Panel Vote Shows Rift Over `Net Neutrality' (keeps extra charge for fast

[papau]

faster, more reliable delivery of data). The Internet as a virtual toll road controlled by large corporations is coming. The overall telecom bill then passed the House committee 42-12, with 15 Democrats supporting it.

EDITED TO NOTE WHAT WAS REALLY HAPPENING AFTER DUer "aquart" pointed out I had it backwards! - Sorry folks :-(

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-neutral27apr27,0,7110141.story?track=tottext

From the Los Angeles Times
Panel Vote Shows Rift Over `Net Neutrality'
A House committee rejects a bid to ban extra charges for faster, more reliable delivery of data.
By Jim Puzzanghera
Times Staff Writer

April 27, 2006

WASHINGTON — A fight in a House committee about online tolls offered a preview Wednesday of the larger battle brewing over the future of the Internet as Congress overhauls telecommunications rules for the first time in a decade.

Despite lobbying from online giants such as Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc., the House Energy and Commerce Committee rejected an amendment that would prohibit the owners of Internet networks from charging extra for preferential treatment of data.

Uncertainty over so-called Internet neutrality threatens to derail broader efforts to update the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which governs phones and cable television as well as Internet access. Some changes already are strongly opposed by the cable TV industry because they would allow phone companies to more easily offer TV services.

Opponents hope to stir up an online groundswell for strong Net neutrality rules.<snip>

Savetheinternet.com

[Atman]

1. Again, 15 "democraticuns" support the corporatocracy

:puke:

The usual suspects, I suppose. Where was Joltin' Joe Biden on this one?

[Nordmadr]

2. Last I checked, Biden is in the Senate not the House. Not that I

support Biden at all. He is good at talking, that's about it.

Olafr

[papau]

3. Not quite - the Dems are on the right side of this - I wonder why they

GOP want to give the Large Corporation the gift they desire?

Edited to correct which side the Dems were on.

While I do not have the "actual vote by party" on the amendment (defeated by 34-22) against the neutrality amendment, the paper did report that all but five of the committee's Democrats supported the amendment, along with one Republican, Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.). The Democratic support was heavier than in a subcommittee vote earlier this month. Based on this I suspect the vote was 21 Dems in favor, 5 Dems for the corporations , and one Goper against the corporations.

The usual line-up.

[Robbien]

12. Perhaps AT&T's $1 Million Contribution to Bobby Rush has plenty

to do with it. Some Democrats are selling out the public just like their corrupt GOP buddies.

see Bobby sell out America story here:
http://techsearch.cmp.com/blog/archives/2006/04/is_att_1_millio.html?loc=networking_and_telecom

[aquart]

4. I'm completely confused.

An amendment to "prohibit ....from charging extra for preferential treatment of data" was voted down.

So the "owners of internet networks" can now go ahead and charge extra for preferential data treatment????

So how does this make us safe?

[papau]

5. Your correct - My reading skills suck - the Dems were on the correct side

and bad things are happening.

My only excuse is that the news summary that I picked it up from was written poorly - but I have no excuse for not reading the LATimes article correctly. Sorry.

[toopers]

6. I am not sure that this is bad. I think it is correct.

Basically, Yahoo, Google and other companies do not want to have to pay circuit and telecom companies for the bandwidth that they use to deliver their product.

[Solon]

7. Not an entirely accurate description...

Google, Yahoo, other websites do not want to get charged TWICE for the bandwidth used. They already pay thousands of dollars a month for bandwidth, the thing is the ISPs and network carriers, who we also pay, usually at lower prices than Google, want to get paid for connecting you to Google, so they want to charge in one of several ways, by hits, page view, or some other scheme to get even more money out of Google or you, the customer. One idea is for them to give you a "basic" service on the Internet, not a limit on bandwidth, but a limit on access, you have to pay extra to go to Google, or Yahoo, etc. Right now that doesn't exist, you pay for the pipeline, and the ISPs have agreements between each other to share that bandwidth, and anyone can access any website on that are hooked up to that pipeline.

