Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Eric Schmidt on Net Neutrality 256

Posted by Zonk
from the rally-cry dept.
GillBates0 writes "Google's CEO Eric Schmidt has written an open letter to the Google user community asking them to speak out on the issue of net neutrality. The official Google Blog has a blurb on this as well. From the letter: 'In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet ... Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Eric Schmidt on Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:38PM (#15496420)
    They lay their cables on public property, with the consent of the government, on the condition that they provide a public service to all people equally... and now they're being ALLOWED to violate that? How can Congress justify that? Obviously they're is getting some cheddar for it, but don't they usually PRETEND they aren't?
    • The United States Government hasn't been justifying much of what its been doing lately. This is nothing more than a kickback from the New Aged GOP for putting the heat on the telcos for the NSA wiretaps.
    • Here's the letter I sent to my Senators and Representative:

      I am writing to strongly discourage you from engaging in regulation or taxation of the internet. The internet has thrived and become a vital force in our economy thanks to its free, unregulated nature. Don't make the internet subject to the ultimate failure of other economic regulation as shown in so many other things that are regulated. The Soviet Union showed us that ordering the economy to work a certain way doesn't work. Please learn that less

      • In today's world of instant information, monopolies can't last while doing malevolent things;

        It's a good thing that microsoft has cleaned up it's act then. Oh, wait...

        competition moves at the speed of light.

        That might be true in an open and free marketplace. It does not apply in markets where the suppliers are cartels or monopolies. Many markets have natural monopolies because the cost of entry is so very high, and I believe telecommunications is one of them.

        I cannot imagine that you or I could build a

    • What have you got to say about satellite internet? No lines on public property.
    • I have seen plenty of commercials scaring citizens saying that the internet and HIDEF TV is about to die unless something is done and we end Net Neutrality. Please call congress now and tell them you want to keep your highspeed access ... yada yada yada.

      Dont underestimate the power of lobbying. I think many citizens saw such commercials and told their representantives to not have net neutrality thinking there rates would actually go up and service would suffer.
    • Through intention or error technology companies, media pundits, and scholars have overly narrowed the recent public debate by misidentifying the potential points of origin of Internet bias. Rather than expressing opinions of public interest regarding the future of the Internet as a global network, the discussion battles back and forth between two markedly corporate perspectives on physical network infrastructure and ignores issues concerning the utilization and neutrality of the Internet as an emergent syst
  • Misunderstanding? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by christopherfinke (608750) <chris@efinke.com> on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:39PM (#15496424) Homepage Journal
    That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.
    Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of the bill, but I don't believe telecom companies will be able to stop a company's website from being seen, only from having faster and more bandwidth available.

    Either way, it's still a crap piece of legislation.
    • by swv3752 (187722) <swv3752.hotmail@com> on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:44PM (#15496487) Homepage Journal
      If there is a big enough time gap in passing on packets, then it is effectively blocked.
    • by Spy der Mann (805235) <spydermann.slash ... m ['ail' in gap]> on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:44PM (#15496493) Homepage Journal
      Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of the bill, but I don't believe telecom companies will be able to stop a company's website from being seen

      No, they'll just say that the bandwidth expenses "need to be paid" and they'll only be able to give them, with their "limited resources", 1K/sec.
    • by Lunch2000 (701764)
      News site A is a Big Propaganda Laden behemoth with lots of private money...New site B is a small independant unbiased reporting site running on minimal public funding. News site A can afford to pay Big ISP's "traffic" fees and gets a clear pipe to your system, News site B cannot and gets choked down to 50Kb a sec. Repeat for all users on Big ISP, who is going to get more traffic?
    • Re:Misunderstanding? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by blindbug (979761)

      Either way, it's still a crap piece of legislation.

      What, from the government, isn't crap nowadays? Gay Marriage, Net Neutrality, Immigration Reform, The War on/in __FILL IN THE BLANK__, NSA, RIAA, DCMA and other assorted acronyms, the Patriot Act... and the list goes on. It would be a hard pressed waste of time to try to think of 5 things coming out of washington that wasn't pure unadulterated bull in the last few months/years. They are all intended to SOUND good, and get passed because the unsuspectin

    • I don't believe telecom companies will be able to stop a company's website from being seen, only from having faster and more bandwidth available.

