Net neutrality missing from sweeping telecom bill

CNET ^ | May 1, 2006, 5:35 PM PDT | Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache Staff Writer, CNET News.com

[fuzzycat]

I use my Sirius S-50 to record from the broadcast constantly. I believe I am paying royalties thru my subscription fee.
Besides, Sirius just settled the issue with the music publishers by paying a one time fee for each new s50 sold.
Ted Stevens needs to take his bridge to nowhere and shove it up his......
Republicans get no more of my money and haven't for some time.
I am fed up with politicians.

[rzeznikj at stout]

Yessiree, no pay-to-play here... /sarc

[steve-b]

if Stevens' legislation passes, a broader swath of Americans would be taxed for the Universal Service Fund

Go jump off your bridge to nowhere, Ted.

[tubebender]

There is another broadband tax that started here in Humblodt County a couple of years ago. SBC was laying a FO cable along side Hiway 101 from Ukiah to Eureka out of the right of way but in a few spots they wanted to permission from Cal-Trans to use a couple of bridges and some right of way.

Cal-Trans demanded money and SBC balked so it delayed the link for a while. After public pressure SBC deposited money in a escrow account and a Judge ruled ion favor of C/T. Now C/T plans to tax all cable in the right of way on a annual basis and it's not cheap.

The story was in the Times-Standard.com a couple of days ago. I will try to fine a link but y'all might give me a hand.

[tubebender]

Here ya go... IS OUR FIBER FUTURE FRAYED

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Oh Boy!!!

Cal Trans ....taxation without the legislature approving ....

We need to post that/.....

[tubebender]

I was going to suggest you might want a separate thread for that bit of news. Ping me if you do.

Weather has been great here for a week or so. From winter to summer...

[Bogey78O]

AT&T is not a monopoly. There are several providers of internet service and if the gov't wants to continue to pester them they'll eventually be only one. And it won't be a telco.

[quietolong]

Get ready for the big screw.

[antiRepublicrat]

AT&T is not a monopoly.

AT&T is the country's largest Internet backbone provider, and coupled with Sprint, Verizon, Qwest and Comcast pretty much makes up a monopoly. You don't have much choice if these providers decide to charge extra for others running VOIP or streaming video and still keep the quality.

You will pay for your access, the content serving company will pay for its access, and they will have to pay even more if they want you to get their services at a decent quality (and they'll of course pass that bill onto you). This is the equivalent of highway robbery, or if it's legal a toll booth on a road that's already being paid for.

[Bogey78O]

'and coupled with Sprint, Verizon, Qwest and Comcast pretty much makes up a monopoly.'

And Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Lowes, Circuit City, Target, Best Buy, Ace/True Value, Bed Bath and Beyond constitute a near monopoly also.

The problem is they're all seperate companies and they compete with each others. Just like the ones you mentioned. How many companies does it take competing agaisnt each other before its not a monopoly? 5? 20? 100?

Your argument doesn't frame the debate properly.

AT&T sets up a network. They decide to offer a service. They put extra money to make sure their service is superior to others by using packet shaping to ensure network routing stability. Why do you think they ought to then let any other provider use the technology AT&T paid more for to deliver a competing service?

It's not fair to expect your competitor to pay for your improved performance.

Demanding net neutrality is demanding that no one have any better service then you even if they're paying for it. Maybe we ought to try that with healthcare here.