Posted on 06/14/2006 2:40:12 PM PDT by dennisw
AXcess News) Washington - The telcom reform bill sputtered in the Senate after hearings over 'Net Neutrality' testimony that hasn't affected lawmakers thinking one bit, while Google's approach is to send emails telling us to "do something" - ya, right.
Consumer groups and now major search engines are lobbying lawmakers hard over the Net Neutrality portion of the telcom bill that gives carriers and cable companies the right to charge extra for bandwidth. Opponents argue that telephone and cable companies should continue to treat Web sites and services in a neutral way, hence how it became to be known as the 'Net Neutrality' bill.
But the phone and cable companies say its too costly to build internet infrastructure, that they need to charge users more for extra bandwidth usage.
The House of Representatives voted 321 to 101 last week to give the FCC the right to investigate discrimination in online access, though only after the fact.
The Senate Committee is scheduled to vote on a bill introduced by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), the chairman of the committee, on June 22nd. If Stevens' legislation were approved it would move to a full Senate vote by July, giving way to a compromise bill members of the House and Senate could agree to before Congress adjourns this fall.
Sen. Stevens latest version of the telcom bill did nothing to alter the FCC having the power to investigate access discrimination after the fact.
So it appears that the guys with the most to loose, the deep pocket principals behind Google, Yahoo and MSN, have made the mistake of sending geeks to Washington to babble about the Internet's freedom instead of padding the pockets of Capitol Hill lobbyists and politicians long ago when the threat of net neutrality first crossed their desks.
Google even started an email campaign, as if that's going to do any good now! What a lame idea. Everybody send e-mails saying "aw shucks, golly gee" - as if that would do a damned thing to change lawmakers minds! Kiss the web good bye, and say hello to charges.
What really burns me is the Online News Association and the newspapers behind it who did nothing to rally the media against a handful of Washington's finest - who were already in bed with the telcos and cable companies (investigate lawmakers' campaign donations - there's the smoking gun). And to think that they (ONA) spout off about free communications, blogging and video online as ways to reach more readers. Wait til they get the bill for that! Our editor asked the ONA to take a position in a phone call to ONA Executive Director Tom Regan, who said he'd pass it along to the board, that he thought it was a good idea - the board would not even acknowledge it. They were too interested in chatting about their next award meeting or seminar everybody in the online media should attend - at great discounts if you buy early!
The media is probably going to defend itself and say they have in fact covered this issue. Ya right, Britney Spear's TV interview with Matt Lowry got more ink!
If Googler's want to email somebody, blitz the board of the ONA - their the big shots of the newspaper trade and if they got enough flak from readers - they might just roll over and cover the issue and that attention would draw TV news out of the weeds - except for those whose parent companies are in the cable television business - as are many of the parent companies in newsprint.
There's only two things that can sway lawmakers; money or the media. As no one's putting up the cash, and Google says "harass your Congressperson", try the press instead. It's your last chance!
And while I'm on a rant, just take a look at that old duff Sen. Stevens (circa 1923). He's so old he doesn't even know how to use a computer, let alone surf the net or use e-mail. What does an old fart like that, from Alaska yet, have anything to say to lead a charge to change telecommunications law? The last I heard Alaska was known for oil, its outdoors and mining - not telecommunications! Something smells behind his move to introduce a bill of that nature in the first place!
Argh. This blatantly incorrect meme keeps popping up. Neutrality does *not* prevent ISPs from charging more for higher bandwidth users.
I haven't seen any reports that lay out exactly how this is going to change the net. Yahoo and Google paying the telcos for bandwidth will obviously result in fees for users but how much? Pay for E-mail? A set fee per month for, say, Yahoo and extra money for premium features? How will this affect FR? All I've seen so far are vague references to the end of the internet but no real analysis.
BS. They've been saying that for years but somehow - as if by magic - the net keeps getting bigger and faster, and phone and cable profits aren't going down.