Get rid of net neutrality, and there goes the de facto "common carrier" access, and messages will soon pop up saying "sorry, to get to Google, you need to sign up for Premium Service". Not to mention that some of them will probably start censoring things based on their own criteria, for some reason the website www.sbcsucks.com(not a real website, just an example) doesn't exist for SBC customers.

[Dover]

8. Net Neutrality Amendment Shot Down

Published: 2006-04-27


Telecommunications giants scored a victory over Net Neutrality advocates in the U.S. legislature yesterday as the proposed "Markey Amendment," a provision to prevent Internet providers from creating access chokepoints was voted down in the House of Representatives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note: Did the House Energy and Commerce Committee sell out the Internet? Or do you think Net Neutrality supporters are overreacting? Share your thoughts on this very important issue in WebProWorld.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment's defeat has caused a firestorm of accusations against the telecom industry and the legislators siding with them in the debate. A diverse and growing opposition believes that Congress members like Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-ILL), who pushed for the amendment's defeat, are acting not in favor of their constituency but in favor of the big-money telecom industry.

Telecoms, like AT&T and Verizon, want to create a two-tiered Internet where customers and content providers can be charged for premium content delivery at higher speeds and quality than other content. The harshest critics believe that ability will give ISPs the ability to block, slow, or degrade content unfavorable to them, including access to websites and email.

The Markey Amendment, proposed for addition to the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), was created to protect what proponents call "Network Neutrality," a philosophy that the Internet should remain free and open to encourage innovation, startup business, and free speech. Called the "Internet's First Amendment," this concept is supported by Internet and technology giants like Google and Microsoft.

The amendment expressly warned the telecom industry " not to block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access, use, send, receive, or offer lawful content, applications, or services over the Internet." It was voted down by a vote of 34-22 in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The COPE Act will now move to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate if passed. The Senate Commerce Committee is expected to propose its own Net Neutrality legislation in the coming weeks.

“The House vote today ignores a groundswell of popular support for Internet freedom,” said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press. “We hope that the full House will resist the big telecom companies and reject the bill. But we look to the Senate to restore meaningful protections for net neutrality and ensure that the Internet remains open to unlimited economic innovation, civic involvement and free speech.”

cont'd

http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/marketinginsider/wpn-50-20060427NetNeutralityAmendmentShotDown.html

[Ian David]

9. Another reason to cancel my Verizon account n/t

[onenote]

10. not sure how that would help

But I'm not a fan of Verizon, so go right ahead!!

onenote

[Ian David]

11. Well, maybe just vandalize their vans? (I'm kidding) n/t

[Robbien]

14. These are the five Dems who sold us out--call them and give them hell

1. Ed Towns (NY-10) received $22,000 from cable and telecom company interests. [phone].

2. Al Wynn (MD-04) received $19,100 from cable and telecom company interests. [phone].

3. Charlie Gonzales: (TX-20) received $16,500 from cable and telecom company interests. [phone].

4. Bobby Rush: (IL-01) received $21,000 from cable and telecom company interests. Plus $1 mil for his endowment project. [phone].

5. Gene Green: (TX-29) received $12,000 from cable and telecom company interests. [phone] tel.

[mccoyn]

13. We have Net-Neutrality?

If they want to support net neutrality, why not require ISP's and hardware manufactures to start moving to IPV6. Under IPV6, we can each have thousands of IP addresses to do with what we want. There is no need for single IP, DHCP regulated services. This is the issue that makes it impossible to run a peer-2-peer program on two computers in one home. This is the issue that prevents everyone from running any server they want from their own home. This seperates the internet community into servers and clients. We don't need that.

As far as I can tell, the Net Neutrality issue is a non-issue. Are there providers that are seriously considering such a pricing scheme? I doubt they would have many customers.