Slashdot Log In
House Committee Approves 'Net Neutrality' Bill
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri May 26, 2006 12:39 PM
from the hold-the-celebrations dept.
from the hold-the-celebrations dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the US House Judiciary Committee approved a bill yesterday that will prevent broadband providers from charging extra fees to websites for delivering their content to users." Ars's response is only guarded optimism, unfortunately. From the article: "The fate of the bill is not clear, as there are now two competing bills vying for the attention of the House floor. HR 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act, was overseen by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and is expected to be considered by full House. That bill is seen by some proponents of 'Net neutrality as being too weak, particularly after a Committee vote tossed aside an amendment put forth by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have enshrined the principle of network neutrality into US law. There is speculation that today's bill, HR 5417, could be proposed as an amendment to HR 5252."
Related Stories
[+]
Net Neutrality Bill in Congress 254 comments
hip2b2 writes "The US Congress is finally doing something to prevent large bandwidth providers and network operators from charging (or putting restrictions on) competing web and other Internet media content providers. According to this NetworkWorld article, the new bill sponsored by Democratic Representatives Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jay Inslee of Washington state, Anna Eshoo of California and Rick Boucher of Virginia in the House and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in the Senate. I am not a big fan of legislation, but, I hope this bill keeps the Internet a freer place." Here is our coverage of the first round.
[+]
Hardware Firms Go Against Crowd on Net Neutrality 292 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Some of the largest hardware firms in the world, like Cisco and 3M, have sent a letter to U.S. policymakers asking them not to be too hasty on mandated net neutrality laws." From the News.com article: "'It is premature to attempt to enact some sort of network neutrality principles into law now,' says the letter, which was signed by 34 companies and sent to House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. 'Legislating in the absence of real understanding of the issue risks both solving the wrong problem and hobbling the rapidly developing new technologies and business models of the Internet with rigid, potentially stultifying rules.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
One quote disturbs me... (Score:5, Insightful)
existing competition? what competition? if they arent going to decided on these important issues then why the hell are they there in the first place? 3rd rate politics all the way will always reign until someone with some balls and backbone will let their common sense be heard and voted on, rather than dancing around the issue.
Re:One quote disturbs me... (Score:2, Flamebait)
To suck up your tax dollars and prepare for their forthcoming lucrative careers as directors/lobbyists/consultants of course. What, you thought the
That's Congress for you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's Congress for you (Score:3)
Exactly. This is a prime example of how the two major parti
Re:One quote disturbs me... (Score:2)
Re:One quote disturbs me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing surprising there. Remember that pro is to con like progress is to congress.
Regards,
--
*A
I'm confused... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm confused as well. For example, what does this mean? " Net neutrality by some, inasmuch as it not only outlaws service degradation, but would also prevent service providers from selling Quality of Service (QoS) to consumers."
So, is my upload and downl
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Insightful)
A hopeful first step (Score:2, Insightful)
If Telco's really need more money (as they claim) to pay for the infrastructure they are maintaining (and expanding), they can always us
Not so fast (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not so fast (Score:2)
Explain to me why my cell phone company bills me by the minute then?
I do not understand why in the world local phone calls cost as much or more than international 24x7 internet access. Doubly so when one considers t
Re:Not so fast (Score:2)
Re:Not so fast (Score:2)
We're charged for usage of our connection, so it is done. It's not per byte, it's sort of a complicated capacity/average use/peak use aggregate.
ISP's may use a cap ... (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems to work as follows: for your monthly fee you get a download limit of say 3 Gb. a month.
Re:A hopeful first step (Score:3, Interesting)
<cynical>The only thing the politicians have an eye for is keeping their jobs come November.</cynical>
The voters are pissed of
Yay! (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, though, this is great. The Internet doesn't need to be run on a Mafia-style extortion plan, and it works best, in fact, when it doesn't. This is one of those times when government can do something right.
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Afraid to tell you. It is being run on a Mafia-style extortion plan in the US for a long time. Ask any network engineer about "peering with a Tier 1 provider".
Karma Whoring (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yay! (Score:3, Informative)
You don't understand the libertarian viewpoint: Libertarians aren't against all regulation. We are against regulation that interferes with business. Regulation of natural monopolies, such as companies that own phone l
Re:Yay! (Score:2)
You're an Anarcho-Capitalist, not Libertarian (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:interesting. (Score:2)
Re:Yay! (Score:2)
Speaking as a random Internet Libertarian I would consider this as potentially good legislation. Libertarians ar
This is awful (Score:5, Insightful)
And do we properly understand the consequences of State involement in this issue?
We applaud, from our fear, that the State will step in and ensure the net is kept neutral.
What we do we do if the State later steps in - as it will, now it has begun - and enacts bills which we detest and shudder at?
In both cases - those we applaude and those we detest - the choice has been taken out of our hands, the decision has been made by the State and will so be the same for everyone.
The solution to these matters lies properly in our own hands.
If you object, GET OUT THERE AND DO SOMETHING.
Make sure people know - convince them not to buy from a net-biased provider.
Those who care about it will have the choice to buy from someone else - they have what they want. Those who don't care can buy from who they like - they have what they want.
Don't use or applaud the use of the State to achieve your own ends and impose them upon everyone, because it will come back to bite you when the State is used to impose upon YOU.
Let people make their own individual choices with the money they pay.
Re:This is awful (Score:2, Insightful)
Make sure people know - convince them not to buy from a net-biased provider.
Yeah, yeah... markets can work where markets exist. The vast majority of individuals have 1 (or if they are really lucky 2) choices. If the local telco and cable provider are net
Re:This is awful (Score:4, Informative)
What your diatribe fails to take into account is that broadband consumers have only three choices: one, their current broadband provider, be it their local phone or cable company; two, the other company not specified by number one; and three, no broadband at all.
If we had true consumer choice in network providers, then we wouldn't need network neutrality laws - the market would work things out for itself. But that's not the case. As with any oligopoly, the government may need to intervene to ensure that the lack of competition isn't being leveraged at the expense of the consumer.
Re:This is awful (Score:2)
Re:This is awful (Score:2)
"The State" does not exist in a vacuum. It is not a person. I
Re:This is awful (Score:2)
Re:This is awful (Score:2)
If you object, GET OUT THERE AND DO SOMETHING.
I don't live in the States. Frankly, I'm inclide to leave you to the height you grew. If american sites become crippled, I'm confident they'll either
A step in the right direction, no matter how small (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh those pooooor telecoms (Score:5, Insightful)
The telecoms have resorted to blatantly socialist rhetoric [blindmindseye.com] lately. Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are "da Man" who is trying to keep the people down by "making them pay the whole bill."
WTF?! Google, Microsoft and Yahoo probably pay more per month than all broadband users in the US combined for their bandwidth. The telecoms are just trying to avoid an ugly truth: $15 DSL that is 50% the speed of a several hundred dollar T1 is not a viable business. What we need is metered bandwidth.
Metered bandwidth would be good for several reasons. First of all, it would in the long run reduce the cost of providing extremely fast service to most people because they don't use that much bandwidth. Most broadband users could easily get by on 5GB/month for $10-$15, then $0.25-$0.50/GB downstream after that. Second, it would provide a financial disincentive for people to use file sharing software for illegal reasons, thus providing the "social solution" to the "social problem" of how to handle mass copyright infringement without DRM or legislation. Third, it would distribute the costs of funding network development fairly.
If 1% of a broadband service's users are using up to 40% of the bandwidth (which Comcast has said is their problem), that's a lot of people paying to subsidize the costs of 1% enjoying the "full benefits" of the network. Why shouldn't that 1% pay for downloading 50GB,100GB (or in one guy's case, 600GB) of data?
I don't want to subsidize the infrastructure with my taxes anymore, and I don't want to pay the same rate for my ~5GB-10GB/month of bandwidth use as someone who uses 100GB+. I also don't want the government telling private businesses that they cannot reserve part of their networks for their own services. As long as they are providing you with the QoS that they advertise and contractually agree to provide you, why do you care if Verizon keeps 80% of the network for their IP TV service? If we get up to 10mbps as the standard rate, and they keep 40mbps for themselves, is that 10mbps any slower? Of course not. Your piece of the pie just keeps becoming more and more in real numbers as their network expands.
Re:Oh those pooooor telecoms (Score:2)
Maybe, maybe not. In that scenario, if I download an episode of "24" from iTunes, I have to pay
Re:Oh those pooooor telecoms (Score:2)
Re:Oh those pooooor telecoms (Score:2)
Re:Oh those pooooor telecoms (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh those pooooor telecoms (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh those pooooor telecoms (Score:2)
You would pay for it. It's not that big a deal, really. Do you kick yourself when you forget to turn off the lights in the basement overnight? It's still a f
Re:Oh those pooooor telecoms (Score:5, Interesting)
Because those people already pay for this?
