June 22, 2006 4:00 AM PDT

Senate panel poised for Net neutrality vote

(continued from previous page)

Just as forceful on the other side of the debate are a number of the committee's Republicans. They argue that any new regulations will stifle the growth of broadband networks and the spread of new, high-bandwidth services, such as video.

"We have principles that have already been put forward by the FCC supporting Internet freedom, if that's what we want to call it," New Hampshire Republican John Sununu said at a hearing last week.

Broadband for all

Only a fraction of the Senate's mammoth bill actually deals with Net neutrality.

The overarching goal for much of the legislation, backers say, is speeding the deployment of broadband services to every corner of America, however poor or remote. In tackling that goal, the bill covers far more territory than does its House counterpart.

Among other provisions, the Senate bill would:

• Give local governments the right to deploy their own broadband networks. The measure is designed to preempt existing laws in a number of states which, under pressure from large network operators, have decided to restrict the ability of cities to set up shop. Under the Senate proposal, cities would have to publish notice of their proposals, seek public comment, explore partnerships with private companies and disclose the estimated cost to taxpayers.

• Set aside up to $500 million per year from the Universal Service Fund especially for broadband in "unserved" areas. The bill also seeks to expand that multibillion dollar pool of money, which currently comes from fees passed on to wireless, wireline and pay phone customers, and soon, to voice over Internet Protocol subscribers as well. The fund has come under tough criticism because of allegations of fraud, waste and abuse, and others question expanding the subsidies in a marketplace where broadband prices appear to be decreasing.

• Allow wireless devices to operate on unused broadcast television airwaves, or "white spaces." Companies interested in deploying Wi-Fi networks covet those bands of spectrum because the inherent scientific properties could enable cheaper and easier setup--and thus more-widespread access for rural and low-income areas. But the politically powerful National Association of Broadcasters has voiced resistance to the idea, arguing that the devices would muddle the reception of over-the-air TV stations.

The flag is still there

Another hot-button issue buried in the bill is the revival of a now-defunct FCC copy-protection regime known as the broadcast flag. The FCC's original rules would have made it illegal to "sell or distribute" any digital TV product that lacked the technology to limit a person's ability to redistribute video clips--particularly over the Internet--made from recorded over-the-air broadcasts.

A federal court yanked down the flag last spring after concluding that the FCC didn't have the authority to require manufacturers to include the flag in their products. The bill, however, would expressly grant regulators that power. It would also permit the FCC to make similar rules for digital radio receivers.

A coalition of librarians and public interest groups filed suit against the original flag regulations last year, arguing that they would threaten, among other things, consumers' ability to make "fair use" of copyright works.

"It puts Hollywood, acting through the FCC, in charge of how consumer electronics manufacturers should build their devices," said Art Brodsky, a spokesman for the nonprofit group Public Knowledge, one of the plaintiffs in the suit.

Senate committee aides said earlier this week that a number of Republicans share concerns about the government's wading into technological mandates. They would rather not see the provisions in the bill at all but added them after pressure from Democrats like Barbara Boxer, who counts a large chunk of the entertainment industry in her California constituency.

"Piracy is a dagger in the heart of all the industries that rely on intellectual-property protection," Dan Glickman, CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, told the politicians at a hearing last week, "and we believe that your bill will help us in the fight against piracy."

Previous page
Page 1 | 2

See more CNET content tagged:
Net Neutrality, amendment, regulation, aide, Democrat

32 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
They Say...I Say...
They Say:

"...want a blanket ban on a new business model that large network operators have been openly contemplating--charging sites and services a premium fee for priority placement and speeds across their pipes."

I Say:

"...want to stop the large network operators from abusing their monopoly to generate new revenues from arbitrary bandwidth restriction on a captive consumer...thereby changing the very foundation of the internet"

Amazing what happens when you change some words.
Posted by LarryLo (164 comments )
Reply Link Flag
They Say...I Say...
They Say:

"...want a blanket ban on a new business model that large network operators have been openly contemplating--charging sites and services a premium fee for priority placement and speeds across their pipes."