Interesting you mention that. Google is upset that ISPs want to charge them more for bandwidth but have no problem charging their customers more for email and other services.
Somebody has to pay for the bandwidth. Video is just starting to take off on the web. Once this blooms and there are pop-up video ads on each web page and increasing numbers of people are watching Desperate Housewife re-runs online, the net will eventually come to a crawl for everyone unless huge increases in capacity are funded.
The question is how is it paid - spread it around to everyone and increase everyone's internet access fee by $5-$10 or target those costs to companies (and people) using the extra bandwidth. That's what the fight is about. Of course many probably just want someone else to pay for it.
Freddy has a lot of problems with the language:
say its too costly
most to loose,
If Googler's want to email somebody
There's only two things
Yahoo and Google paying the telcos for bandwidth will obviously result in fees for users but how much?No, it isn't obvious that without net neutrality the result will be higher fees. Precisely the opposite. The high bandwidth users like netTV will have to pay their own way. Without so-called net neutrality all consumers are going to notice is lower prices for services because those that actually use them will be paying for them. This instead of off-loading all the costs on the consumers.
Well, since the "entire universe" (other than the dinosaur telcos) seems to be moving to a "flat fee" model, I think that's where we'll eventually end up.
Huh? ISPs including Telcos charge a flat rate now for internet service. I listed that as an option. I see two options: You either spread it around so everyone pays for it (aka flat rate) which is the current model or you force bandwidth hogs to pay more. Those are the choices.
Guess what. Net neutral is how the internet has been since the beginning until the FCC killed it last year
The protections that guaranteed network neutrality have been law since the birth of the Internet -- right up until last year, when the Federal Communications Commission eliminated the rules that kept cable and phone companies from discriminating against content providers. This triggered a wave of announcements from phone company chief executives that they plan to do exactly that.
Now Congress faces a legislative decision. Will we reinstate net neutrality and keep the Internet free? Or will we let it die at the hands of network owners itching to become content gatekeepers? The implications of permanently losing network neutrality could not be more serious. The current legislation, backed by companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, would allow the firms to create different tiers of online service. They would be able to sell access to the express lane to deep-pocketed corporations and relegate everyone else to the digital equivalent of a winding dirt road. Worse still, these gatekeepers would determine who gets premium treatment and who doesn't.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html
Also worth reading--->> http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114839410026160648-l8Cd7lakn_
8givyNOVIeReUDNLw_20070523.html?mod=rss_free
Yeah, they do NOW. I think largely as a result of FCC regulations. But they would one hell of a lot rather go back to their OLD pricing models of charging for every split nanosecond.
;^)
who do you work for? (i'm jes' wondrin')
-No Tolls on The Internet-
The protections that guaranteed network neutrality have been law since the birth of the Internet -- right up until last year, when the Federal Communications Commission eliminated the rules that kept cable and phone companies from discriminating against content providers. This triggered a wave of announcements from phone company chief executives that they plan to do exactly that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html
I work for myself, also a family company. The only way net neutrality impacts me financially is in terms of what I buy on the internet. If Verizon/Comcast/etc are able to charge tolls then the cost gets passed on to me.
A big motivation is a healthy loathing of Comcast and it's ilk. I don't like them nor trust them and see this as a money grab pure and simple. They can't charge you and me more for the internet. Not directly at least, so they will do it indirectly. When Amazon, New Egg, eBay and google pass on the Comcast tolls&fees to me... and you
They can't charge you and me more for the internet because I think they've hit a ceiling where they will lose customers if they jack up rates
Incorrect. My internet and phone service has always been flat rate. My DSL internet service comes from a Telco and is unregulated and has always been flat rate. Just like my cable modem service I had before that.
I have no idea what your point is but mine is simple - video breaks the internet without huge investments and there are 2 choices for how to pay for the expansion - increased flat rate which everyone pays or make those who watch TV over the net pay more.
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.