Republicans Defeat Net Neutrality Proposal 504
LiquidEdge writes "A Republican controlled committee has defeated a bill that would have guaranteed fair access and stopped companies like AT&T and Verizon from charging high-bandwidth sites for allowing their customers to have priority access to them."
Oh, good... (Score:3, Informative)
Correct the Headline (Score:5, Informative)
Declan McCullagh: Slanted Libertarian Moron (Score:2, Informative)
"levied extensive regulations" -- why not just levied regulations? it's certainly not an objective fact that the regulations are extensive
"broadband providers will be free to design their networks as they see fit" -- why not "free to charge additional fees to content providers?"
"By 'very large companies,' Markey was not referring to Microsoft, which has a market value of $287 billion, but its much smaller value of $101 billion." Not only is that not a valid metric (market value is a crap metric--Google's market value, for example, is egregiously inflated) but pointless: Microsoft will make the same amount of money regardless of regulation.
The worst one is "the Internet industry is being outspent in Washington by more than a 3-to-1 margin." This ignores the tremendous lobbying the Internet industry does in every state, lobbying public utility commissions to shut out rivals everywhere. In Louisiana, the Internet industry is lobbying the state to shut down the free emergency WiFi mesh network in New Orleans--not only disgusting, but an act that requires money that McCullagh isn't counting.
It's possible to have a rational argument about this, but McCullagh's not-veiled-at-all slant doesn't help. What a moron.
Re:I'm glad, believe it or not. (Score:5, Informative)
What's going on is that packets from/to Vonage, and other voice over IP companies are being marked by Comcast, and Verison as 3rd class mail: if they are even permitted. This law was to prevent this pratice.
This law had nothing to do with providers charging more for a T3 over a T1 for a web-service company. That would be brain dead to argue against. This was about network neutrality: that *infrastructure* companies can pick-and-choose what content you can get to and what content you cant (and what content is so damn slow you won't ever use it).
Re:good....? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Correct the Headline (Score:5, Informative)
Rep. Ed Markey [house.gov] (author of the amendment) sits on this subcommittee, and has been one of the guys in Congress who has pretty consistently sided with the /. crowd on telco issues, privacy issues, etc.
On the whole, it's not too surprising that you'd get Dems crossing the lines to support this one. Telecom is an industry where EVERYbody gets paid, regardless of political affiliation.
Re:Makes Sense (Score:5, Informative)
If there was perfect competition in the ISP market, then fine, let market forces rule! However, the 1st tier ISP market today is far more oligopolistic than free market. You can bet that if there was perfect competition, this idea would not even have the slightest chance of gaining traction. Free market capitalism only works in competitive markets, that's why price fixing is illegal in the US. Sadly, the ISP market is beginning to resemble the telephone market, highly concentrated ownership, limited competition.
Simpletons Strike Again (Score:3, Informative)
Some of the more logical among us, who do not as often subscribe to political stereotypes, might have asked themselves whether or not the "House Energy and Commerce subcommittee," which is actually called the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee (but why do research?), would be distributed along 23-8 partisan lines. After all, that's the vote count for the proposal, and both the article title, the post title, and the article summary are quite confident in their claims that Republicans defeated the net neutrality proposal. So it was 23 Republicans versus 8 Democrats, right?
Not really, If you bothered to read on (I know, I know--I'm asking too much), you'd see that one Republican voted for the amendment. Three Democrats voted against it. But just the Republicans defeated the proposal, according to the folks here. Sure, if those three Democrats voted for it, you would have had a 20-11 vote, and then Republicans would have defeated the proposal. But that didn't happen.
And those Democrats, who apparently feel so strongly about this proposal and are so deserving of the support of the Internet community, had no problem going along for the ride and voting 27-4 in favor of the final bill without the Markey net neutrality amendment. Wow! So principled!
Markey, who is clearly an expert on such topics, declared, "We're about to break with the entire history of the Internet. Everyone should understand that." Indeed, because the entire history of the Internet has been based around the ability of broadband providers to offer high-speed video services. What?
Let's go even more abstract: the entire history of the Internet has been one that prohibited the prioritization of network traffic. What what?
It also would have been nice if the people at CNet News would have gotten an interview with Fred Upton, the chairman of the actual subcommittee that did all of this, instead of going to the full committee chairman Joe Barton. In many cases, the full committee chair doesn't have nearly the same kind of expertise on the issue as the subcommittee chairman does. Though with the way CNet News framed this whole thing, maybe they did interview Upton, but he made too good of a point, so they just trashed it and went instead with "Republicans Defeat Net Neutrality Proposal." Alright, got my mini conspiracy theory of the day out.
Re:Declan McCullagh: Slanted Libertarian Moron (Score:3, Informative)
McCullagh's (the author) views on this are well-known. He is against nearly ALL regulation. He WANTS the telecom companies to be able to do whatever they please, including double-dip. I was trying to call attention to his own words that show he's not doing a good job covering this stuff.
Wyden's Net Neutrality bill is still alive. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Contributions come from those who want favors. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:good....? (Score:2, Informative)
Here is an example or what competition without a monopoly can provide...
My average POTS phone bill with Verizon was $50/month.
With MY choice of VOiP provider, I pay about 1/3 of that AND have two numbers (one in a different area code), built in voice mail, find me call forwarding, voice mail to email, unlimited US calling (long distance), and a few more features I'll probably never use.
The ONLY reason and way that this rate setting and preferential treatment of bandwidth in question would work is because the local bandwidth providers have a monopoly. Without that monopoly, people would go elsewhere in a heartbeat. That is why they need to be watched and possibly regulated.
Re:Wow - BIASED? (Score:1, Informative)
"Last night, the Republican faithful were angry. After four years of being in charge of the House, Senate, Supreme Court and Executive branch, they were not gonna take it anymore. Yeah! Down with the people who are already down!"
and
"[Dick Cheney blames the defeat of an energy bill on the absence of Kerry and Edwards to vote on it] So let me get this straight, you control the White House, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court, and your administration has closer ties to the energy industry than any administration in history, and those two blockheads stopped you?"
Besides, if the media simply reports both sides of a question when one side is taking bribes and quoting lobbyists as neutral contenders, then the media is clearly not being neutral. They'd be slanted towards the side of the bribetakers and mouthpeices.
Re:Simpletons Strike Again (Score:2, Informative)