I Say:

"...want to stop the large network operators from abusing their monopoly to generate new revenues from arbitrary bandwidth restriction on a captive consumer...thereby changing the very foundation of the internet"

Amazing what happens when you change some words.
Posted by LarryLo (164 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Here is where I openly critisize the democrats...
... yes, I have independent thought, even though my views may be more toward " the left", ie civil liberties and all that, but here is a case of dmes, not following their ideaology, but rather getting the big pay off from corporate interests. It's on both sides. I'd say more on the GOP side, but it really stings when it comes from the dems. Boxer needs to go. Unfortunately, she is not up for re-election this year. But she's a corporate shill, she does not represent dems in power, or her constituents, but the almighty dollar. She makes me sick.
Posted by MisterFlibble (207 comments )
Reply Link Flag
That is were you go wrong
We live in a one party state, with the 2 "sides" being different sides of the same coin.

Democrats are as corrupt and beholden to corporate interests as republicans.

I bet you thought Clinton was a liberal. LOL
Posted by qwerty75 (1164 comments )
Link Flag
True
Everyone knows the republicans work for big business and will always come out on the side of industry over the public. But these traitorous phoney democrats who are supposed to care about the average person really make me sick. It's almost November when it's time to vote out all the corrupt people in both parties.
Posted by jdbwar07 (150 comments )
Link Flag
Here is where I openly critisize the democrats...
... yes, I have independent thought, even though my views may be more toward " the left", ie civil liberties and all that, but here is a case of dmes, not following their ideaology, but rather getting the big pay off from corporate interests. It's on both sides. I'd say more on the GOP side, but it really stings when it comes from the dems. Boxer needs to go. Unfortunately, she is not up for re-election this year. But she's a corporate shill, she does not represent dems in power, or her constituents, but the almighty dollar. She makes me sick.
Posted by MisterFlibble (207 comments )
Reply Link Flag
That is were you go wrong
We live in a one party state, with the 2 "sides" being different sides of the same coin.

Democrats are as corrupt and beholden to corporate interests as republicans.

I bet you thought Clinton was a liberal. LOL
Posted by qwerty75 (1164 comments )
Link Flag
True
Everyone knows the republicans work for big business and will always come out on the side of industry over the public. But these traitorous phoney democrats who are supposed to care about the average person really make me sick. It's almost November when it's time to vote out all the corrupt people in both parties.
Posted by jdbwar07 (150 comments )
Link Flag
They Really Don't Understand
I wonder if the memebers of Congress really know how much of their email they don't get. I think if they really understood that the 'gatekeepers' are already deciding what you can and can't get, they certainly would not be so willing ot give them more power.

Do they understand that emails on a certain subject can be blocked and they will never know? I don't think so. You and I are aware of how difficult it can be to get an email through the system. But I don't think they 'get it'.

Heck, just since the switchover from SBC to AT&T - I have customer emails that I don't get, vendor emails that I don't get. Try getting technical support when you can't get the emails to give the answer. They have already changed their filtering. Are you getting your emails? Do you even know?

Yes, building out is great, but it has to be done on the backs of the people who will pay more. That is true. But you can't take the basic international communication tool and hand it over to big business.

Would congress be so quick to act if they realized that their email is already filtered? That they probably don't even know how much of their email they DON'T get? That they are already a victim, just like us?

Big Brother is alive and well.
Posted by CleanFreak (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Mail didn't get sent across town
I met an old friend a few nights ago, got her email address, and sent her a note to her address at the domain broadband.net. I figured it would be fast service. My isp came back with the msg hours later that it hadn't gone through yet. And I still haven't had a reply. I suspect that it was blocked.

Email is too important to be treated as trash by telecom firms. So is e-commerce from the countless sites that will not be bribing the big telecom firms. Reliability is a must for making e-commerce, public interest activity and just plain social contact work.
Posted by RavingEniac (57 comments )
Link Flag
They Really Don't Understand
I wonder if the memebers of Congress really know how much of their email they don't get. I think if they really understood that the 'gatekeepers' are already deciding what you can and can't get, they certainly would not be so willing ot give them more power.

Do they understand that emails on a certain subject can be blocked and they will never know? I don't think so. You and I are aware of how difficult it can be to get an email through the system. But I don't think they 'get it'.

Heck, just since the switchover from SBC to AT&T - I have customer emails that I don't get, vendor emails that I don't get. Try getting technical support when you can't get the emails to give the answer. They have already changed their filtering. Are you getting your emails? Do you even know?

Yes, building out is great, but it has to be done on the backs of the people who will pay more. That is true. But you can't take the basic international communication tool and hand it over to big business.

Would congress be so quick to act if they realized that their email is already filtered? That they probably don't even know how much of their email they DON'T get? That they are already a victim, just like us?

Big Brother is alive and well.
Posted by CleanFreak (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Mail didn't get sent across town
I met an old friend a few nights ago, got her email address, and sent her a note to her address at the domain broadband.net. I figured it would be fast service. My isp came back with the msg hours later that it hadn't gone through yet. And I still haven't had a reply. I suspect that it was blocked.

Email is too important to be treated as trash by telecom firms. So is e-commerce from the countless sites that will not be bribing the big telecom firms. Reliability is a must for making e-commerce, public interest activity and just plain social contact work.
Posted by RavingEniac (57 comments )
Link Flag
Here's an question to the stupid answer below:
"Network operators counter that there's no evidence of any discriminatory behavior and that regulations will stifle companies' ability to offset vast investments in expanding their offerings."


If I walked into a bank knowing at one time I was going to rob it but couldn't right now because the "eyes" were upon me. I would'nt rob the bank.

But,I do know that at one point in time that security would forever be laxed because of a big bank meeting comming up; say in two weeks. I also now that there talking about the bank security and the need to either upgrade it or down-grade it. Then I would just wait until the decision was made to decide if I rob the bank or not.

You see, I already

You see, obviously a network service provider isn't going to pull a stunt like charging extra for network bandwidth to content providers when eye's are on them.

But, if the eye's go away then It's the same as me robbing the bank because I knew that the security was going away.

See, you know that I'm going to rob the bank if the meeting goes in my favor, I've already told you that. Just like some ISP's have already shown some sort of behavior on this subject otherwise it wouldn't be on the AGENDA!

Ask the ISP's if they have ANY business models left beyond those that have been used. They may tell you that there is no "current" business model to exploit content; but if you pass this bill in my favor I will pull it out of the drawer.

You see, ISP's can't make any more money unless this bill goes in there favor. If this bill way's in the favor of "no Net Neutrality" or "limited Net Neutrality" than the ISP's will be able to charge not only HOSTING providers but also the those end consumers that use an ISP to connect to the net.

And if you want to argue this with me go right ahead, I'm a WEB A/V Content Provider as well as a WEB DEVELOPER and TECH GENIUS. My Company Tech01 (www.tech01.net) provides video and audio content for commercial web use. This bill directly effects me and my very business' future.

So Congress People, when your up there on the Hill today arguing about MY future, just remember, I don't have thousand, even hundreds, let alone a dollar to give an ISP for content that I created in hopes of the American Dream.

The ISP didn't create my content, yet they want to profit off of it. That is WRONG in anybodys book. I work hard to produce content for profit. Just because I work hard to create the content doesnt' me I should have to give that up to ISP's.

You see, I pay the ISP's twice, unlike those that just use the web for surfing your favorite web sites. I create those very sites you surf, so to create those sites I have to pay a WEB HOSTING company every month. That WEB HOSTING company pay's an ISP even more money than you (the web user) and me (the web content provider).

So you see, the ISP's is already getting paid, twice over and then some. How about the ISP's that run Web Hosting Services?

Greedy, just plain GREEDY.

Remember Congress People when your up there this afternoon "on the Hill". Your up there "By The People for The People". Think about the people, not those that already have millions, but those like me that are looking for the millions! You know, the "American Dream".

Justin Gund
Tech01
www.Tech01.net
Posted by OneWithTech (196 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Here's an question to the stupid answer below:
"Network operators counter that there's no evidence of any discriminatory behavior and that regulations will stifle companies' ability to offset vast investments in expanding their offerings."


If I walked into a bank knowing at one time I was going to rob it but couldn't right now because the "eyes" were upon me. I would'nt rob the bank.

But,I do know that at one point in time that security would forever be laxed because of a big bank meeting comming up; say in two weeks. I also now that there talking about the bank security and the need to either upgrade it or down-grade it. Then I would just wait until the decision was made to decide if I rob the bank or not.

You see, I already

You see, obviously a network service provider isn't going to pull a stunt like charging extra for network bandwidth to content providers when eye's are on them.

But, if the eye's go away then It's the same as me robbing the bank because I knew that the security was going away.

See, you know that I'm going to rob the bank if the meeting goes in my favor, I've already told you that. Just like some ISP's have already shown some sort of behavior on this subject otherwise it wouldn't be on the AGENDA!

Ask the ISP's if they have ANY business models left beyond those that have been used. They may tell you that there is no "current" business model to exploit content; but if you pass this bill in my favor I will pull it out of the drawer.

You see, ISP's can't make any more money unless this bill goes in there favor. If this bill way's in the favor of "no Net Neutrality" or "limited Net Neutrality" than the ISP's will be able to charge not only HOSTING providers but also the those end consumers that use an ISP to connect to the net.

And if you want to argue this with me go right ahead, I'm a WEB A/V Content Provider as well as a WEB DEVELOPER and TECH GENIUS. My Company Tech01 (www.tech01.net) provides video and audio content for commercial web use. This bill directly effects me and my very business' future.

So Congress People, when your up there on the Hill today arguing about MY future, just remember, I don't have thousand, even hundreds, let alone a dollar to give an ISP for content that I created in hopes of the American Dream.

The ISP didn't create my content, yet they want to profit off of it. That is WRONG in anybodys book. I work hard to produce content for profit. Just because I work hard to create the content doesnt' me I should have to give that up to ISP's.

You see, I pay the ISP's twice, unlike those that just use the web for surfing your favorite web sites. I create those very sites you surf, so to create those sites I have to pay a WEB HOSTING company every month. That WEB HOSTING company pay's an ISP even more money than you (the web user) and me (the web content provider).

So you see, the ISP's is already getting paid, twice over and then some. How about the ISP's that run Web Hosting Services?

Greedy, just plain GREEDY.

Remember Congress People when your up there this afternoon "on the Hill". Your up there "By The People for The People". Think about the people, not those that already have millions, but those like me that are looking for the millions! You know, the "American Dream".

Justin Gund
Tech01
www.Tech01.net
Posted by OneWithTech (196 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Senate Bill Contains MPAA & RIAA Malware
Broadband for all. Now I will sign up for that, because Broadband For All will deliver expanded Web-Freedom For All.

Unfortunately, only a fraction of the Senates mammoth Communications, Consumers Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 actually deals with Network Neutrality.

At first glance, the working draft of the Senate Bill looks positive. It gives local governments the right to deploy their own broadband nets, and permits frequency spectrum White Space bandwidth to be used for Wi-Fi networks. These are two good Broadband things in support of expanding and promoting overall Web-Freedom, and bridging the broadband digital divide between the digital haves and have nots.

Not so good is the articles second bullet. It calls for expanded spending money from the multibillion dollar Universal Service Fund pool [read slush fund] that comes from fees [read taxes] passed on by Telecos and telecommunications providers to wireless, wireline and pay phone customers, and soon to VoIP subscribers.

Spending from this pool of Universal Service Fund money is already replete with fraud, waste and abuse. Financial $henanigans surrounding the USF have been a full-employment windfall for lawyers. Increasing spending from the U$F will likely lead to an increase in U$F fraud, waste, abuse and other questionable subsidies rather then a concomitant increase in delivery of broadband in unserved areas.

Then there is the Broadcast Flag verbiage stitched into the bill that infringes on personal, legitimate Fair Use. This broadcast flag wording in the draft bill is an end-run around the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruling that the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit manufacture of computer and video hardware that did not have broadcast flag copy protection technology.

If Broadcast Flag becomes law, the MPAA, RIAA and others will be able to dictate the design of digital TVs, recorders and radios not consumers.

What else will be stealthily stitched into the bill before it is passed? What will this Net Neutrality Bill look like after the expected, but currently unknown, scores of amendments are woven into it? We will have to wait and see. JP B-)
Posted by Catgic (106 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Sadly, that's what this bill is.
It's not abill for the consumers at all. It's only for corporate interests, and it's an insult to our intelligence to claim it's for "consumer protection". I hope we can stop this bill after it exists the committe. I've already been bugging my senators over this, I'm going to keep calling and faxing them until I pass out. Stevens wnats to get the bill to the floor soon.
Posted by MisterFlibble (207 comments )
Link Flag
Senate Bill Contains MPAA & RIAA Malware
Broadband for all. Now I will sign up for that, because Broadband For All will deliver expanded Web-Freedom For All.

Unfortunately, only a fraction of the Senates mammoth Communications, Consumers Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 actually deals with Network Neutrality.

At first glance, the working draft of the Senate Bill looks positive. It gives local governments the right to deploy their own broadband nets, and permits frequency spectrum White Space bandwidth to be used for Wi-Fi networks. These are two good Broadband things in support of expanding and promoting overall Web-Freedom, and bridging the broadband digital divide between the digital haves and have nots.

Not so good is the articles second bullet. It calls for expanded spending money from the multibillion dollar Universal Service Fund pool [read slush fund] that comes from fees [read taxes] passed on by Telecos and telecommunications providers to wireless, wireline and pay phone customers, and soon to VoIP subscribers.

Spending from this pool of Universal Service Fund money is already replete with fraud, waste and abuse. Financial $henanigans surrounding the USF have been a full-employment windfall for lawyers. Increasing spending from the U$F will likely lead to an increase in U$F fraud, waste, abuse and other questionable subsidies rather then a concomitant increase in delivery of broadband in unserved areas.

Then there is the Broadcast Flag verbiage stitched into the bill that infringes on personal, legitimate Fair Use. This broadcast flag wording in the draft bill is an end-run around the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruling that the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit manufacture of computer and video hardware that did not have broadcast flag copy protection technology.

If Broadcast Flag becomes law, the MPAA, RIAA and others will be able to dictate the design of digital TVs, recorders and radios not consumers.

What else will be stealthily stitched into the bill before it is passed? What will this Net Neutrality Bill look like after the expected, but currently unknown, scores of amendments are woven into it? We will have to wait and see. JP B-)
Posted by Catgic (106 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Sadly, that's what this bill is.
It's not abill for the consumers at all. It's only for corporate interests, and it's an insult to our intelligence to claim it's for "consumer protection". I hope we can stop this bill after it exists the committe. I've already been bugging my senators over this, I'm going to keep calling and faxing them until I pass out. Stevens wnats to get the bill to the floor soon.
Posted by MisterFlibble (207 comments )
Link Flag
I read the bill yesterday
I did nto see any of what you stated in it. I read the bill at the request a congressman. What I saw was this:
No one broadband company can prevent another carrier accessing the best lines. For example, companies that rent space and pay Verison a fee cannot be denied access to the newest equiptment or lines to offer their own customers.
The wording in the bill leads me to believe that the market needs to be competative. By each company having the same grade of service available to them they will need to compete price wise to corner the market. There will be no "we have this and they don't" marketing that can cause a higher price if want BB 1 rather then BB2 who does not have the extra line speed or what ever.
Companies can still offer their own independent
services within their private framework, but would no longer be able to say they use a faster line or cable since everyone will be entitled to use the same lines and not keep the best for themself, renting out older lines to new carriers.
Posted by pjdw (33 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I read the bill yesterday
I did nto see any of what you stated in it. I read the bill at the request a congressman. What I saw was this:
No one broadband company can prevent another carrier accessing the best lines. For example, companies that rent space and pay Verison a fee cannot be denied access to the newest equiptment or lines to offer their own customers.
The wording in the bill leads me to believe that the market needs to be competative. By each company having the same grade of service available to them they will need to compete price wise to corner the market. There will be no "we have this and they don't" marketing that can cause a higher price if want BB 1 rather then BB2 who does not have the extra line speed or what ever.
Companies can still offer their own independent
services within their private framework, but would no longer be able to say they use a faster line or cable since everyone will be entitled to use the same lines and not keep the best for themself, renting out older lines to new carriers.
Posted by pjdw (33 comments )
Reply Link Flag
This Bill is Junk
This is obviously just another republican bill that pretends to work for the public but really gives more power to corporations.

