works when there are many competitors.

I understand that adding high speed networks costs lots of money. I also understand that ISPs need to be able to charge customers based on the bandwidth they use and I'm fine with that. Thats what web hosts do every day.

However, what is there to prevent ISPs from abusing their power and forcing a small company's website to load significantly slower than a large company's website because they refused to pay a premium? Isn't that considered extortion?

Dont Google and other large companies already pay a premium for their internet connection? Last time I checked, T3 lines arent cheap.

In my home, I already pay a premium to have high-speed internet through my cable provider. How do we keep my ISP for charging me more just because I want to watch a streamed video review from cnet.com, use Vonage to talk to my family, or play a multiplayer game over Xbox Live?

What's the point of paying for broadband internet if a person has pay extra just to take advantage of it? It's like buying a brand new $30,000 car then paying more so you can get the keys or paying extra every time you start the car.

I'm all about free economy and open competition. However, the free economy ideal is a two-edged sword. It's great for consumers when there is a lot of competition, but it sucks when there are very few providers for a product.

Going back to the car example, no car manufacturer would dream for charging extra for the keys or charging for every time you turn the car on because everyone would just go to any of the many other auto makers. But what would happen if there were only 2 decent auto manufactures and both wanted to do that? Well, then you'd be screwed. Since there would be only 2 auto manufactures, they would be giant, and capable of squashing any other manufacture that tried to spring up and give them decent competition.

Unlike the numerous car manufactures, there are only 2 major broadband providers available for home consumers: DSL and cable. Yes, there are other technologies, but if you want decent connection speeds, you really have to choose between those two. Imagine that, two gigantic providers with very little or no real competition.

So, pray tell, where do I go to get broadband if both DSL and Cable want to charge me extra for taking advantage of what I already pay for?

If I were a tech company, big or small, Id keep my anti-trust lawyers on speed dial.
Wouldnt it be ironic if Microsoft sued an ISP on anti-trust grounds?
Posted by rderveloy (16 comments )
Link Flag
Answers
a) I will be paying much more per megabit of bandwidth

'Standard rate' bandwidth will be cheaper, but anythinging of value will not be available on it.

a) I will have fewer choices of service providers than I do now

Government has just proved to be in the pocket of service providers. Don't expect competition any time soon.

b) There will not be Internet-based competition for cable TV

Internet providers = cable TV providers = Telecoms companies. They won't be competing with themselves.

a) My ISP will provide access to fewer Web sites

There will be more websites in existence, but anyone who competes with a service my ISP (read Telco) provides will be blocked.

But what do I care, I live in England where things are working just fine, and looking forward to capitalising on web services while you lot spend the next 20 years in court.
Posted by RichardPetheram (1 comment )
Link Flag
Reply to questions
&gt;In five years...
a) I will be paying much more per megabit of bandwidth
b) I will be paying much less per megabit of bandwidth
If the telcos win, then A; if the forces of godd win, then B

&gt;a) I will have fewer choices of service providers than I do now
b) I will have more choices of service providers than I do now
Same answer except that the number of ISP's will remain constant.

&gt;a) The will be Internet-based competiton for cable TV
b) There will not be Internet-based competition for cable TV
Same answer-if the telcos win, there will be no difference between cable TV and the Internet.

&gt;a) My ISP will provide access to fewer Web sites
b) My ISP will provide access to more Web sites
Same answer, except that if the telcos win, my ISP will be priced out of the broadband market.
Besides, the point has never been that the ISP would restrict access, its that the owner of the wires would restrict access.

Net neutrality rules would not allow the govt to dictate the architecture of the Net; merely ensure that all content is treated equally.

As for "socialism," what do you think massive govt subsidies and tax breaks are, if not socialism?
Posted by Vurk (147 comments )
Link Flag
ENRON: the Sequel
Yeah, lets put broadband over powerlines. Then we can broker the network and power!

I want a list of all those that voted yay or nay. Then a campaign, via the same email to let them know they are ALL on short strings come re-election.

You, the sheeple, are being duped. FCC has no balls, only someone wrapping them up in cash.

We need ACCOUNTABILITY from these that think they are untouchable and full of greed.
Posted by Below Meigh (249 comments )
Reply Link Flag
right on the head
Now the few high speed banwith interenet companies want to sell access to internet websites. Then what will be the incentive to upgrade the bandwith? NONE. Because now they can make money just by charging for access to there customers. The customer gets screwed because it will be limited to speed of access to smaller sites by the provider.
The same thing happen to oil, banking, and cellular industies, Soon there will be Bi-opoloies in all the major industies.
The sheep will get what they want less goverment regulation but less choices too. Prices will be dictated by the two and profits will rule not freedom to choice.
This just another Republican "the Coportion knows what is best for the consumer not the govnerment. Let the Coportion give you less freedom to choose.
Posted by pmm6 (11 comments )
Link Flag
Remember when "Republican" meant something decent?
(ignoring historical affiliations with racism, etc.)

I like small government, fiscal and personal responsibility, right
to privacy, my right to bear arms (responsibly)...