The real problem is that in the US, you have oligopolies that are careful not to thread on each other's toes. Like Comcast/Cox -- you seldom if ever have the choice between the two, so it's not really competition.
Why should I pay $80 per month for a 0-4 Mbps up / 0-384 kbps down, when my friends in Norway pay $50 for a 8-20 Mbps up / 4-10 Mbps down? And in addition, I'll lose my service if I use "too much" bandwidth, or use it for any non-approved purpose, unlike them. Never mind that I don't get a full internet service in the first place, but blocked ports both ways.
Some kind of regulation is needed as long as there is no true competition.
Regards,
--
*Art
If any of you haven't seen them yet... (Score:4, Informative)
Grass roots campaign for the Net Neutrality bill. They have been helping out by giving information to people on how to contact their reps and so on.
Heck even Moby supports them.
To play the Devil's Advocate (Score:2, Informative)
Personally, I prefer SaveTheInternet. But you can't really understand your own position without knowing your opponent's.
Re:To play the Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
Well after seeing AT&T and Bellsouth in their members section [handsoff.org] I certainly do.
(Or at least understand their motives)
They neglected to mention... (Score:4, Funny)
Basically it says that the Telcos can write their own rules and the rest of us can eat shit.
Pandora's Box (Score:2, Insightful)
- QoS
- NAT
- Virus Scanning
- Spam filtering
- Traffic Shaping
- Pop-up blocking
- Port Blocking
This means the traffic on t
Re:Pandora's Box (BAD MODS) (Score:3, Informative)
oh boy (Score:2, Insightful)
Caps and Usage Fees (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Caps and Usage Fees (Score:2, Insightful)
Is that a bad thing? This is how it works now. Anyone who uses bandwidth just pays according to how much they use (peak or on average). In this sense both home users, colo users and providers contribute to the network equ
Re:Net Neutrality == Anti-Competitive Anti-freemar (Score:4, Insightful)
This bill and bills like it are a horrible idea. The power and success of the Internet is that it's lightly regulated and robustly competitive, especially for hosting services.
The internet's success comes from the fact that network operators are given special privileges to act like common carriers and with it are required to act as impartial carriers of data. They are now trying to form a cartel and bypass that requirement of impartiality.
If some ISP wants to charge extra or restrict access to some Internet application how do you think their customers will behave?
Given that their customers are other network carriers in this instance who want to do the same thing to gouge money from the successful, I suspect they'll agree to collude and form a cartel.
Either way the individual customers and overall market should decide prices and services NOT the Federal Government.
The federal government should not decide prices, but if network operators want all of the privileges afforded to common carriers, they should have to impartially carry data like common carriers, not charge extra for not intentionally slowing things down for people who aren't even their direct customers.
An analogy might be, what if the law said only one package shipping companies could operate in a given geographic region, to avoid confusion (only one phone and one cable company is given access to the last mile public right of ways in most places). So one company took over for each state. All fine and good. They agree to impartially carry the packages in return for immunity to prosecution for accidentally transporting drugs or guns or child porn, since they just move anything without looking. They all agree to carry one another's packages, some paying the other a small fee, but basically it all working out. Then the company in California decides, hey, why don't we make sure packages coming from Ford motors are delayed in our shipping room an extra week unless they pay us an additional fee. Its not like they can stop using us, we're 18 customers away from them. The market can't respond effectively through so many intermediaries. They are no longer behaving impartially, so why shouldn't they be held accountable for what they are shipping? And what about the other shippers? Will they cancel their relationships with this one, or will they make a deal and all start doing the same as a way to get more money? My bet is the latter.
I'm all for the free market working things out, but this is nowhere near a free market situation at this point. When anyone can string up lines on the telephone poles and run wires to all the houses, then we'll be getting close. Most end users have no choice, or very little choice. They can go with the monopoly cable company or the monopoly phone company, both of whom only bundle their service with their other service. Hell, it is cheaper for me to buy cable TV + cable internet than it is to just buy cable internet. That doesn't exactly sound like something the free market would produce?
If you want the Feds to give everyone the same access everywhere and for the same price (such as was done with phone, mail, and electrical service) then you penalize the rational consumers and promote things like urban sprawl and government sponsored (universal access) monopolies.
The government is already enforcing monopolies on cable and telephone lines, which are the only "last mile" connection available to most users. Claiming then, that you should not regulate the behaviors of those monopolies is just plain foolish.