Click to Save up to $300/yr on calls
June 8, 2006 6:30 PM PDT
House rejects Net neutrality rules
Last modified: June 8, 2006 7:00 PM PDT
- Related Stories
-
Net neutrality showdown
January 2, 2007 -
House plans vote on Net neutrality
June 7, 2006 -
Senate panel to revisit Net neutrality proposal
June 7, 2006 -
Watch out we don't neuter the Net
June 1, 2006 -
Net neutrality fans pressure U.S. Senate
May 24, 2006 -
Politicos propose new action on Net neutrality
May 18, 2006 -
Hardware firms oppose Net neutrality laws
May 17, 2006 -
Smaller cable firms take aim at Net neutrality fans
May 8, 2006 -
Republicans defeat Net neutrality proposal
April 5, 2006 -
Net neutrality fans lose on Capitol Hill
March 27, 2006 -
Push for Net neutrality mandate grows
March 17, 2006 -
Without 'Net neutrality,' will consumers pay twice?
February 7, 2006
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.
Net neutrality's crowded field
| Bill number | Lead sponsor(s) | What it proposes | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| S.2360 | Wyden (D) | No two-tier Internet | Still in Senate committee |
| S.2917 | Snowe (R) and Dorgan (D) | No two-tier Internet | Just introduced |
| HR5417 | Sensenbrenner (R) and Conyers (D) | Antitrust extended to Net neutrality | Awaiting House floor vote |
| HR5273 | Markey (D) | No two-tier Internet | Still in House committee * |
| HR5252 | Barton (R) and Rush (D) | FCC can police complaints | Net neutrality rejected |
| S.2686 | Stevens (R) and Inouye (D) | FCC will do a study | Senate committee vote expected in June |
* Republicans have defeated similar language twice as an amendment to a telecommunications bill
Source: CNET News.com research
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.
The concept of network neutrality, which generally means that all Internet sites must be treated equally, has drawn a list of high-profile backers, from actress Alyssa Milano to Vint Cerf, one of the technical pioneers of the Internet. It's also led to a political rift between big Internet companies such as Google and Yahoo that back it--and telecom companies that oppose what they view as onerous new federal regulations.
As the final House vote drew closer, lobbyists and CEOs from both sides began stepping up the pressure. eBay CEO Meg Whitman e-mailed more than a million members, urging them to support the concept, and Google CEO Eric Schmidt on Wednesday called on his company's users to follow suit.
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."
The debate over Net neutrality had become more complicated after earlier versions of the COPE Act appeared to alter antitrust laws--in a way that would have deprived the House Judiciary Committee of some of its influence.
But in a last-minute compromise designed to placate key Republicans, the House leadership permitted an amendment (click for PDF) from Smith that would preserve the House Judiciary Committee's influence--without adding extensive Net neutrality mandates. That amendment to COPE was approved.
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.
Prohibiting that is "not a road we want to go down, but that's what the Markey amendment would do," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican. "The next thing is going to be having a secretary of Internet Access (in the federal government)."
See more CNET content tagged:
Net Neutrality,
amendment,
broadband provider,
vote,
Republican
from itunes now have a "service" fee for the extra bandwith it will
take to download? Will skype calling now cost me more than
nothing? And will I ever be able to afford video conferences or
movie downloads?
If I was a repulican I guess I would never have to ask.
Greed cannot ruin the internet!
Myself I am Norwegian, and I do not know what effects this will have on my own personal Internet usage, however I do not like what is about to happen.
The Internet is supposed to be some sort of "digital library" and as we all know libraries aught to be free to use, with the all-out truth and nothing but the truth, not a place where money rules.
What is the problem? What happens if Verizon decided to charge Skype and Vonage extra for VoIP but allows its own VoIP service to go over its network for free? What happens if Comcast decides to charge BrightCove and other IPTV companies extra and has its own competing IPTV service? What happens if Comcast and Verizon coincidentilly decide to add a surcharge YouTube traffic? What happens if they decide to add a surcharge to Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft just becuase they have billions of dollars and can afford it?
I wrote an in depth blog on this subject today. http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2006/06/what_is_net_neu.html
Guess they just haven't learned to talk out of their mouth instead of their a--.
Spread the word! Our, er, I mean the Korporations'
"representatives" failed---and all for big $...
Wish I could say I was surprised....
a) I will be paying much more per megabit of bandwidth
b) I will be paying much less per megabit of bandwidth
a) I will have fewer choices of service providers than I do now
b) I will have more choices of service providers than I do now
a) The will be Internet-based competiton for cable TV
b) There will not be Internet-based competition for cable TV
a) My ISP will provide access to fewer Web sites
b) My ISP will provide access to more Web sites
Folks, you really don't want Congress dicating the architecture of the 'net. The term is socialism -- gov't dictating markets -- and it results in scarcity, no matter how good the intentions.
I think that techies and their customers should be making the call. Congress doesn't even know what a packet is...
More here.
I want a list of all those that voted yay or nay. Then a campaign, via the same email to let them know they are ALL on short strings come re-election.
You, the sheeple, are being duped. FCC has no balls, only someone wrapping them up in cash.
We need ACCOUNTABILITY from these that think they are untouchable and full of greed.
I like small government, fiscal and personal responsibility, right
to privacy, my right to bear arms (responsibly)...
It's all about kickbacks to huge corporate lobbyists, placating a
religious base that's in the minority, letting the executive branch
seize as much power as possible, and ignoring the gargantuan
deficit.
Maybe kicking them out in November will bring the Republicans
back to their senses -- where they focus on American virtue
instead of fear and corporate handouts.
This whole run of lobby-based bills is reckless and embarassing.
If it's too black-and-white, let's get into specifics then. Packet prioritization -- is it being used now and does it provide benefits? Should it be illegal? Would the Markey amendment make it illegal?
This is an issue that should be decided by network experts, not Congress. Looking forward to answers to the above.
up to me to seek what I want from it , when and at what rate. I
dont want to negotiate with some telecom company that tells me
that my emails have to go slower than some multinational
corporation. I dont want to be told where I can go and how I can
use my service. I use my internet line for a vonage phone and as
far as Im concerned, that is not the business of the telecom
company. Im expressing my right to use my service as I see fit.
This is another case of lobbying corporations lining pockets.
How far will this 'biased' two tier internet go? Will one political
party's emails take longer than the other? Will ethnicities be
forced into the slow lane? Will my service be determined by
someone at a telecom company who can swich me to hi or lo
priority at a whim? Would people ever find out?
The net has to be utiliized but the last mile needs to be seperated and largely unregulated. The supply however should be regulated as a utility.
While this would be nice to see it will never happen as its makes far too much sense for a group of politicians to grep away contributions.
Guess wee need to kill all lobbiests first.
- get it right
-
by R Me
June 11, 2006 10:35 AM PDT
- This has to be one of the most clueless situations I've seen. Full of chicken littles crying FUD.
-
Reply to this comment
View
all 2 replies
-
-
See all 102 Comments >>GET IT RIGHT!
NN has nothing to do at the local ISP level.
Last mile Internet access bandwidth is ever increasing by huge margins. Cable, DSL, and WI-Fi keep upping allowable bandwidth to compete and grab a larger slice of the pie. For them it's nothing more than software settings to change your bandwidth.
What is not increasing is the available bandwidth of the backbone. Everyone expects the increased bandwidth at the local level to just keep flowing as usual. To do so the backbone ownere need to add huge runs of fiber at a cost of BILLIONS. Billions they will not see unless they are able to somehow charge more. So they wish to simply charge the services that are causing this huge increase. Its not normal website surfing but things like video, IPTV, VOIP and other new as of yet emerging tecnologies that require lots of bandwidth.
What it boils down to is that the backbone providers are expecting bandwidth dependant services to have to charge and be charged accordingly. Could you expect a backbone provider to smilingly pony up billions for new pipes without being able to recover just so you can watch old TV shows on your computer?
If NN were ever to pass you could expect the Internet to act like the California power grid. Anyone for rolling net-outs. Not me. The net is not free, someone pays for everything. Its time the FUD spreading crowd shuts up and tells the truth. That is if they can intelligently grep what is really goining on. If you need a clue its called capitalism, where you pay for what you get. So dont expect Internet welfare from the backbone providers, they are the ones who spend billions while hidden behind the scenes so you can happily be a porn wanker while watching IPTV.