It's all about kickbacks to huge corporate lobbyists, placating a
religious base that's in the minority, letting the executive branch
seize as much power as possible, and ignoring the gargantuan
deficit.

Maybe kicking them out in November will bring the Republicans
back to their senses -- where they focus on American virtue
instead of fear and corporate handouts.

This whole run of lobby-based bills is reckless and embarassing.
Posted by mgreere (332 comments )
Reply Link Flag
When GOP was decent (ignoring racism, etc.)
I agree with you that the GOP is "all about kickbacks to huge corporate lobbyists, placating a religious base..." etc., however, I think you really have to go back to at least the mid 1960s-early 1970s to find any significant number of Republican members of Congress who really supported working class-middle class Americans on economic issues. Although I am a little curious how you could excuse the GOP's "affiliations with racism, etc" from any definition of the word "decent." I guess it comes down to "decent" for whom? Sort of a sad perspective, I'd say.
Posted by workersfirst (1 comment )
Link Flag
None. Care to stay on topic?
Seems like you might have found some sort of political dictionary. Very cute. I don't work for any of the interested parties, but nice of you to ask.

If it's too black-and-white, let's get into specifics then. Packet prioritization -- is it being used now and does it provide benefits? Should it be illegal? Would the Markey amendment make it illegal?

This is an issue that should be decided by network experts, not Congress. Looking forward to answers to the above.
Posted by ORinSF (57 comments )
Reply Link Flag
:-)
"Congress dicating the architecture of the 'net. The term is
socialism -- gov't dictating markets"

And after that, you make a dig about "cute" political terminology
from someone else?
LOL
Uh, you kinda started that...
Love your attention to detail....

I'm also looking forward to those answers, 5 yrs. from now. Be
sure to post 'em, and I'll do the same.
Posted by canubelieveit (17 comments )
Link Flag
Don't confuse QoS with TOLL services
Packet prioritization is good, IF AND ONLY IF it is applied evenly, i.e. ALL rtp traffic (Voice, Video), Not only to voice packets from Broadwing (Verizon's overpriced VoIP service), or only video streams from AOL, (Anyone else that can pay the fabercated toll). You want to prioritize some packets on your backbone Mr. Telco, fine go ahead, but apply it evenly to all VoIP Traffic, all video traffic, not just your offerings.

Lets not confuse the two. Paid for QoS is wrong on the public internet, it creates a 2 tier system, the haves and the have nots, with the Telco's holding all the keys. Since the Telco's can't charge us the consumers directly, they are trying to muscle the content provider, by holding thier subscribers connections ransom.
Posted by LarryLo (164 comments )
Link Flag
Reply
OR, your previous remarks make you appear to be an employee or paid shill for one of the telcos or their lobbyists; this is why you have been accused of such, because you do not realize why a neutral network is more important than a gated network.

As for your questions: yes, packet prioritization is useful; but it should not be used as a revenue-generating device for the bandwidth provider.
No the Markey amendment would not make it illegal; it would make the use of it for profit generation at the expense of other packets illegalI(i.e. using it to slow down non-premium-paid packets).
This issue *had* been settled; it was the telcos who paid to have it *unsettled*.
Posted by Vurk (147 comments )
Link Flag
lawrence lessig title hypocrisy read ip6 and rsvp rfc
next time before writing a law! are you thinking straight captain underpants?
Posted by dipnip (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
My priority, my decision
As far as Im concerned, I pay for open access to the internet. Its
up to me to seek what I want from it , when and at what rate. I
dont want to negotiate with some telecom company that tells me
that my emails have to go slower than some multinational
corporation. I dont want to be told where I can go and how I can
use my service. I use my internet line for a vonage phone and as
far as Im concerned, that is not the business of the telecom
company. Im expressing my right to use my service as I see fit.
This is another case of lobbying corporations lining pockets.
How far will this 'biased' two tier internet go? Will one political
party's emails take longer than the other? Will ethnicities be
forced into the slow lane? Will my service be determined by
someone at a telecom company who can swich me to hi or lo
priority at a whim? Would people ever find out?
Posted by yikes31 (71 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Answers
&gt;&gt;How far will this 'biased' two tier internet go?
All the way.

&gt;&gt;Will one political party's emails take longer than the other?
Yes. and websites, and blogs. Whichever party says they will do something about it will have all their partys emails and websites/blogs blocked.

&gt;&gt; Will ethnicities be forced into the slow lane?
Only the poor ones.

&gt;&gt;Will my service be determined by someone at a telecom company who can swich me to hi or lo priority at a whim?
Yes, so watch what you say; those telecom employees can be might vindictive. And they know your IP address :-).
Or they'll just cut off a swath of IP addresses because their wife or boss just yelled at them.

&gt;&gt;Would people ever find out?
Eventually.
Posted by Vurk (147 comments )
Link Flag
Internet should be
regulated like a utility. Except with a utility there is only one way of supplying the product. Power over line, water through pipes. gas through lines. Internet over POTS, cable, satellite, wireless, BPL, and who know what comes next.

The net has to be utiliized but the last mile needs to be seperated and largely unregulated. The supply however should be regulated as a utility.

While this would be nice to see it will never happen as its makes far too much sense for a group of politicians to grep away contributions.

Guess wee need to kill all lobbiests first.
Posted by R Me (196 comments )
Reply Link Flag
get it right
This has to be one of the most clueless situations I've seen. Full of chicken littles crying FUD.

GET IT RIGHT!

NN has nothing to do at the local ISP level.

Last mile Internet access bandwidth is ever increasing by huge margins. Cable, DSL, and WI-Fi keep upping allowable bandwidth to compete and grab a larger slice of the pie. For them it's nothing more than software settings to change your bandwidth.

What is not increasing is the available bandwidth of the backbone. Everyone expects the increased bandwidth at the local level to just keep flowing as usual. To do so the backbone ownere need to add huge runs of fiber at a cost of BILLIONS. Billions they will not see unless they are able to somehow charge more. So they wish to simply charge the services that are causing this huge increase. Its not normal website surfing but things like video, IPTV, VOIP and other new as of yet emerging tecnologies that require lots of bandwidth.

What it boils down to is that the backbone providers are expecting bandwidth dependant services to have to charge and be charged accordingly. Could you expect a backbone provider to smilingly pony up billions for new pipes without being able to recover just so you can watch old TV shows on your computer?

If NN were ever to pass you could expect the Internet to act like the California power grid. Anyone for rolling net-outs. Not me. The net is not free, someone pays for everything. Its time the FUD spreading crowd shuts up and tells the truth. That is if they can intelligently grep what is really goining on. If you need a clue its called capitalism, where you pay for what you get. So dont expect Internet welfare from the backbone providers, they are the ones who spend billions while hidden behind the scenes so you can happily be a porn wanker while watching IPTV.
Posted by R Me (196 comments )
Reply Link Flag
thanks dude
hallelujah!
Posted by 1st (104 comments )
Link Flag
Yes... "get it right", ...and speaking of "FUD"...
The simple fact is that "Network Neutrality" never actually meant anything but...

...Any individual "data packet", in transit, must be treated like every other "packet", regardless of "origin" or "content".

Every "packet" must simply be "passed-on" by any "Internet-access provider", without "transit favoritism" or "service degradation". This NEVER meant that the "Government" could, in any way, "regulate" "...pricing", "...technology", or "...marketing". This would have simply protected ALL "legal uses" of the Internet from artificial "market-manipulation". Furthermore, this fundamental-approach -IS- the basic structure of the Internet that everybody uses, today. In fact, it was one of the CORE-PRINCIPALS, upon which, the Internet was designed.

Additionally, such "network neutrality" guidelines would have, IN NO WAY, prevented "service-providers" from charging MORE for greater "bandwidth usage", ...that is a "marketing" and "customer-acceptance" issue. "NN" WOULD have simply PREVENTED the, publicly-stated, intentions, of the largest "access-providers", to forcibly extract UNDUE REVENUE from those ALREADY PAYING for their "internet-access", ...and artificially "...throttling..." so-called "...undesirable...", or just plain competing, "...uses".

In short, this IS an "anti-trust", and "consumer protection" issue. This NEVER WAS a "government regulation" issue. And therefore, claims of turning the Internet into "...a public-utility", were NEVER anything more than an INTENTIONAL SMOKE-SCREEN, ...a RED-HERRING, created by the very Corporations that intend to ARTIFICIALLY-CONTROL the operation of the Internet, for their own, GREEDY, self-serving ends, ...by virtue of their PUBLICLY-SUBSIDIZED MONOPOLY-POSITIONS.

Additionally, before the inevitable IDIOTIC counter-argument shows-up... IF... the "Big Telcos" DIDNT intend to do EXACTLY this... then WHY, have they expended so much MONEY, and public-relations SPIN and FUD, defeating a law that would have, allegedly, NEVER HAVE AFFECTED THEM in the first place..?

In my opinion it IS truly is SAD that so many sock-puppets are, so eagerly, spewing so much "FUD" (aka LIES), just to protect a CLEARLY CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS OBVIOUS-COLLUSION with such apparent CORPORATE-CROOKS.

But, that DOES seem to be the STATUS QUO, today, ...doesnt it..?
Posted by Had_to_be_said (384 comments )
Link Flag
Poor people lose again
This will create special fast lanes for the wealthy and leave the poor stranded on a slow lane. Typical American "Free Enterprize".
Posted by GrandpaN1947 (187 comments )
Reply Link Flag
So Disappointed
What can be said? This is so disappointing.
We see how well this approach worked for
cable television. Now you can't afford basic.
AT&#38;T owns everything again. We can't send up
smoke signals due to EPA requirements. Drums
would be noise pollution.

I guess the post office better revamp. We'll
be going back to snail mail real soon.
Posted by CleanFreak (5 comments )
Link Flag
This can get ugly.
Well, being about as faar conservative as you can go on the politcal spectrum. I find this embarrasing. The internet is not something to be controlled by any government. It spans the world. How can you government control that. Its ironic that of all the governments in the world, the one that was careated to ensure liberty, equality, and freedom, is the one to say "Not all websites are created equal".
Posted by GuardianAero (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.