So thanks to con-gress the telecoms ARE going to engage in net discrimination, and thanks to them Hollywood now controls what we can or can't record (speaking of the broadcast flag). I think everyone should find out who is responsible for the broadcast flag and the removal of net neutrality and then vote against them in November.
Posted by jdbwar07 (150 comments )
Reply Link Flag
This Bill is Junk
This is obviously just another republican bill that pretends to work for the public but really gives more power to corporations.

So thanks to con-gress the telecoms ARE going to engage in net discrimination, and thanks to them Hollywood now controls what we can or can't record (speaking of the broadcast flag). I think everyone should find out who is responsible for the broadcast flag and the removal of net neutrality and then vote against them in November.
Posted by jdbwar07 (150 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Is this going be televised? Are they holding hearing behind closed doors?
I've been checking in with all the different C-SPANs all day, and it doesn't seem like they are going to cover it. Is anyone covering it? This makes me more ticked if they are putting together this bill behind closed doors.
Posted by MisterFlibble (207 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Is this going be televised? Are they holding hearing behind closed doors?
I've been checking in with all the different C-SPANs all day, and it doesn't seem like they are going to cover it. Is anyone covering it? This makes me more ticked if they are putting together this bill behind closed doors.
Posted by MisterFlibble (207 comments )
Reply Link Flag
"No evidence"...Wake up America
Notice how all the telecommunist companies can muster for an argument is that there is "no evidence of any discriminatory behavior and that regulations will stifle companies' ability to offset vast investments in expanding their offerings."

First of all, just because there is no evidence of this behavior does not mean it has not happened. It also does not mean that it will not happen. If we followed their flawed logic, does that mean we should allow Iran to continue its nuclear weapons program just because there is no evidence that they will nuke Isreal off the face of the planet? Everyone knows they will, but there is no evidence that it will happen. It simply cannot be allowed to even get close.

As far as "vast investments", that is a load of hogwash. In reality, taxpayers paid the largtest portion of the costs of that little broadband network out there. As a side note, that little broadband network is nowhere near what it was supposed to be and what the telecommunist companies agreed to make it. It was supposed to be a 45Mbps network that was available to all neighborhoods, rich or poor. Real money was paid to the telecommunist companies to build this network. Instead, the telecommunist companies used legal loopholes and an administration change to get out of it in favor of using decades-old technology to offer a standard of service far below what they promised and were paid for.

The Internet was made to be free and open. All Internet packets are "best effort" which means that nothing, other than network congestion, impedes a packet's progress from its origin to its destination. The telecommunist companies want to change that by limiting a packet's progress in favor of their own partner's packet. This goes against everything the Internet was designed for and is a gross misuse of QoS principles. QoS, in all of its various forms, was designed to improve the performance of network services that have little tolerance for network latency such as media streaming or teleconferencing. Telecommunists want to misuse the technology to limit the performance of websites and content of those that do not submit to their extortionist tactics in favor of their own content. This is wrong. Everyone knows this except those that are blinded by greed and ignorance.

