backtop

Print 24 comment(s) - last by BioRebel.. on Apr 9 at 3:35 PM
The US government has decided it isn't time to start regulating the Internet

The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee has voted down a "Net neutrality" proposal that would have been added to current telecommunications legislation. Representative Ed Markey, a Democrat representing Massachusetts, offered an amendment that would have prohibited broadband carriers from impairing or blocking competing web content and services.  Because a disagreement continues over whether or not the government should try to prevent broadband companies from having a two-tiered Internet, this will likely be an issue again in the future.  Companies including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo supported Markey's plan.  MarketWatchreports: 

"Imagine the end of the Internet as we know it -- that is the reality that we are about to face," he said after a key vote Wednesday evening in the House subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. Colleague Jay Inslee, D-Wash., chimed in: "You can call it the Interred-Net. It's a radical change."

The "Net neutrality" amendment was shot down 8-to-23. 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Good for them...AND us
By masher2 (blog) on 4/7/2006 8:58:36 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone actually believe this knee-jerk proposal would have been good for us? If passed, it would have brought several areas of innovation to a standstill, prevented advanced services from being online, and kept network providers from doing such basic things as throttling off DoS attacks and virus-spamming servers.

I encounrage anyone who supports this to read this 2004 Cato whitepaper on the subject, which lists 10 major problems with so-called "Net Neutrality":

u>http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa507.pdf




RE: Good for them...AND us
By TomZ on 4/7/2006 10:01:09 AM , Rating: 2
I think the service providers have two purposes for filtering or multi-tier services:

1. Charge both consumers and content providers for access
2. Provide more preferential placement of their own and/or their partners' content

The companies have basically come out and said as much. Obviously the motive here is to increase margin/profit. I disagree with some of the implications that the industry actually wants to protect consumers and provide more innovation. I think profit is the compelling motive, which is fine, but let's call it what it is.

But I am also against the government regulating that industry, mainly because it is something new that still needs to develop. I don't see how you could effectively regulate something that is not understood. Regulation should also only be done as a last resort when it is clear that the outcome is very bad. That has not been proved in this case at all.

In the end, consumers have to decide what is reasonable. We have to be aware of what our service providers are doing, and be prepared to change to a different provider if we disagree with the decisions they are making. OK, that's not really going to happen, is it? Oh well...


RE: Good for them...AND us
By masher2 (blog) on 4/7/2006 3:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "I disagree with some of the implications that the industry actually wants to protect consumers and provide more innovation. I think profit is the compelling motive"

The truly wonderful thing about capitalism is that the former (innovation and protecting one's customers) nearly always equates to the latter-- more profit. The motives run hand in hand.

> "1. Charge both consumers and content providers for access "

Certainly, there is nothing unusual nor unwanted about charges being based on on ones level of usage, or for the higher levels of QoS.

> "2. Provide more preferential placement of their own and/or their partners' content "

I don't think any access provider would survive if it did this-- unless they compensated customers in other ways (i.e. "free internet service if you view our ads").

Remember, there is no monopoly on Internet service. If a particular provider has too restrictive a business model, then vote with your feet. They'll get the message from you far faster than they will from Washington.




RE: Good for them...AND us
By TomZ on 4/7/2006 4:21:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Remember, there is no monopoly on Internet service. If a particular provider has too restrictive a business model, then vote with your feet.

I agree with you in principle, but I also think that providers like Comcast do operate in a pseudo-monopoly because in many areas they would be the only cable broadband provider. Sure, there are other forms of broadband, but if someone is settled on having cable broadband, there might be only one choice.

In addition, I also think that providers are saavy enough to sneak in small changes, like adding filtering, into existing services. Some customers may object, but the vast majority may not even be aware of the change until years later. In other industries, this is pretty much the norm. For example, the number of "free" calls included in the local phone service goes down every couple of years, and phone system adds more area codes, shrinking the "free local" zones more and more.

This is why the existing situation is a bit troubling.


RE: Good for them...AND us
By spwrozek on 4/7/2006 9:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
Highspeed internet is monopilized in some areas. Such as where I live. You have one choice. Charter cable internet at $50 bucks for 3Mbit service. You cannot get DSL. I suppose you could try and get satellite but since satillite TV hardly works at all in the long winter I doubt the internet would be much better. It really sucks a lot though. I feel like I am paying entirely to much for that internet speed but I have no choice unless I wanna use dial up.


RE: Good for them...AND us
By masher2 (blog) on 4/8/2006 9:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
The so-called "last mile" of local service is the only place where monopolistic behaviour still exists. Why? Because those providers are given protected status under state and local law. The bulk of Internet traffic is carried on long-haul fiber, however, which today is a very competitive market.

Instead of passing laws that affect primarily the long-haul carriers, why not lobby for removal of monopoly protection for local cable companies?


RE: Good for them...AND us
By SunAngel on 4/7/2006 2:15:56 PM , Rating: 1
There is one thing you will learn in life if you have not already learned it... if a thief is going to rob you they are going to do regardless of how good your defenses are. Same situation with Internet regulation. If agreement is made to Level 1/Level 2 the internet structure, the community will figure out a way to re-route traffic. But, as always there is a victim. Not always the end consumer and not always the little ISP fighting to stay alive, but that lone individual in some remote corner of the world never knowing there is a whole internat realm they will never be able to enjoy because Gus and Marge could not get along.


We do need a stopgap
By Quantum Mechanic on 4/7/2006 10:31:05 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree that this was a kneejerk reaction. We need something.

Comcast has started to shut down Vonage now that they have rolled out their own phone service. Pretty soon they will come after my Sunrocket.

I guess my dreams of some day getting IPTV are over.

Telcos must be forced to play nice. They are monopolies so they need federal oversight.




RE: We do need a stopgap
By OrSin on 4/7/2006 11:21:18 AM , Rating: 2
Comcast did the same to me for Sunrocket. But it really a firmware they sent to all thier cable modems. I just sent thier cable modem back and bought one of my own. I understand in some areas comcast will not even let you buy you own modem. The said thing is everyone wants to keep thier piece of the pie to themselfs.

One thing, can we call lobbist what they are. They are just people that bribe the govenment to do what they want. I'm sick of hearing stories that say lobbies blocked this bill. No they didn't, thier paid off sentator did.


RE: We do need a stopgap
By masher2 (blog) on 4/7/2006 11:29:07 AM , Rating: 2
> "Comcast has started to shut down Vonage now..."

Comcast Puts "Vonage Blocking" Rumors to Rest:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1933665,00.as...

The simple fact is, most broadband providers usually have QoS problems...but most customers don't notice them until they start using a service like VoiP that's highly sensitive to such issues.


RE: We do need a stopgap
By TomZ on 4/7/2006 1:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
Past performance isn't necessarily indicitive of what they plan for the future. Most of the big service providers have talked up filtering, charging content providers, etc.


RE: We do need a stopgap
By hans007 on 4/8/2006 8:06:14 AM , Rating: 2
i guess the one good thing about southern california is competition for broadband.

at my apartment i can basically get either comcast or sbc.

sbc is currently $12.99 a month (if you already have a phone) for 1.5 down. i thikn its 17.99 for 3mb.

comcast is 42.99 per month for 6 mbps if you have cable already. though there are always deals like the current running one (6 months for $20 a month witha $75 rebate, so 6mbps down for 6 months at $45)


RE: We do need a stopgap
By bigboxes on 4/8/2006 7:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
I live in the D-FW metorplex of north texas and I have Comcast internet. I was paying $42.95 a month (with digital cable service) for 6Mbps internet service. I just moved a month ago and they said I needed to sign up for a new plan. I asked them what they had (all skeptical like) and they offered the same service for $34.95 a month. I recently ran a speed test (Speakeasy) and am pulling 9638/351! I also have had Vonage for the last year and can tell you that it works great. Comcast charges double for their VoIP service. Riiiiight. I was happy to fire SBC (AT&T) for their overpriced service and am not about to return to higher prices/less service.


Yet again they don't get it!
By Landincoldfire on 4/7/2006 7:27:05 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone with half a brain knows that this won't work. Because in the end the people with more money are get the better results. I pay close to sixty dollars a month for my broadband and I think it is more than enough to cover the cost of traffic both ways.




RE: Yet again they don't get it!
By SunAngel on 4/7/2006 2:09:03 PM , Rating: 1
$60 for internet. OMG what is so important on the web for you to spend that kind of money. Please tell me because I would like to know. Thanks in advance.


RE: Yet again they don't get it!
By TomZ on 4/7/2006 2:29:56 PM , Rating: 2
The average price per MBit in the U.S. is $35.30 - so $60 a month for broadband is probably close to what most folks are paying.

Remember, pricing is determined by what the market will bear. People value broadband, so they are willing to pay for it.

In case you don't think there's a lot of profit in providing broadband service, however... In Japan, the average price per MBit is $0.90.


RE: Yet again they don't get it!
By ninjit on 4/7/2006 4:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
Really? That's the average nation-wide price??

I pay $15 for my 1.5 Mbit DSL connection ($10/Mbit), I feel sorry for all the people that must then be paying at least $60/Mbit to compensate for my cheap service.


RE: Yet again they don't get it!
By TomZ on 4/7/2006 4:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
Your DSL is cheap by U.S. standards. That same data rate where I live would cost around $100/month.


By masher2 (blog) on 4/8/2006 10:00:21 AM , Rating: 2
> "In case you don't think there's a lot of profit in providing broadband service, however... In Japan, the average price per MBit is $0.90."

The average cost per subscriber is roughly the same in Japan...just the data rate is much higher. Its much cheaper to provide broadband in small nations with high population densities.

In any case, I saw the same figures you did, and I'd be quite interested in seeing the methodology used to derive them. For the US at least, I think they either counted dialup rates, or they didn't weight markets by subscribers...nearly all the major markets are substantially cheaper than their figure.


I miss the good ol' days
By Aquila76 on 4/7/2006 8:27:43 AM , Rating: 3
...when government repesented the people and not the lobbying businesses. Is nothing immune from corruption and greed?




By TheLiberalTruth on 4/9/2006 1:22:09 AM , Rating: 4
"You're living in a dream world, Neo."

But really...it's what happens when you don't keep corporations from stepping on the little guy, and when you don't keep politicians from being corrupt and taking money to do their bidding for them. In a nut-shell, it's the end result of america in recent times.


Give it upq
By berat556 on 4/7/2006 5:19:47 AM , Rating: 1
Good for them, suck for us. All the representatives you can afford, seems to be the tag line these days. The funny part is that Micro$oft is the knight in shinning armor in this story when in fact they are just as bad as the Telcos when it comes to monopolistic behavior. VIVA KING GATES!




RE: Give it upq
By aGreenAgent on 4/8/2006 3:33:05 AM , Rating: 2
The fact is that businesses fight for their own interests. There's really little difference between MS and any other company, except that Microsoft has the power to impose their will on other companies. Most companies don't have that power, and are inherently unable to be monopolistic.

So you obviously hate MS for running a business, which is fine - but the fact remains that if some legislation helps them, they'll be for it, and if it hurts them they'll be against it. It's not especially ironic or anything, as you seem to think.


Does not compute
By BioRebel on 4/9/2006 3:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
Gwuh? Me siding with Microsoft? But... Hagerkik!! DOES NOT COM{UTE!!!




“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki