“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,” Declan McCullagh reports for CNET News. “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.”
“At issue is a lengthy measure called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act, which a House committee approved in April. Its Republican backers, along with broadband providers such as Verizon and AT&T, say it has sufficient Net neutrality protections for consumers, and more extensive rules would discourage investment in wiring American homes with higher-speed connections,” McCullagh reports. “Defenders of the COPE Act, largely Republicans, dismissed worries about Net neutrality as fear mongering. ‘I want a vibrant Internet just like they do,’ said Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican. ‘Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it…I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet.'”
“While the debate over Net neutrality started over whether broadband providers could block certain Web sites, it has moved on to whether they should be permitted to create a ‘fast lane’ that could be reserved for video or other specialized content,” McCullagh reports.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: We don’t presume to know the best way to get there, but we support the concept of “Net Neutrality” especially as it pertains to preventing the idea of ISP’s blocking or otherwise impeding sites that don’t pay the ISP to ensure equal access. That said, we usually prefer the government to be hands-off wherever possible, Laissez-faire, except in cases where the free market obviously cannot adequately self-regulate (antitrust, for just one example). Regulations are static and the marketplace is fluid, so extensive regulations can have unintended, unforeseen results down the road. We sincerely hope that there are enough forces in place and/or that the balances adjust in such a manner as to keep the ‘Net neutral. What do you think?
Advertisements:
• Introducing the super-fast, blogging, podcasting, do-everything-out-of-the-box MacBook. Starting at just $1099
• Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
• Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
Related articles:
Google posts call to action on ‘net neutrality’ – June 09, 2006
That’s it, MDN. Make sure you back down to toe the party line.
Losers.
leggo my internet. I don’t want the government involved…not their place.
People are going to think it’s censorship, but it’s not. Nothing is being eliminated by the government, nor is the government saying anything should be blocked. This bill will allow the market to dictate the types of ISPs that exist– that is, people will sign up for the ISP that gives them what they want. Some will certainly want 100% open, some heavily restricted, if they have children, for instance.
Interesting to see how this plays out with time.
The notion that Comcast et. al. could start charging large internet sites (google, yahoo, msn, iTunes, etc) just seems outlandish, and can only end up hurting consumers, in my opinion. If they start charging Google, then Google passes those charges along to us.
If Comcast et. al. is worried about supporting the desire for increased bandwidth while still turning a profit, it seems far simpler and easier to just charge the end user a little more each month for the increased bandwidth. or they could offer a tiered solution to end-users depending on how much bandwidth users intend to use.
If somebody wants to stream movies, then perhaps they need a 6Mbps connection, which would be one rate. You could have rates at 3Mbps, 1.5Mbps, and so forth. This just seems a lot more rational to me than charging content providers. That’s like taxing companies for being successful.
Republicans are an endangered species.
This is a tough issue. I want to have access to everything with out restrictions. But it s the right of the company to provide the product that they can sell the best. What we need is a consumer movement that says give me net neutrality or I will find an ISP that will!
It is almost universally bad when the government gets involved.
Net Neutrality just SUCKS MDN, wake up.. You would be allowing some Govt Entity to decide what amount of bandwidth is fair. Nothing is ever fair. If I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth from company xyz, thats what I should get. It SHOULD NOT be based on whether some Govt bureaucrat thinks my amount of bandwidth is fair..
The Govt is already doing to much to interfere in daily lives, determining whether xyz company should get this amount of bandwidth is just dumb, because they rarely get anything else right, how would this help other than to limit growth..
If I run company JOE. Why should I invest in broadband upgrades or infrastructure improvements if some bureaucrat is going to decide how I can implement it or dole it out and not get fair market value for what I provide.
So what’s your take on the situation nuflux? Brave of you to stick your neck out and tell us straight away.
Gutless wonder
I think MDN’s worship of the Republicans is severely tested by this result.
nuflux,
MDN never endorsed a specific bill – Google did. I think MDN is being realistic, prudent, and honest about their position. Clearly, the Laissez-faire approach is preferred by many people – even some Dems.