Ed Whitacre, CEO of AT&T, is a classic example of an over-the-hill executive that has far outlived his usefulness. In the era of digital media, he is desperately trying to hang on to an outdated business model. He wants to stay in his comfort zone. I understand that. But if he is so intent on staying in his comfort zone, no matter how ancient, he should be relegated to the rest home with the other executives. His antiquated ideas have no place in todays world.

Even if the concept of network neutrality does not come to pass now, we will bide our time until the ancient and useless CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, and armies of useless VPs are forced into retirement and sent to the bone yard. The young and enlightened will be only too happy to scrap the ancient ways and look forward to the way it should be.
Posted by thenet411 (415 comments )
Reply Link Flag
It's true
A book called "The $200 Billion Broadband Scandal" gives the details of how the telco companies were supposed to re-wire america with 45 mbps connections, but kept the $200 billion and didn't do it.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.newnetworks.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.newnetworks.com/</a>

The author of the book is apparently making it free for a week (started on Tuesday).
Posted by jdbwar07 (150 comments )
Link Flag
"No evidence"...Wake up America
Notice how all the telecommunist companies can muster for an argument is that there is "no evidence of any discriminatory behavior and that regulations will stifle companies' ability to offset vast investments in expanding their offerings."

First of all, just because there is no evidence of this behavior does not mean it has not happened. It also does not mean that it will not happen. If we followed their flawed logic, does that mean we should allow Iran to continue its nuclear weapons program just because there is no evidence that they will nuke Isreal off the face of the planet? Everyone knows they will, but there is no evidence that it will happen. It simply cannot be allowed to even get close.

As far as "vast investments", that is a load of hogwash. In reality, taxpayers paid the largtest portion of the costs of that little broadband network out there. As a side note, that little broadband network is nowhere near what it was supposed to be and what the telecommunist companies agreed to make it. It was supposed to be a 45Mbps network that was available to all neighborhoods, rich or poor. Real money was paid to the telecommunist companies to build this network. Instead, the telecommunist companies used legal loopholes and an administration change to get out of it in favor of using decades-old technology to offer a standard of service far below what they promised and were paid for.

The Internet was made to be free and open. All Internet packets are "best effort" which means that nothing, other than network congestion, impedes a packet's progress from its origin to its destination. The telecommunist companies want to change that by limiting a packet's progress in favor of their own partner's packet. This goes against everything the Internet was designed for and is a gross misuse of QoS principles. QoS, in all of its various forms, was designed to improve the performance of network services that have little tolerance for network latency such as media streaming or teleconferencing. Telecommunists want to misuse the technology to limit the performance of websites and content of those that do not submit to their extortionist tactics in favor of their own content. This is wrong. Everyone knows this except those that are blinded by greed and ignorance.

Ed Whitacre, CEO of AT&#38;T, is a classic example of an over-the-hill executive that has far outlived his usefulness. In the era of digital media, he is desperately trying to hang on to an outdated business model. He wants to stay in his comfort zone. I understand that. But if he is so intent on staying in his comfort zone, no matter how ancient, he should be relegated to the rest home with the other executives. His antiquated ideas have no place in todays world.

Even if the concept of network neutrality does not come to pass now, we will bide our time until the ancient and useless CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, and armies of useless VPs are forced into retirement and sent to the bone yard. The young and enlightened will be only too happy to scrap the ancient ways and look forward to the way it should be.
Posted by thenet411 (415 comments )
Reply Link Flag
It's true
A book called "The $200 Billion Broadband Scandal" gives the details of how the telco companies were supposed to re-wire america with 45 mbps connections, but kept the $200 billion and didn't do it.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.newnetworks.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.newnetworks.com/</a>

The author of the book is apparently making it free for a week (started on Tuesday).
Posted by jdbwar07 (150 comments )
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.