House rejects Net neutrality rules

[Steeplerot]

Link


The U.S. House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept of Net neutrality on Thursday, dealing a bitter blow to Internet companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google that had engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign to support it.

By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others.

Of the 421 House members who participated in the vote that took place around 6:30 p.m. PT, the vast majority of Net neutrality supporters were Democrats. Republicans represented most of the opposition.

The vote on the amendment (click for PDF) came after nearly a full day of debate on the topic, which prominent Democrats predicted would come to represent a turning point in the history of the Internet.

"The future Sergey Brins, the future Marc Andreessens, of Netscape and Google...are going to have to pay taxes" to broadband providers, said Rep. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat behind the Net neutrality amendment. This vote will change "the Internet for the rest of eternity," he warned.


RIP free internet if the senate republicans kill it too.

 

[compuwiz1]

I don't understand if, or how this effects me. Does it at all?

 

[Dissipate]

How exacly could this be good? RIP free internet.

Pssst. There never was a 'free internet.' The infrastructure of consumer based Internet access is regulated heavily by the government. For instance, cable Internet has to be provided through your local cable company which is regulated.

I can't just start up my own cable company and start laying cable. The feds would throw me in jail in a heartbeat.

Free up the infrastructure of the Internet and net neutrality will become a non-issue.

 

[Jaskalas]

Anyone care for a tea party? I think these crooks have had their way long enough.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I don't understand if, or how this effects me. Does it at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality is a good start

 

[Jaskalas]

It means a lot of simple greens. Big dollars will = internet access. Anything else will either have a sub-par connection or none at all. They decide who gets access to what, and how much.

 

[Steeplerot]

In other words joe bobs counterstrike server ping is gonna be teh suck. Want to play non-lagged you gotta play on a big sites pipe like microsoft gaming zone or some crap.

The senate may save the day, but it does not look good, seems the reps are in bed with the big telco corps on this. *still have fingers crossed though*

 

[ORLY]

While that's terrible, this only affects the US right??? Or perhaps here in the UK, should i be worried ??

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ORLY
While that's terrible, this only affects the US right??? Or perhaps here in the UK, should i be worried ??

It probably won't take long for non-US Corps to begin wanting the same. You might also be affected if you access a lot of US websites, like this one.

 

[blahblah99]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Link


The U.S. House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept of Net neutrality on Thursday, dealing a bitter blow to Internet companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google that had engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign to support it.

By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others.

Of the 421 House members who participated in the vote that took place around 6:30 p.m. PT, the vast majority of Net neutrality supporters were Democrats. Republicans represented most of the opposition.

The vote on the amendment (click for PDF) came after nearly a full day of debate on the topic, which prominent Democrats predicted would come to represent a turning point in the history of the Internet.

"The future Sergey Brins, the future Marc Andreessens, of Netscape and Google...are going to have to pay taxes" to broadband providers, said Rep. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat behind the Net neutrality amendment. This vote will change "the Internet for the rest of eternity," he warned.


RIP free internet if the senate republicans kill it too.

I told you so. I posted this last week, yet no one seemed to care.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: blahblah99


I told you so. I posted this last week, yet no one seemed to care.

I care, and I am hopping mad about it, I cannot believe the disinformation campaign and money these telcos are pumping into killing off NN, hopefully peeps see these posts and contact their senator. This subject is crucial if you give a damn about the net and what it has always stood for.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I don't understand if, or how this effects me. Does it at all?

You should also read the recent thread Blahblah99 linked above; this one is a bit of a repost. Here's my comment from it:

If enacted, this can substantially undermine free and open speech, and may very well "destroy" the web as we know it, effectively smothering the tremendous diversity we find today under a blanket of the same homogeneous, brain-dead pap we already get from broadcast television. Unfortunately, nothing is so inevitable as a bad idea whose time has come ... especially when people with deep pockets see an opportunity to further enrich themselves and the powers that be see an opportunity to suppress access to information that threatens the stability of the status quo. It's a win-win ... as long as you dismiss the interests of the general public.

In more practical terms, it allows the major backbone carriers and even regional carriers to turn the Internet into their own little closed systems, where you only get uncrippled access to the things they want you to access. It doesn't even matter if you're their customer, or if the site you want to access is their customer. For example, let's say Yahoo or Microsoft strikes an exclusive deal with AT&T and Sprint. If AT&T and/or Sprint are between you and Google -- and they probably are -- they can cripple your access to Google in favor of their preferred search engine. If they partner with buy.com, you suddenly find Amazon and Newegg unusable. Anandtech? Sorry, SBC has a deal with Tom's Hardware.

In short, welcome to AOL-2006. Resistance is futile.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I don't understand if, or how this effects me. Does it at all?

You should also read the recent thread Blahblah99 linked above; this one is a bit of a repost. Here's my comment from it:

If enacted, this can substantially undermine free and open speech, and may very well "destroy" the web as we know it, effectively smothering the tremendous diversity we find today under a blanket of the same homogeneous, brain-dead pap we already get from broadcast television. Unfortunately, nothing is so inevitable as a bad idea whose time has come ... especially when people with deep pockets see an opportunity to further enrich themselves and the powers that be see an opportunity to suppress access to information that threatens the stability of the status quo. It's a win-win ... as long as you dismiss the interests of the general public.

In more practical terms, it allows the major backbone carriers and even regional carriers to turn the Internet into their own little closed systems, where you only get uncrippled access to the things they want you to access. It doesn't even matter if you're their customer, or if the site you want to access is their customer. For example, let's say Yahoo or Microsoft strikes an exclusive deal with AT&T and Sprint. If AT&T and/or Sprint are between you and Google -- and they probably are -- they can cripple your access to Google in favor of their preferred search engine. If they partner with buy.com, you suddenly find Amazon and Newegg unusable. Anandtech? Sorry, SBC has a deal with Tom's Hardware.

In short, welcome to AOL-2006. Resistance is futile.

All courtesy of the Republican Corporate Whore Thugs everyone in here and 52% of America loves so much.

I will enjoy watching everyone choke on em.

 

[ciba]

I can't help but laugh at all the tinfoil beanies ignoring the economy of subscriber internet services. Sure, I think net neutrality is good inpractice, but I also understand that if what bowfinger predicts comes to pass, revenues of providers will decline because people will simply cancel their service.

The fundamental question is: Do you think companies (in any industry) should be permitted to charge more for premium services?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ciba
I can't help but laugh at all the tinfoil beanies ignoring the economy of subscriber internet services. Sure, I think net neutrality is good inpractice, but I also understand that if what bowfinger predicts comes to pass, revenues of providers will decline because people will simply cancel their service.

The fundamental question is: Do you think companies (in any industry) should be permitted to charge more for premium services?

There is one tiny flaw in your question...my ISP is MY service provider, and the current system already allows for premium service...otherwise known as higher bandwidth. No consumer on the planet wants a service that doesn't really provide them with the access they paid for.

So...does this mean I agree that the free market will wave a magic wand and fix this all for us? I kind of doubt it, because there ISN'T a free market in the internet connection industry. If I want fast broadband in my area, my choices are Comcast (which I have) or Verizon DSL, which is a much worse deal as far as speed goes. And I don't exactly live out in the boonies, most places are lucky to have ONE kind of broadband. So if both Verizon and Comcast decide they are going to offer "premium" service using a connection I paid for, I'm screwed.

In principle, I'm not opposed to a free market with regards to the internet. But if it's going to be a free market, make it a free market. By defeating net neutrality, we (the consumers) are getting the worst possible situation. We have a system that allows our service providers to decide what they think we should be allowed to access combined with a system that has very little competition. Not exactly a free market if you ask me.

Edit: By the way, I noticed a big argument against net neutrality was that consumers will get to pay lower prices for access if companies can put some of the costs on Google and similar companies. Am I the only one who things we'll NEVER see that come to pass? Again, with little reason to be competitive, internet access companies are going to pocket the extra money, and you'll keep paying the same for broken access.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: ciba
I can't help but laugh at all the tinfoil beanies ignoring the economy of subscriber internet services. Sure, I think net neutrality is good inpractice, but I also understand that if what bowfinger predicts comes to pass, revenues of providers will decline because people will simply cancel their service.

The fundamental question is: Do you think companies (in any industry) should be permitted to charge more for premium services?

Do you honestly think people will cancel their service and forego the internet entirely? People don't have a lot of choice for carriers. I only have 1 viable broadband carrier to my house. My other option is super slow and the wireless optionis a joke and can never have the sheer capacity of physical wires. With few options, people are going to have to choose between bad option #1 and bad option #2.

As far as premium services go, of course companies can charge more for premium services. They already do exactly that!

 

[SirStev0]

looks like its going to be bribes or no hits from now on...

 

[Puffnstuff]

Where I live I only have one choice for a hardwired broadband provider, cox cable, and satellite is my only other option and I don't live in the sticks. Since there's already no competition they charge what they want to and I either pay or go without.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: ciba
I can't help but laugh at all the tinfoil beanies ignoring the economy of subscriber internet services. Sure, I think net neutrality is good inpractice, but I also understand that if what bowfinger predicts comes to pass, revenues of providers will decline because people will simply cancel their service.

The fundamental question is: Do you think companies (in any industry) should be permitted to charge more for premium services?

If the market for broadband internet was free, I agree. But its not. Cable companies have local monopolies. Competitors can't just roll in. And the government had a pretty big hand in making it this way. They don't need to compete, there's no other game in town. So its their sh|tty watered down internet, or nothing at all.

Now they want a new revenue stream from companies that are already driving demand for their service...which they barely even need to compete for in the first place. These big content providers like google, microsoft...and the little ones like joe's blog, bill online hardware store, etc are all the reason people get internet access in the first place. And then want to take another piece out of them.

 

[Ldir]

You guys are missing the point. The problem is not your local ISP. It is the big guys in the middle. They control what you reach. Read Bowfinger's post in the other thread.

 

[Genx87]

Oh look govt over-regulation biting the hands that feed it.

Color me unsurprised, it was coming and we all know it.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Edit: By the way, I noticed a big argument against net neutrality was that consumers will get to pay lower prices for access if companies can put some of the costs on Google and similar companies. Am I the only one who things we'll NEVER see that come to pass? Again, with little reason to be competitive, internet access companies are going to pocket the extra money, and you'll keep paying the same for broken access.

Any reasonable person knows that that arguement is utter hogwash. Has anyone seen their cable bills go down recently? All I've seen them do is eliminate the cheaper packages and inch up the rates. Why the hell would they? They don't have any competition. They just want another revenue stream here, they aren't going to lower anyone's rates. Not only does it fly in the face of past precidents...but its also contrary to basic business sense! Why would you lower rates when you effectively have NO competition? You wouldn't! You'd raise them to maximize profit.

Basically they aren't content will only being able to rape their customer base, now they want to double and triple rape the content provider base as well.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Edit: By the way, I noticed a big argument against net neutrality was that consumers will get to pay lower prices for access if companies can put some of the costs on Google and similar companies. Am I the only one who things we'll NEVER see that come to pass? Again, with little reason to be competitive, internet access companies are going to pocket the extra money, and you'll keep paying the same for broken access.

Any reasonable person knows that that arguement is utter hogwash. Has anyone seen their cable bills go down recently? All I've seen them do is eliminate the cheaper packages and inch up the rates. Why the hell would they? They don't have any competition. They just want another revenue stream here, they aren't going to lower anyone's rates. Not only does it fly in the face of past precidents...but its also contrary to basic business sense! Why would you lower rates when you effectively have NO competition? You wouldn't! You'd raise them to maximize profit.

Basically they aren't content will only being able to rape their customer base, now they want to double and triple rape the content provider base as well.

The only time you see this is when the market is opened up when the contracts expire. Then you start seeing internet cable rates going down the toilet in price as the competitors fight for customers. In cities that are regulated monopolies it is a nice fat 50+ bucks a month for nominal speeds.

 

[ciba]

Three major providers in my area (1 cable, 2 dsl) plus all the other options, (bigger pipes, Speakeasy WiMax, etc.)

As to the "guys in the middle." Shouldn't they be paid for what they do? What are their sources of revenue now? With net neutrality, what incentives would they have to improve anything?

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: ciba
Three major providers in my area (1 cable, 2 dsl) plus all the other options, (bigger pipes, Speakeasy WiMax, etc.)

As to the "guys in the middle." Shouldn't they be paid for what they do? What are their sources of revenue now? With net neutrality, what incentives would they have to improve anything?

They already are paid right now. Did you get a bill for broadband last month? You paid that with real dollars, not magic ones. Google did as well.

You improve things to increase your potential customer base and compete with competitors in your area. Just like every other business that wants to grow in the history of civilization.