Regulations often sound good until you see their consequences.
MDN supports Net Neutrality. I do, too. The question remains, what’s really the best way to keep the ‘Net neutral?
Drop your party affiliation, pretend to be Independent, and tell us all what you think should be done since you seem to think that you know what to do.
I don’t think the practice of saying “pay me more or else I slow you down” legally qualifies as extortion, but it seems very close to me. I do think that it will not stand up to a court challenge on anti-trust grounds (restraint of interstate commerce).
What scares me the most is that Lamar Smith (R-Tex) seems to be involved deeply. HE IS A NUT JOB!
All this is? ISP’s trying to get a bigger share of porn money.
I am glad they will make google pay, this is going to be GOOD for the consumers.
The title “Net Neutrality” is just an innocent looking terminology to make ordinary humans believe it is a good thing.
with net neutrality, a hindu or a russian in china can compete against americans and drive us into poverty.
Net neutrality is BAD.
Money rules! True democracy drools!
“What we need is a consumer movement that says give me net neutrality or I will find an ISP that will!”
Well put, Bobby Skinner!
Every company, Every person is paying someone for access to the internet. The companies that provide this are spending billions to expand and maintain that infrastructure..
Comcast is paying someone else for access to other lines, its all inter-connected (thus the Internet)
Having some bureaucrat in washington decide who gets how much bandwidth is just dumb…
DP…Read the other thread on the subject.
Most people here have no idea what HR 5252 actually does, what the proposed Democratic amendment would do, or even who sponsored either.
HR 5252 IS government regulation any way you slice it. This who “gov’t regulation is bad” meme is just a smokescreen by Repubs who want to draw attn away from the fact that they’re creating a two-tiered internet, and basically handing control over to providers to levy fees on certain types of access. In other words, PRIVATIZING the internet entirely.
“The title “Net Neutrality” is just an innocent looking terminology to make ordinary humans believe it is a good thing”
Sorta like “Patriot Act”
The problem with your take, MDN, (IMHO) is that the major backbone providers constitutte a an oligopoly and is thus less responsive to market forces.
I’m for the government staying out as much as is possible. Everything they touch turns into crap. Over regulation isn’t ever going to solve anything. People can say what they will about big business and their influence on the marketplace, but I’d rather be at their mercy than at the mercy of the federal government any day of the week.
nuflux,
“Gov’t regulation is bad” is not “just a smokescreen.”
Please prove the following MDN statement false:
Regulations are static and the marketplace is fluid, so extensive regulations can have unintended, unforeseen results down the road.
That is exactly why I want the gov’t to keep out of it. Have you seen who we’ve elected? They aren’t the brightest – most couldn’t make it it the real world. That’s why they run for office. I don’t trust them or anyone else to create rules that will achieve the intended results and not hinder innovation and progress in unknown ways.
JBR–then you should be against the COPE Act in its entirety.
This government needs to spend less time debating what goes on inside my bedroom, my pants and my internet, and more time debating this stupid goddamned war.
We the consumer already pay for different tiers of internet connection speed. This entire thing is because they want more money because they feel sites like Itunes will take away buisness from their soon to be release IP TV and other new TV on demand. How will they regulate out of country websites? how will one little website pay EVERY SINGLE ISP in the entire country? this entire thing is a disaster and if it gets passed the internet as we know it will fall apart.
Bork,
Please read HR 5252–anyone against more government intervention should be against the act in its entirety. That’s what I meant when I said that government regulation is a smokescreen. Furthermore, as someone else upthread pointed out, this is not a “free market” initiative. This is an initiative to concentrate a great deal of power w/r/t access in a few powerful hands.
Would you put the federal highway system in a few corporate hands, to charge more or less as they please to use certain roads? Of course you wouldn’t.
Republicans are turning into communists every day, they want to control everything.