Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Republicans Defeat Net Neutrality Bill

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Nobody expects the Senior Member Lemur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin Death Trip
    Posts
    15,754

    Default Republicans Defeat Net Neutrality Bill

    Verizon and AT&T want to create a tiered internet, where you pay extra to get speedy service. I don't particularly like the idea, as the neutrality of the internet is one of the reasons it has been so successful. A bill was put forward to keep the net neutral, but congressional Republicans defeated it. Ugh.

    How much longer do we have to put up with this behavior?

    Full article:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Republicans defeat Net neutrality proposal

    By Declan McCullagh

    Story last modified Wed Apr 05 18:17:46 PDT 2006

    A partisan divide pitting Republicans against Democrats on the question of Internet regulation appears to be deepening.

    A Republican-controlled House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Wednesday defeated a proposal that would have levied extensive regulations on broadband providers and forcibly prevented them from offering higher-speed video services to partners or affiliates.

    By an 8-to-23 margin, the committee members rejected a Democratic-backed "Net neutrality" amendment to a current piece of telecommunications legislation. The amendment had attracted support from companies including Amazon.com, eBay, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and their chief executives wrote a last-minute letter to the committee on Wednesday saying such a change to the legislation was "critical."

    Before the vote, amendment sponsor Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, assailed his Republican colleagues. "We're about to break with the entire history of the Internet," Markey said. "Everyone should understand that."

    This philosophical rift extends beyond the precise wording of the telecommunications legislation. It centers on whether broadband providers will be free to design their networks as they see fit and enjoy the latitude to prioritize certain types of traffic--such as streaming video--over others. (In an interview last week with CNET News.com, Verizon Chief Technology Officer Mark Wegleitner said prioritization is necessary to make such services economically viable.)

    After a day of debate, the committee went on to vote 27-4 in favor of approving the final bill--minus the Democrats' amendment--sending it onward to full committee consideration, expected in late April. The vote on the amendment itself did not occur strictly along party lines, with one Republican voting in favor and four Democrats voting against it.

    Leading Republicans have dismissed concerns about Net neutrality, also called network neutrality, as simultaneously overblown and overly vague.

    "This is not Chicken Little, the sky is not falling, we're not going to change the direction of the axis of the earth on this vote," said Rep. John Shimkus, an Illinois Republican. He said overregulatory Net neutrality provisions would amount to picking winners and losers in the marketplace and discourage investment in faster connections that will benefit consumers.

    Last week, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton said: "Before we get too far down the road, I want to let the market kind of sort itself out, and I'm not convinced that we really have a problem with Net neutrality."

    Barton and other Republican leaders of the House panel did, however, offer some modest changes to a telecommunications bill in response to concerns from Internet and software companies.

    Their replacement bill would require the Federal Communications Commission to vet all complaints of violations of Net neutrality principles within 90 days. It gave the FCC the power to levy fines of up to $500,000 per violation.

    It also contained explicit language denying the FCC the authority to make new rules on Net neutrality. Democrats charged that lack of enforcement power would mean the FCC would be unable to deal with the topic flexibly.

    Rep. Charles Pickering, a Mississippi Republican, backed that less-regulatory approach, saying that a "case-by-case adjudicatory process" is the best way to address Net neutrality concerns while ensuring competition in the marketplace.

    Democrat's failed proposal
    The amendment that was rejected on Wednesday took a similar approach to strict Net neutrality legislation introduced in the Senate last month by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden.

    It said that any content provider must be awarded bandwidth "with equivalent or better capability than the provider extends to itself or affiliated parties, and without the imposition of any charge." That would likely prohibit any plans by Verizon or other former Bell companies to offer their own video services that would be given priority over other traffic (video is bandwidth-intensive and intolerant of network delays).

    "I think this walled garden approach that many network providers would like to create would fundamentally change the way the Internet works and undermine the power of the Net as a force of innovation and change," said Rep. Anna Eshoo, a California Democrat.

    Markey warned: '"There is a fundamental choice. It's the choice between the bottleneck designs of a...small handful of very large companies and the dreams and innovations of thousands of online companies and innovators."

    By "very large companies," Markey was not referring to Microsoft, which has a market value of $287 billion, but its much smaller political rival Verizon, which has a market value of $101 billion and has opposed Net neutrality mandates. Markey did not appear to be referring to Google, which has a value of $121 billion and has been lobbying on behalf of federal regulations, but to AT&T, which has a value of $105 billion and has opposed them.