      No sir, we are not blocking that website. You simply have to que your request a week in advance.

      KFG
  • Please someone tell me, have we, as Net Neutrality camp, been able to buy any congressman ?

    We HAD to, because that is the way it works. No congressman gives a shit about the taxpayers' opinion. They will be as much happy as they can be even if they end their politics career by voting for telcos, as they will have received a huge lump of cash from them by then.

    So if anyone has insight as to if google, microsoft, ebay, yahoo and any others have been able to buy any congressman, please tell me
  • by Fnkmaster (89084) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:39PM (#15496433)
    Creativity, innovation, a couple billion dollars in Google stock and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight.
    • by unity100 (970058) * on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:43PM (#15496467) Homepage Journal
      I'd rather see google stocks soar than some age-old telco controlling what i see, and what i see not.
    • I was going to mod you down as troll for such a tunnel vision comment, but I'll reply.

      Who cares if he's doing it for the sake of his company also? Even if he's doing it solely for his company, hats off to him for using his weight with Google to try to do something good.
      • Plus the page has quotes from Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-lee.

        If those guys are saying a tiered internet is bad, then it is bad. I mean these are two of the biggest people behind what has become the modern internet. Their vision was correct. I would say then that their vision of the bad that can come of tiered internet services might well be correct too.

        Also sorry, I just can't argue for "Net Neutrality", I much prefer to argue AGAINST a tiered internet. I think Net Neutrality is hard to understand, but e
    • In THIS case, Google's bottom line goes hand-in-hand with freedom on the Internet.

    • Creativity, innovation, a couple billion dollars in Google stock and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight.

      I agree Eric has a lot to lose (monitary-wise) with this bill. But if he wants to protect it, he's going to need to spend some of it (it's just how it works). Considering he's worth a billion or so, he should just threaten to run his own candidate (or throw his money) against every money-grubbing politician that's in favor of it. I'm pretty sure the legislators would think twic

    • Wow, I smell so much sour grapes that I think I'm in a bad wine factory or something. Look, if I, representing a company, were to profit/cut costs because of Universal Suffrage (e.g. more labor supply means lower labor costs), would you mock my company for supporting such an ideal? I doubt it...so why do you care if Google retains a few billion dollars while slamming this bill?

      Note: I understand that the statement "If you aren't with me then you're against me" is a logical fallacy. My example is just to i
  • this isn't a troll and I'm not an American but is the net neutrality a good thing? does it mean that they can't srcew people over... or is this one of those things where the name of the bill is actually the opposite of what it will do

    What side should I support... even though I can do nothing about it
    • Good question... (Score:5, Informative)

      by GillBates0 (664202) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:52PM (#15496572) Homepage Journal
      ...and I used to find it a little confusing as well, till I read some of the documents on that link.

      "Net Neutrality" is used to describe the notion that the network should be neutral and unbiased to all all traffic. That is, an ISP should not be partial towards or throttle traffic just because it may not be in their best interests to forward it.

      As usual, the Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] on Net Neutrality is pretty informative. The opening line reads: "Network neutrality is the ideal that network designs and operators should not discriminate between network applications." which sums up the issue pretty neatly.

      Hence "Net Neutrality" is a _good_ thing, but it is confusing when people refer to the "Net Neutrality Bill" because what the bill actually proposes is the opposite, which often seems to be the case nowadays...kinda like Doublespeak.

  • After all, I think they owe Eric one. Or perhaps Eric should save that favor ask for the safe return of Jack Bauer.....
  • Needs more exposre (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kesch (943326) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:44PM (#15496491)
    Now if only they linked this to the front page. Google should leverage its net presence to spread the word to the ignorant masses.

  • right on! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:44PM (#15496492)
    Clearly only China/Google should have the power to dictate what people can and can't see on the internet.
  • by kabir (35200) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:45PM (#15496503)
    It's short and contains links and phone numbers which can be used to speak out to congress which is going to be way more effective than bitching on Slashdot.
  • question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by grumpyman (849537) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:46PM (#15496506)
    Tell me, if there's any difference between the Chinese and the US government, or any other government? It's all about control and money isn't it?
  • by dracken (453199) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:46PM (#15496513) Homepage
    ... In Washingtonpost [washingtonpost.com]. To quote the first few lines Congress is about to cast a historic vote on the future of the Internet. It will decide whether the Internet remains a free and open technology fostering innovation, economic growth and democratic communication, or instead becomes the property of cable and phone companies that can put toll booths at every on-ramp and exit on the information superhighway.

    At the center of the debate is the most important public policy you've probably never heard of: "network neutrality."
  • Oh sure... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ReidMaynard (161608) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:48PM (#15496527) Homepage
    Speak out, they'll probably start tracking all my phone calls...
  • by peterdaly (123554) * <petedaly@ix.[ ]com.com ['net' in gap]> on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:50PM (#15496555)
    Most importantly, what's the bill # and which way do I tell my reps to vote?

    I did a quick look around the links and could not find it.
    • by Odonian (730378) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @02:04PM (#15496669)
      It's HR 5273. Here's the text of the bill, decide for yourself which way to vote I guess:

      HR 5273 [loc.gov]

      • by MobyDisk (75490)
        This just shows how confusing things are. The bill you linked to is a net neutrality bill, which is a good thing. But the article refers to another Bill, HR 5252 which has nothing to do with net neutrality - they want it added. Then, there are articles by other major news organizations that refer to other bills that would state the opposite of net neutrality.

        On a related note, instead of adding a net neutrality provision to another bill, why can't we have a separate net neutrality bill? Too many things
  • Kind of backwards? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hsmith (818216) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:50PM (#15496556)
    I am not for breaking up net neutrality, but his statement "Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight." is sort of hypocritical to what he is fighting for. If he were truely for a free market, then the cable companies could do whatever they wanted with their product. (But then again, local gov'ts have created monopolies for cable/internet providers by only leasing the public right away to certain groups, limiting competition).
    • That's the problem. If it were really a free market, sure the companies could do whatever they wanted, but then someone else would come along and give the CUSTOMERS what they want, and the companies that were limiting people would go away. But that doesn't exist. If I have Time Warner cable and they pull something like this, I usually can't just switch to another company that plays well with others. Time Warner has a natrual monopoly and I am forced to play by their rules or go home. This is why governm
      • They are not a natural monopoly. They are a govnerment granted monopoly. The only reason they have their monopoly status IS because local gov'ts limit who can access the "public access" property to lay the lines. More government isn't the solution to this problem, less is.
    • If it was truly free, then the owners of the network wouldn't be the ISP's of the network. Thats the problem. Back in the 90's there was competition among ISP's. Then the telco's decided that they should be the ISP's. Now there's no competition. I'm against gov't getting involved in private industry except when private industry becomes too private.
    • Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight." is sort of hypocritical to what he is fighting for. If he were truely for a free market, then the cable companies could do whatever they wanted with their product.

      Internet *IS* the market. The purpose of free market is everyone has equal access to it and the prices and supply is not limited artificially.

      In that context, Internet is not a product you can do whatever you want with. Otherwise you could say every country's m
  • Ouch (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Darklingza (917284) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:53PM (#15496577)
    I live in a 3rd world African country where 60% of the population has never owned a Telephone and never even heard of the Internet (our Minister of Communications being one of them). Laws are written at the whim of our monopoly telecoms provider and anything and everything that can be done to increase profit and decrease expense IS done. A law like this being passed in the US would almost certainly be copied here, which would be a bad thing for me. So I ask this of all Americans, with tears in my baby blue eyes, please dont let your government screw you over again. Stop them, before they stop me!
  • Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight.

    While not forgetting about the importance of this bill..
    lets also remind Mr. Schmidt of the wonderful things they are doing in 'free and open' China.
  • I had told you so in this post: Dad, What Was Internet? [blogspot.com]
  • by mmell (832646) <mike.mell@gmail.com> on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:58PM (#15496615)
    as are a great many other things, to be sure.

    The telcos want the tariffs relaxed so that they can provide content (think: radio & tv) over copper strand. The cable companies want tariffs tightened so that they can provide telephony over coaxial connection.

    Strange thing is, no matter which one wins they're going to need to be able to provide a certain QoS for whatever they're adding to the current status-quo. The telcos will need to be able to guarantee a certain minimum bandwidth to provide a/v content. Similarly for the cable companies providing telephone service. The money in either case would seem to be arrayed against us (the consumers).

    Okay, if what I've asserted above is true, is there any way to implement the kind of QoS the ISP's will need without shafting consumers? Perhaps rather than "net neutrality", a properly managed "zoned" internet could be made to work?

    Just askin'.

  • As might google do join in internet censorship practices in china, this net neutrality thing affects ALL of us.

    Like it or not, google is our ally in that matter.

    We, if we rather not see slashdot 'screened' by some butthole telco, we should all join in on the attempt.

    Not only slashdot, of course, ANY and ALL things we hold dear on the net.

    Apparently many of you havent read the article that was linked. Craigslist is already being blocked by some butthole isp. Why ? to bolster their own classifieds
  • When I'm paying for my connection I want to be the one who determines what I see and don't' see. I want to be the one who determines which packets get QoS priority and which ones don't. I want anyone who has essentially monopoly rights to serve me to simply provide a neutral service for me to use as I see fit! Any questions?
  • I heard google was buying up all sorts of surplus network capacity.

    If the cable companies start to choke off access maybe google would simply provide access to their own network.
    With google office, gmail etc all running nice and fast, it could be very competative against those who would restrict network performance.

    Maybe google is just setting up to be the "saviour of the internet", and lock people in, perhaps even better than MS.
    • I heard google was buying up all sorts of surplus network capacity.

      Would you want Google as your new ISP, instead of your telco, cableco, AOLco, MSNco? All things considered, I very well might. Lack of net neutrality could easily push me over to them if they were available at an acceptable speed and competitive price.

      And yes Google, we know you're reading this!

  • by Mark McGann (570684) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @02:03PM (#15496659)
    Slashdot is a friendly crowd in terms of google's view that NetNeutrality is important.

    So lets say your the one of those friendlies reading this posting. You're sitting there thinking to yourself yeah I like this idea of Net Neutrality, and I think congress should support Net Neutrality. Now ask yourself this, did your write your congressman? .

    If your answer is yes stop reading this post now.

    So why haven't you? Sure it'd be best to write a real letter, and bravo if you decide to do that. But if, like me, you're just too damned lazy, submit and electronic carbon copy one that's linked from the article. It's really not that hard, and these things really do work if enough people submit them. Just ask the Parents Television Council, the nice people who convinced the FCC to fine any broadcaster who doesn't conform to their censorship standards. They did that by setting up a nice simple website to send electronic complaints to the FCC with a few clicks.

    Write your damned congressman!

    -Mark
    • by oahazmatt (868057) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @02:32PM (#15496919) Journal
      I wrote my congressman.

      Here is the response, minus a closing paragraph not relating to the body:

      Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I appreciate the
      time you took to contact my office on this important issue and welcome
      the opportunity to respond.

      Introduced by Congressman Joe Barton (R - TX), H.R. 5252, the
      Communications Opportunity , Promotion , and Enhancement Act of 2006
      (COPE), amends the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and contains several
      provisions that will lower cable prices, increase competition, and
      provide safeguards for consumers. However, there have been many
      misleading conceptions about the COPE Act written in the media , and I
      wanted to take the time to shed some light on the mistruths some liberal
      groups are spreading.

      H.R. 5252 establishes the option of a national franchise for cable
      companies, which is a substitute for the current system of locally
      negotiated contracts. Under the bill, a cable company could apply to the
      Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a national franchise and
      then offer its services to consumers regardless of geographic location.
      Such a system is more efficient than the current one, as a cable company
      would not have to negotiate with numerous local jurisdictions, slow ing
      deployment of cable service and increas ing prices for the consumer.
      Local governments will still however receive franchise fees just as they
      do today. Moreover, by creating national franchises, more cable
      companies will be in direct competition with one another.

      As we move forward in the telecommunications era, companies are offering
      more services than just basic cable. Cable and telecom companies alike
      now offer broadband service, voice over IP (VOIP), and other digital
      services. Under COPE, no company can force consumers to buy VOIP or
      broadband service as a precondition for buying other services from the
      company.

      However, the most often misunderstood section of H.R. 5252 is the
      "network neutrality" provision, which is the principle that a consumer
      has equal access to all sites. The bill directs the administrator of the
      FCC not to make any rule or law that would establish Internet network
      neutrality. However, the term "network neutrality" is misleading.

      The problem is that over the next couple of years, large Internet sites
      are planning to offer high-definition video services, which will use
      large amounts of bandwidth and clog the pipelines of the Internet.
      Telephone and cable companies want to be able to charge for such large
      amounts of bandwidth; otherwise, they will have to pass the costs on to
      the consumer. These Internet sites obviously oppose such a move, as it
      forces them to pay for using increased bandwidth. Accordingly, these
      same Internet sites are aggressively lobbying Congress, and liberal
      special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner
      guaranteed access to Internet services. Coupled with these special
      interest groups, Internet website lobbyists are distorting the picture
      by calling pay-for-performance fees a punishment to small business
      websites, using the term "network neutrality" as the hands off approach,
      when in fact their changes would be the first major government
      regulation of the Internet. Moreover, the changes that telephone and
      cable companies would like to implement consist of large amounts of
      bandwidth that a typical small business website would be extremely
      unlikely to use.

      America is the most industrialized nation in the world, but is ranked 16
      th in broadband deployment. Many contend this is due to the lack of
      competition among carriers that resulted from a Federal Communications
      Commission decision during the Clinton Administration. This decision
      required carriers to open their lines to all broadband deployment and
      prohibited carriers from negotiating and enforcing contracts.
      Essentially, this ill-advised decision removed competit
      • *sniff*... *sniff*.... mmmm, I love the smell of bullshit in the morning.
      • by pluther (647209) <pluther@u s a . net> on Thursday June 08, 2006 @03:16PM (#15497305) Homepage
        Thanks for posting that! I admit I was confused myself until I saw the letter - now I know to be firmly in opposition to this legislation. What convinced me? He had to pull out all the old cliches:

        1. This is to keep your prices low. Of course. That's always the first concern of any big business.
        2. Your prices are high, and America is lagging behind, because of Clinton. Of course. Everything's Clinton's fault. The fact that Clinton vetoed the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the Republican-controlled congress over-rode his veto certainly doesn't absolve him of responsibility!
        3. "the mistruths that liberal groups are spreading". What mistruths, he never actually says. Does or does not this bill specifically state that companies can pick and choose what traffic goes over their lines?
        4. "liberal special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner guaranteed access to Internet services" Again with the liberals! And, of course, if liberals have guaranteed access to the internet, there's no telling what might happen!

        Letter: High on rhetoric. Low on information. I give it a C for content, but an A+ for spin.
      • If I were you, I'd quote this bit of the letter:

        The problem is that over the next couple of years, large Internet sites
        are planning to offer high-definition video services, which will use
        large amounts of bandwidth and clog the pipelines of the Internet.
        Telephone and cable companies want to be able to charge for such large
        amounts of bandwidth; otherwise, they will have to pass the costs on to
        the consumer.


        and reply to this congresscritters' letter to point out that these "large internet sites" are *already ch
  • What are you waiting for ? How many bucks will it cost to phone your congressman ?

    Just blow his/her ear of NOW, put some sense into him/her.

    It is the time to act, not for such and such crap, but for the thing that made it POSSIBLE for us all to be here, FREE on the net today.

    Grab the phone, and "let the freedom ring" over their ears.
  • As with any other concept which took a nose dive from good to bad, this one also will need a nose dive before it can be fixed for good. Right now, Internet is only a couple of decades old, last few years of which, it has experienced a boom in the number of users.

    Most of the internet users are far away off from the slashdot crown when it comes to education and thinking. They are just ignorant cliskers, who buy things, chat with friends and nowadays, use VOIP to cut down their phone bills. They do not know ne
  • ...would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.

    This has already happened, in the U.S., Canada, and elsewhere. The local cable company blocks port 25 (both directions) and port 80 (inbound). Since I host my personal web page and my personal email address on my own server, I can't use their internet service. The only reason I have unrestricted residential internet access at all is a Canadian law that forces the phone company
  • (The following example is typical method of proving when a law (or lack of) is a bad law. Like those Life Begins at Conception attempts where pregnant women were driving in the carpool lanes and claiming their unborn children on their tax returns. You get the idea.)

    Just suppose the following.

    1: I surf over to Google to get a video.
    2: Google refuses to pay my ISP's extortion rate for delivering their packets to me in a timely manner.
    3: Although I'm doing nothing else on the Internet at the time, my G

    • I sue my BB provider for not providing the service level (download speeds) they've promised me.

      They'll just change their TOS to allow arbitrary QoS and then you're SOL.

  • If this goes through it will mean a lot.

    Now companies will realize that NOTHING can stop them from doing whatever is profitable. Insurance companies will raise prices 5x, gas prices will go up, hell, everything will go up.

    Why should the government restrict companies from doing things like this? Its a win-win situation. More taxes and bribes for the government, more revenue and less expenses for the companies.

    I hope you guys and girls like double penetration, because its about to happen. With no lube. W
  • Does anyone know if a list of supporters of this bill exist? Urging Congress is great. Voting with your pocketbook is better. If the providers behind this knew they would lose a significant portion of their subscribers unless they backed out of supporting this legislation, perhaps they'd take a second look at their stance on the issue. It's not worth giving subscribers these awesome pipes to sites if there are no subscribers to actually give them to.
  • by DragonHawk (21256) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @04:42PM (#15497998) Homepage Journal
    I think it's a safe bet that pretty much everyone except the big telcos doesn't want the big telcos running the show. But I'm a little concerned about the unintended consequences this bill might have, if put into law.

    The bill says QoS has to be applied equally, regardless of source or destination. I can envision a national company who subscribes to FooCo's Internet service and pays extra to get their packets delivered at a higher priority, to speed up their VPN, VoIP, web conferencing, etc. Would this bill make that unlawful?

    The bill says providers cannot block customers from sending content. Wouldn't that mean blocking a spammer from sending spam would be unlawful? Sure, you (and I) might call that "security", but I doubt the spammers will agree. Does it then get get tied up in courts or committees? You can just *bet* the spammers will use this law to their advantage if they possibly can.

    And who knows what next neat idea might actually become unlawful this way.

    I worry about unintended consequences almost as much as I worry about the big telcos trying to screw everyone.

    "You can't do just one thing." -- Campbell's Law of Everything
  • HR 5252 (Score:3, Informative)

    by programic (139404) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @05:16PM (#15498224)
    I belive this is HR 5252 (Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006) if anybody cares to write their congressperson regarding it. Additionally, you should mention your support of HR 5273 (Net Netrality Act).
    • Re:HR 5252 (Score:3, Informative)

      by Stalyn (662)
      Too late. The Markey ammendment to add net neutrality provisions to HR 5252 already failed [house.gov]. The motions to recommit the bill (which means send back to committee) failed [house.gov] too. That pretty much means it is going to pass. The margin of victory was about 100. Unless you can convice 100 representatives in 24 hours, it is going to pass.

      The only hope now is the Senate blocks it or votes down their similar bill. And that the Net Neutrality bill is passed in the House. However if they voted down the Markey amendment,
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @05:24PM (#15498293) Homepage Journal
    I don't know why this issue is presented as complicated. Google already pays a huge bundle for its Internet connections. It's invested in its own infrastructure, and has to pay for interconnection at its gateways to the rest of the Net. Those gateway companies are paying for their further connections with Google's money, so on across the Net. Just like everyone else.

    That is the distributed magic of the Net that defined its growth and resiliency. Google is already paying AT&T, through a series of proxies. AT&T can't just violate its agreements to carry the traffic of the proxy that's directly connected to it just because it wants to doublecharge Google, just because AT&T thinks Google can afford it.

    Unless AT&T changes the laws to let it doublecharge. Which of course it will. After over a century of crooks, why does anyone bother arguing with these telcos about whether their "business innovations" are fair? They're always scams, cons and theft. This latest one is among the most blatant. Why be nice and call it "Net Neutrality" when the telcos call it "Net Doublecharge" in their "marketing" offices?

Lo! Men have become the tool of their tools. -- Henry David Thoreau

Working...