Net Neutrality Bill AttackedBy Internet Giants, Consumer Advocates, & Lawmakers ( old news - 09:35AM Wednesday Mar 29 2006) tags: legal · legislation · net-neutralityNot only is the newly introduced Barton Broadband Bill ( discussed yesterday) now stripped of network neutrality provisions it contained last fall, critics say it limits the FCC's authority to act, should problems arise. Internet Giants such as Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, and others have rallied, says the Washington Post and are begging lawmakers to act. "We are extremely concerned that legislation before your committee would fail to protect the Internet from discrimination and would deny consumers unfettered access," says a letter from the companies to lawmakers. The bill is also being criticized by Rep. Edward Markey, who says the bill "would allow phone companies to ignore low-income communities and at some point allow cable incumbents to withdraw service from less-affluent areas," reports Multi-Channel News. Consumer advocates are likewise unimpressed, reports Internet News. The steep divisions could mean no new broadband laws are passed this year. Related:- Congress May Require NebuAD Be Opt-In
- Embarq: Selling User Browsing Data 'Empowers' Users
- Legislators Demand Info On User-Tracking Software
- Law Passed Making Colleges Become Copyright Police
- Monday Morning Links
- Tuesday Evening Links
- Friday Morning Links
- Friday Evening Links
|
 |  |   Vig Thread-safe since 1997 Premium join:2004-03-23 San Diego, CA | Re: spelling alert There's nothing wrong with the spelling. Even a lobbyiest could tell you that. | |
|  |  |   LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19 Cyberspace | Re: spelling alert Touché. | |
|   rahlquist Redeye
join:2001-10-30 Villa Rica, GA
edit: March 29th, @09:51AM
| Blah Blah blah blah
We are a land of the sheeple governed by rats and run by corporations. What sheeple will get is what they ask for through their lack of objection to the legislation. Then let the whining commence. -- Got a new podcast to share? Looking for a podcast?
Pcsites.com | |
|   ropeguru Premium join:2001-01-25 Hollywood, FL clubs:
| I like this part... Internet Giants such as Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, and others have rallied, says the Washington Post and are begging lawmakers to act.
Haven't they learned that begging to politicians falls on deaf ears?? Ye has to pull out lots of greenbacks to get something done in D.C. -- FWD#: 223611 | |
|  |   Nightshade Beware the Blue Rabbit Premium join:2002-05-26 Salem, OR | Re: I like this part... Oh I think they know that "begging" is just another polite word for buying. -- True Happiness Must Come From Within | |
|  |  |  radarman
join:2005-06-01 Odenton, MD
| Re: Content providers won't get the blank check they want Since when did Internet content providers get a break? As far as I can tell, they still pay their upstream ISP if they use more bandwidth - and in a lot of cases, that can add up quickly.
That's the subtle little lie that the bells aren't admitting - nobody is getting a free ride as it stands. Everyone pays to put packets on the Internet. AT&T is irritated because they feel everyone should be paying them *IN ADDITION TO* their upstream provider. They want to be a defacto tax authority on the 'net. | |
|  |   sporkme drop the crantini and move it, sister Premium,MVM join:2000-07-01 Netcong, NJ
| said by TK Junk Mail :Internet content providers are whining over nothing. There is plenty of enforcement in this bill. What it doesn't have is the blank check the content providers wanted that makes sure they can avoid any costs for their tremendous increase in bandwidth requirements. If "nothing" = being double-billed, then, yeah, they have nothing to "whine" about.
Content providers pay for the bandwidth they use. Some folks are just upset that they are paying a competitor. This is NOT the phone network with recip comp (yet). -- Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity | |
|   odreian615
join:2006-01-18 Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Internet net giants need to put their money where their mouth is the cablecos and telcos have put up 152 million in lobby money in congress the internet companies only put about 10% of that 2gether plus the isp's been lobbing for years they already know who they have in their back pocket | |
|  |   richardpor Fur it up
join:2003-04-19 Portland, OR
| Re: Internet net giants Then if I may say tell your congress critter and no load activist to shut the - up!
They probably would have put the 152 million into infrastructure if they did not have to fight showboating politicians and multi billion companies who want a free ride on the net. This is a fine example what dammage government regulation can cause.
The following post may contain grammar and spelling errors. Deal with it or do not read my post. | |
|  |  |   bolt Former Broadband Exile Premium join:2003-11-11 Charlestown, IN
·Community Wireless
| Re: Internet net giants said by richardpor :They probably would have put the 152 million into infrastructure if they did not have to fight showboating politicians and multi billion companies who want a free ride on the net. This is a fine example what dammage government regulation can cause. I beg to differ. The telcos and cable cos have proven time and again that they would rather pay off senators and other government officials than actually sink money into improvements. And just who is getting a free ride? The telcos and cable cos are free to cherry pick the most profitable ares, while ignoring anything they don't want to deal with. The country's broadband infrastructure (or lack of it) shows that. Everyone involved is already paying for the bandwidth they use, including you, me, and the content providers. Why should any of use have to pay more, especially when we are doing nothing than filling their coffers so they can not provide any better service -- bolt _____________________ »www.boltweb.com | |
|  |  |   Orwell1984
@fdn.com
from: wtansill 
| Let us think about who is getting a free ride. First I would pose the question what gives value to a network? The answer is content. Without content it is worthless. TV and radio both have to pay for the content that gives value to their services.Radio even goes a step farther in that is illegal to pay to have your songs aired. IMHO any reasonable person can see that the ISPs are the ones getting a free ride. All they do is provide a connection ( at a substantial cost to the customer) and all of the content that gives value to their service is provided free of any charge to the ISP.The providers of the content pay to get their product on the web the ISPs customer pays to get it back off.Only free ride I see is the ISP making money off of other peoples content without any compensation to the provider. | |
|  |  |  |   bolt Former Broadband Exile Premium join:2003-11-11 Charlestown, IN
·Community Wireless
| Re: Internet net giants Exactly how are the ISP's getting free ride. They are purchasing larger blocks of service and reselling those in smaller chunks for the individual consumer. I still don't see how it's a free ride. If you don't like paying an ISP for service, maybe you should go right to the telco, of course providing they want to service you. I, for one applaud the many small independent ISP's as they are the ones who have provided connectivity when the telcos and cable cos were (are) to small-minded to see the need. -- bolt _____________________ »www.boltweb.com | |
|  |  |  |  |  nonner9
join:2005-10-14 Charlotte, NC
| Re: Internet net giants it's a free ride for ISPs, in the sense that the connection is useless without any content to connect to
so the value of the internet connection is directly tied to the fact that their is content which is available through the connection... in other words, nobody in their right mind would pay for an internet connection to a new Internet-3 if there is no content available on Internet-3
so, the ISP is getting a free ride from content providers (google, yahoo, porn, games...) without that content, they wouldn't be selling a connection at all | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   Orwell1984
@fdn.com
| Re: Internet net giants Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself.I have no problem with paying for my connection. Content providers probably have no problem with paying for their connections.Where the problem arises will be if we allow highway robbers to set up road blocks and try to extort money out of the traffic. They should shut up and be happy they don't have to pay for the content that they profit from. | |
|   braynes Premium join:2005-03-14 Waterville, ME edit: March 29th, @01:33PM
| Pay phone in every house This is the same shit as the telecoms try to pull in the 80's with Message rate crap. Bruce | |
|  wtansill Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10 Falls Church, VA
| Can someone please explain this to me...
As a consumer, I pay for my DSL connection to the Internet. No Free Ride there...
Google, Yahoo and other "Content Providers" pay significant sums of money for multiple high-bandwidth lines in order to make their content available to others. No free ride there...
Various backbone providers pay interconnect fees via "peering arrangements" so that their networks can talk to each other and pass data back and forth. Hmm -- no free ride there either...
So, someone please explain to me just who the hell is getting this supposed "free ride"? Why should the content providers pay even more on top of the exorbitant rates they already pay for OC-class pipes (or better) just to continue receiving the same class of service that they already enjoy? Honestly, I feel so stupid some days... (you needn't agree with that, BTW...) -- That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
|  |  nonner9
join:2005-10-14 Charlotte, NC
| Re: Can someone please explain this to me... Exactly... everyone is already paying for their own bandwidth...
if anyone should be paying more, it's the customers who are requesting the information, if bellsouth needs to upgrade their lines then that's an expensive that should come out of their revenue from customers paying to use those lines. of course that would be suicide to charge customers more and more, when you have cash cow websites who can.... | |
|  Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19 66308 | The internet is a failure It's not affordable and has been targetted by the monopolies.
I hope it's destroyed and so we can build a new network thats safer ,faster and affordable.
MUNIBroadband ! FTTH for $15/month ! | |
|  grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03 New York, NY
| Scandal I hope this scam ends in all the people who proposed it being fired, put in jail for 25 years, and then forced to do community service for 10 years after. Call me a troll if you wish, but this is so evil on so many levels the people who thought of this idea must be punished, I don't care if it's implemented or not preemptive action is the way to go. | |
|  DSLdewd
join:2004-06-05 Denver, CO | tax dollars at work This entire bill / idea is so incredibly stupid it makes my head hurt. I can't believe people actually have to waste their time to discuss this kind of crap in Washington. How about this, just say no!
See....its easy. | |
|   richardpor Fur it up
join:2003-04-19 Portland, OR
| I give Up After attempts in failing to put what I am thinking on paper I am just going to say Net Neutrality is wrong. What the telecoms are just trying to offer is a premium guarantee service. What the difference between Telecom offering a premium service and a gas station offering premium fuel. Dont tell me you paid for the bandwidth to the content provider. You cannot on the internet because by nature the internet is a decentralized network. If one wants a point to point network, buy a T1 line.
Net Neutrality is a bad idea; either you get a multi billion dollar company like Google hogging the bandwidth and no chance for a start-up to get on the same network or everybody gets the same crappy service. In other words everybody at the lowest common denominator which is often the effect of imposing the tired failed liberal ideas of Egalitarianism. | |
|  |   G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17 Schenectady, NY
| Re: I give Up The REASON you can't put it to paper, is you are getting conflicting information about what net neutrality is. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH QOS. Period. The Telcos want you to think it's to provide a 'better quality' connection, but that's their smokescreen. Their objective is to charge you based on WHAT'S in the package, and WHO the package is from.
The better analogy would be you can get regular or premium gas, but depending on what kind of car you drive, it's how much you pay. You drive an AT&T approved car, where GM gave AT&T a kickback of 100.00/car, then you pay $2.50 a gallon for premium fuel. If you drive a FORD, who didn't pay AT&T, you pay $2.50 a gallon for regular fuel. You are paying the same amount, but getting discriminated against because FORD didn't pay AT&T. And god forbid you drive up in a Nissan, and try and get gas. In that case, your going to pay $4.00 a gallon for sub regular gas. But all of those cars provide you with transportation, it's just that AT&T is penalizing anyone who doesn't drive a GM.
The issue that arises is this. What is AT&T selling? If they are selling GAS, then what gives them the right to charge MORE if you are driving a ford or a Nissan? That's what the whole debate is all about. They sell GAS, they don't sell GM GAS, and FORD gas. They have no right to collect money from someone who drives a FORD just because it's got a bigger engine than a GM. The customer paid ford for a bigger engine, why should AT&T collect more money because of that? -- Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. | |
|  |  |   Reichart
@comcast.net
| Its worse than that They want to check each packet you send to decide how much to bill you. Cisco already is pushing this capability to the net providers as a revenue booster. That way they can charge more for what they think is VOIP packets (to try to recoup what they are losing from people dumping landlines). And charge a different rate for packets they identify as video, or P2P or porn or email, etc. Basically, they want to charge each packet type according to how much people want it.
Actually QoS is a good idea. I want my VOIP or MMORPG packets to get priority, but it should be ME that decides when that happens (via an option on the UI), NOT some megacorp that is violating my privacy by sniffing my personal communications.
The really sad part of all this is hearing how my friends in 'backward nations of europe' have way more bw for way less cost...
Chas. | |
|  | |  |
|
|