Net neutrality amendment killed in committee
Today an amendment proposed by Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and co-sponsor Rick Boucher (D-Va.) that would have required broadband providers to give equal access to all content was struck down by a 23-8 vote.
In addition to codifying those FCC guidelines essentially divided into four basic principles of access the amendment would have added a fifth principle preventing network operators from charging Internet content providers for a bigger piece of the broadband pipe, while still allowing them to charge users for different download speeds.
All this amendment did was require internet providers treat all sites and services equally. Right now the
Broadcastingcable.com quotes Andrew Schwartzman of Media Access Project:
"This allows restrictions on important and innovative content such as the provocative political satire jibjab.com generated during the last presidential election. Innovations such as blogs, web videos, sites such as YourTube.com never would have gotten off the ground if content-based discrimination had been permitted on the internet."
Broadband providers want to create a massive AOL model for the internet where they charge content providers for better access to their customers while creating a prohibitive cost to competing and emerging companies.
This comes on the heels of Verizon’s disgusting attempt to prevent minorities and low income residents from receiving their new FiOS fiber optic internet service. Verizon is asking the Town of Hempstead on Long Island for a franchise to install fiber, but they want to be able to ignore poor areas. The Mayor of the Village of Hempstead, a smaller community within the Town, had this to say in an Op-Ed in Newsday:
This suggests Verizon is prioritizing where it builds - in wealthy communities ahead of lower-income communities. This may be how a private business makes more money, but it is wrong and immoral. Like all good companies, Verizon has a special public trust to bring service to all without prejudice or discrimination.
If Verizon's approach was limited to the Town of Hempstead, we might chalk this up as an oversight. But the depth of the evidence suggests that this is an example of its broader national business strategy. Right now, Verizon is lobbying for state and federal legislation that would allow the company to ignore the current franchise authority of local towns and villages, and eliminate the ability of local governments to ensure that all residents receive the benefits of competition.
Bypassing local governments allows Verizon blatantly to ignore the issues and concerns that are most important to our communities. But who best knows what issues are important to our neighborhoods than our local officials? When you boil it all down, Verizon is out in the marketplace demanding special considerations because of its promise to bring competition and choice. But when you look at the company's plans, it becomes very clear its promise is limited. Verizon's approach is not only offensive; it is appalling.
We have to demand a free and open internet for all people, not just the ones in the upper income brackets and we need to demand a free and open internet for all content providers, not just the ones that can pay Verizon and other’s extortion demands.
12 Comments:
Ah, ok. Well I notice that one of IPACs endorsed candidates is Barton. Who killed the Net Neutrality provisions??? One of the leading opponents, if not the man with his finger on the trigger, is BARTON! IPAC seems schizophrenic. Endorsing Barton on the one hand; but bemoaning the loss of Net Neutrality on the other.
Why dont you pick up the phone and contact your new buddy, telling him he wont get IPACs endorsement anymore unless he changes his way on Net Neutrality.
Rep. Barton has made great progress on NN recently.
CNet reported that he has seen the light by including stiffer NN violation penalties, but is still grappling with the exact language and the exact recourse.
You actually posted this..."Right now the Monstrously Large Baby Bells are extorting companies like Google by attempting to deny them guaranteed access to consumers."
Have you looked at the market valuations of any of the Baby Bells versus Google. Or Microsoft? Or Yahoo? Or Ebay? Or [PLACE NAME OF MONSTROUSLY LARGE SOFTWARE COMPANY HERE]?
Verizon or AT&T are much smaller than these companies you apparently revere. That's O-K, but at least get your facts straight. Makes for a much better argument!
I'm not sure that anyone is being denied access to Google (or any other legal site, for that matter). Bonequark makes a fair point that the companies pushing for "net neutrality" legislation are pretty powerful themselves. I would rather have consumers settle the squabbles between major Internet companies than invite a plethora of governmental regulations in the mix.
Yea, I just don't see the coming crisis that the market can't work out on its own. I'm also with Bonequark...it's sorta funny that anyone is worried about the muscle--financial and otherwise--of the googles and microsofts vs. the bells.
Net neutrality is a red herring. What we are talking about is suggesting that Congress get involved to solve a problem that does not exist! How can that possibly be a good idea?
One more thing quickly: what business would survive by blocking content? That might have flown in the early AOL days of the net, but not anymore, I assure you of that!
C'mon, what would Congress know about what works when it comes to the Internet? We've been able to keep government out of it so far, and considering Washington's recent track record, I'd say we're all better off keeping it out into the foreseeable future.
What free market drones fail to understand when it comes to broadband access is that we are all limited to two choices.
DSL or Cable Modem.
The broadband environment is not like the dialup environment of old. Before, your local telco had to let other companies provide internet access over their telephone lines.
This is no longer the case with DSL.
Maybe its just my area, but I have SBC for DSL or Comcast for Cable Internet, no other choices exist for me.
If they both decide to introduce a closed AOL / Cell Phone esque provider network I have no other choices except to move, assuming other open networks exist.
This is why Network Neutrality is essential. SBC, AT&T, Comcast, etc want money from the companies with even more money than them, like Google and Yahoo because all companies want more money, not because they deserve it.
I am paying for my internet connection, I decide which sites I want to visit, my internet provider should not be able to downgrade my service if I don't use their preferred content provider.
That is all this network neutrality bill is about.
Please don't automatically equate less government with good. Did anybody notice what happened in California after energy deregulation? Massive price gouging, rolling blackouts, etc. That hasn't worked out so well. If the energy corporations would have been responsible and self-regulating then everything would have been fine. But they weren't and things aren't fine. Free market reasoning doesn't hold in a monopolistic situation. In fact, it can deteriorate free market conditions and stiffle innovation and new players in the field.
Think of the service providers as your local water district. They control the flow. You want clean water and plenty of it, but if someone in town has paid for all the good water, you've got a problem. Would it honestly surprise you if one day it started coming in slower, had brown tinge and smelled funny? And if a local water-dependent company didn't pay up when squeezed, the water company can just shunt their water supply elsewhere. Because they control the flow. Not so good for that free market. Ask yourself: Would you vote to have your water supply controlled by a for profit company that is under constant pressure to increase revenues?
Speaking of Washington's recent track record, doesn't much of that track record involve corrupt politicians taking money to get laws passed? When in doubt, always look for who will profit the most. In this case, it's the service providers. Follow the money!
Please support net neutrality.
If you think deregulation was the cause of the energy sector problems you are mistaken. It was the many regulations bundled into the deal which lead to the problems.
Look to me like the net neutrality bill is just more bad egalitarian socialistic regulations which will restrict the free market from developing the internet to its potential.
Readers of this comment thread should know that Paulaner01, lessgov and pkp646 are part of a tag-team of industry shills who invade blog comments on net neutrality to argue against any government regulation of the Internet. Other names who run with this crowd are John Rice, AJ Carey and oldhats. (Google any of these names in combination and you'll see how their game works).
By tag-teaming the blogs, this small handful of individuals gives the false impression of broad popular support for an industry-friendly position.
What they fail to point out is that Net Neutrality has been the rule that has governed access to the Internet since its inception. It's the reason that the Internet has become such a dynamic force for new ideas, economic innovation and free speech. What they really want is for Congress to radically re-write our telecommunications laws so that companies like AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth can swoop in and become gatekeepers to Internet content -- in a way that benefits no one except the largest ISPs.
I'd like these people to tell us how it is that they appear together (usually one after the other) praising one another's comments and spouting identical industry talking points across the blogosphere.
What gives fellas? Are you being paid to do this? And by whom?
Post a Comment
<< Home