    A CNET News.com report published last week, however, showed that the Internet industry is being outspent in Washington by more than a 3-to-1 margin.

    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.)

    In the last week, the Net neutrality debate in Washington has spread beyond the circles of lobbyists for telecommunications and e-commerce companies.

    A network of conservative and free-market groups has begun warning Congress that Net neutrality regulations are not consistent with Republican laissez-faire principles and protection of private-property rights.

    The American Conservative Union, the National Taxpayers Union, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey's FreedomWorks, and Citizens Against Government Waste were among the signers of a letter Friday that said the Democrat-backed proposal would let the FCC "exercise complete discretion over the Internet."

    "At the very least," the letter cautioned, "the vague terminology could lead to an explosion of litigation, which would, in turn, deter capital investments in technology and thwart the evolution of the Internet."

    Republican insider Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, which opposes tax hikes, added in a letter on Tuesday that "a network neutrality provision in any form would begin down the dangerous path of Internet regulation.

  2. #2
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,690
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Republicans Defeat Net Neutrality Bill

    If people want to definitely have a set speed connection between two points, then I think they should be allowed to pay for it. Personally I think that any organisations with that much pull / cash should lay some cable themselves.

    But as it could quickly mean as you point out that the majority get a raw deal as providers give us our "up to 500MB" service that in fact never gets above 5MB if you live near someone who'se got a deal for a set speed.

    It would only be fair if this tiered model meant that light users could get much cheaper contracts for their service, which are currently not available.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  3. #3

    Default Re: Republicans Defeat Net Neutrality Bill

    For one, they want to double-dip and charge websites (eg. Google) as well as the customer. If it is a telephone, they want to charge both ends of the line, not just the caller. If it was mail, they want to charge not just the sender for stamps but also the recipient.

  4. #4
    Nobody expects the Senior Member Lemur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin Death Trip
    Posts
    15,754

    Red face Re: Republicans Defeat Net Neutrality Bill

    Quietus, you nail the problem squarely. The network providers are in a hissy fit that they're not seeing the profits that Google, Yahoo and Amazon are making, and rather than attempting to compete with a better product (the Free Market way) they're attempting to put chokepoints and legislation in their favor (the Soviet way). I have nothing but contempt for them.

    Depressing conclusions reaced at Ars Technica:

    Any sort of Congressional endorsement of network neutrality seems a long shot at this point. Last month, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced net neutrality legislation in the Senate that would have had the same effect as the defeated House amendment. However, given the current climate in Washington, its prospects do not appear strong. Part of the blame for that may lay with Google, Microsoft, and other companies that rely on the Internet for a significant chunk of their business. According to a C|net report, the telecoms are far more invested in lobbying than their opponents, spending over three times the amount of money. Maybe it's time for Google, Yahoo!, and Amazon to build a serious presence on Capitol Hill.

  5. #5
    Arena Senior Member Crazed Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Between the Mountain and the Sound
    Posts
    11,074
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Republicans Defeat Net Neutrality Bill

    The free market way is not to pour more regulation to stop companies from doing things you don't like. Consumers (not you, or your congressman) will choose which they like better. And if you don't like it, don't use verizon or AT&T for internet, but don't try and stop the company from doing something that you don't like through legislation. And certainly don't even attempt to claim that legislation is 'the free market way'.

    Crazed Rabbit
    Ja Mata, Tosa.

    The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder

  6. #6
    Nobody expects the Senior Member Lemur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin Death Trip
    Posts
    15,754

    Default Re: Republicans Defeat Net Neutrality Bill

    CR, if I had more faith in the Republicans, I would reach the same conclusions you have. Unfortunately I do not see them in that light. The current Dem proposal was not great, but I would like to see some sort of endorsement of net neutrality come out of that bog of corruption we call "Congress."

    A free market needs good controls and regulation to function. It's one of life's funny little paradoxes. If I have no incentive not to sell asbestos hot dogs, I just might do it. My imperative is to maximize my profits, period. If society wants any other perogative, it has to be imposed through some sort of rules.

    Ask any economist about it. Regulation and a free market -- the oddball couple that makes life great!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO