Posted on 06/09/2006 5:26:45 AM PDT by mathprof
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 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. [snip]
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.[snip]
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.zdnet.com ...
it has absolutely nothing to do with the fairness doctrine. You're being sold a bill of goods by the telecoms.
Blocking an RF signal???? Uh...it doesn't work that way.
Look I wasn't arguing with your point about fiber being superior in terms of tech specs, but I was trying to point out the reasons why it hasn't taken off like so many thought it should.
I've had my share of burns too. The lesson that finally got through to me is to watch what the users choose.
There's a history of things that have come and gone, that were superior to all competing forms but were rejected for mysterious reasons.
I just see people choosing wireless over any form of land-based connection.
Depends on the signal and yes it does work that way.
Do you know if they are using anything to encrypt the links between towers and end stations?
Absolutely. There is ample security, multiple encryptions including from corporate backend to carrier to enduser and vice versa.
The whole debate is about 'transportation costs' meaning carriers want to charge higher for faster bandwidth.
Well the answer to those plays has always been to turn the tables on them by new disruptive technology.
Net Neutrality is another 'good intention' that will evolve into regulating the internet, and that will be costly as well as restrictive.
We the endusers have to stay ahead of the game by going with competing tech, that would be WIMAX.
BTT
It looks like "net neutrality" will regulate the mainstream internet into mediocrity. Mediocrity usually favors controlled information. Fortunately, bloggers form networks that bypass most major institutions, and bloggers rely on each other for information.
Chaos theory undoubtedly would predict that people will find a way to circumvent and plough through any government controls.
Yes. When you call other countries or long distance, they charge accordingly.
are power companies allowed to restrict what i use electricity for that comes across their wires?
Yes. If you exceed a certain usage level, the equipment must be changed accordingly, at your expense, and per the utility company's regulation. Obviously, the more you use, the more you pay.
Content providers pay for their end of the network (usually on a per gigabyte basis)...
Well there's the catch: If I want to be able to pay MORE for better quality (uncrowded) internet service, I should not be restricted from doing so. "Net neutrality" regulation would have prevented me from acquiring a higher level of service, that sets me apart from mainstream users, as the internet becomes more and more crowded.
Question for you: Are governments allowed to control your water usage?
That's the question that too many people are asking, which is why it's probably a good thing that the legislation didn't pass--because too few people know what the hell it's about. Among those who have knowledge or interest, there is no partisan split, so I don't know why the House vote split on partisan lines.
Tim Wu and Larry Lessig are the best sources of info on the matter, imo.
Info:
No Tolls on The Internet
Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination
The Economics of Net Neutrality:Why the Physical Layer of the Internet Should Not Be Regulated
FAQ
Exactly.
First and foremost, I'm against most attempts of government to regulate beyond what is absolutely necessary. IOW, government is often the problem and not the solution.
Having said this, I'm also in favor of Net Neutrality as it is not government regulation.
Rather, it's guaranteeing the right of the consumer to use liberal (unrestricted/pure) Internet and newer technology (via paying the entry and exit tollmen) instead of junking up the Information Superhighway with VIP lanes and myriads of unnecessary middlemen tollbooths.
Without Net Neutrality, liberal Internet becomes another virtually-exclusive power toy for the extremely wealthy--which is the exact antithesis of what the men and women who worked hard to establish the Internet as we know it (e.g. Tim Berners-Lee, Vin Cerf, etc.) meant it to be.
In short, not having Net Neutrality defeats the entire principle of liberal Internet.
Instead, liberal internet becomes a carrot and stick tool employed by telco executives to milk more money out of consumers. By effectively telling you that you can only visit these sites on this network for this price, they can use less-restrictive access as a marketing ploy to offer "premium" and "ultimate" services for higher rates.
Further, while having better (less-restrictive) access based on what people can afford is not necessarily a bad thing, it is extremely damaging to individuals, education, and small/medium business--especially those who rely on having decent Internet right now and tomorrow finding that they can't afford to pay higher fees.
Many sites that we frequent and enjoy would very soon easily become out of our grasp--as another poster mentioned that if one's stuck with a lefty-leaning telco, you're going to have to really pay to be on FR...
I'm not opposed to telcos charging higher rates for faster Internet or for added features (e.g. comprehensive spam blocking, cut rates on phone or cable service, etc.). That's perfectly fine. But the government imprimatur for your ISP to charge an arm and a leg to be able to choose where we want to go is pure insanity--especially economically.
Consider this: since most of our businesses are small businesses, the effect on the economy would not only be devastating, but possibly a return to an economy rooted before anti-trust legislation (the robber barons).
As a result, many of the small and medium companies go bust. End result: The American economy takes a serious hit which will take years to recover.
Thus from what I've seen, it's a purely Machiavellian move by conservatives to oppose Net Neutrality.
Think about it. Do we really want to be the ones responsible for this mess?
Don't worry. After the Dems take the House again, they will pass Net Neu-fascism. And, as the laws of economics predict, we will all suffer for it.
If you take the time to read your contract with your cable company or DSL provider, you will see that they retain the right to do pretty much whatever they want--censorship, service restrictions, etc. Some lefty read this and screamed murder, despite the fact that broadband providers have rarely imposed any restrictions.
Then, companies that use the Internet heavily, like Google and Amazon, saw a way to keep (by force of law) the broadband providers from charging them fees for using their bandwidth. Thus "Net Neutrality" was born. A solution without a problem.
The proponents cry free speech, but what they are doing is trying to deny broadband providers their property rights. They are also driving out the profit motive that has put 24/7 broadband service into the homes of common Joes like you and me.
Cable companies have invested billions of dollars to feverishly produce the explosion of high speed Internet access that we have today, and they are looking at alternative business models (besides just end-user subscription fees) for realizing a profit from it.
"IIRC, what makes the Internet great is that anybody can be a publisher with great reach, or a world-wide businessman, with little capital investment. That great equalizer will now go away."
I doubt it. The great equalizer here will be capitalism. It always is. People will simply leave ISPs that charge on a tiered basis in that way. It will be less than subtle when these ISPs try it, and less than subtle when they turn into AOLs as a result.
"What if the interstate highway system was administered by the private sector, with high speed lanes for rich fatcats?"
In some cities, that is the case, with toll roads. That is a GOOD thing, as long as the toll roads aren't Keloed into place. And I don't understand how a capitalist can decry that idea. You're really showing your true colors there.
"The great equalizer here will be capitalism."
Provided government regulation doesn't get in the way.
Bump to that!
There won't be any viable option when the few major backbone providers put in the toll booths. Everybody's traffic goes across them, so they basically get to hold the American Internet hostage.
How? They invested that money based on the profits they make under the current neutral model.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.