backtop


Print 46 comment(s) - last by AncientPC.. on Jun 8 at 7:34 PM

Major telcos say Government is concerned over nothing

DailyTech previously reported on a proposed law that would allow large telcos and broadband providers to create tiered networks in which bandwidth is controlled depending on what a connection is being used for, how much is being paid, and if the connection is used to potentially access information from competitors. Many companies like Google and Microsoft have said that tiered networks will hurt the development of the Internet overall for users and that net neutrality should become a law.

Today, the House Committee approved by majority vote a bill that will uphold net neutrality. The bill will prevent telcos and ISPs from creating tiered networks. Members of the house committee argue that many citizens in the US are located in areas where there are few choices in broadband providers. In circumstances like this, the net neutrality law will prevent the local telco or cable provider from engaging in anti-competitive practices that are usually associated with monopolistic organizations.

The news of the net neutrality bill being passed and approved will mean good news for Internet users, but all is not smooth as of yet. AT&T voiced its opinion on the net neutrality law and questioned its use. According to a report on Yahoo, AT&T said that it was disappointed in the decision of the House Committee to support the bill. Tim McKone, AT&T executive vice president for federal relations said that the House Committee had approved of a bill to help solve "a problem that doesn't exist." Both AT&T and Cisco previously mentioned that the net neutrality law would stifle the development of new technologies, which is exactly what Google, Microsoft and others have been saying would happen if there was no net neutrality.

Earlier this year, the House Subcommittee rejected an amendment that would have blocked Internet service providers from regulating connections based on content of customers. At the time, the subcommittee decided it was too early to regulate the Internet as a whole. Today, the vote was passed by all 14 Democrats on the committee and they were joined by 6 Republicans. 13 other Republicans were opposed to the bill.

Interestingly, the members of the committee that supported the bill said that they voted for the bill because existing competition to another bill that was already approved by a different committee. The decision to support the current bill they said, had nothing to do with actual concerns on the future of the Internet and what net neutrality is all about.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

WOW
By Sunbird on 5/26/2006 4:39:04 AM , Rating: 2
I can hardly believe it!

If I was an American, this law would make me proud to be an American.




RE: WOW
By Xavian on 5/26/2006 5:16:10 AM , Rating: 2
indeed, rarely do we praise the US government, but this thing definately deserves praise, horray for common sense! (i thought it had all but vanished in congress.)

Well done, now all we need to see now is the same stuff occur in every country.


RE: WOW
By soydeedo on 5/26/2006 5:56:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The decision to support the current bill they said, had nothing to do with actual concerns on the future of the Internet and what net neutrality is all about.
too bad that line describes exactly what is wrong with our legislature. skimming over the original news.com article you can see that the only reason they approved this measure was so that the committee could keep its oversight of net neutrality and this result is more of a by-product. how proud are you now? of course we should still be happy. =)


RE: WOW
By Xavian on 5/26/2006 6:11:18 AM , Rating: 2
atleast its a step in the right direction.


RE: WOW
By z3R0C00L on 5/26/06, Rating: 0
RE: WOW
By llbbl on 5/26/2006 9:42:04 AM , Rating: 1
we only wish more republicans could realize this.


RE: WOW
By meyerds on 5/26/2006 10:31:13 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Does it shock you that it was 13 Republicans who voted against it... probably because there elections are paid by AT&T etc. Republicans are soo corrupt. They Govern for companies and special interest groups... not the American people. I'm not even American and I can clearly see that.

At first, I would have agreed with you. Looking a little deeper into the issue, however, I believe I understand why the republicans voted how they did. Republicans have always voted to prevent more government intervention in business. That is what was happening in this case also. They are simply just trying to maintain what the U.S. constitution says - the government needs to stay out of as many areas as they can.

Too bad the democrats don't think so - they have regulated so much of business and other areas in the government, and as a result, the United States is $8.4 trillion in debt - ever growing - thanks to the ridiculous amounts of democrat-subsidized programs. Europeans need to stop bashing the Republicans without facts to base their "arguments" on. That kind of argument is neither productive nor worth reading. Save everyone's eyes in this thread and think about what you're saying before you say it.

Do I agree with the bill being passed? Yes, for certain - the tiered network system would have screwed over the consumer. Do I agree that the net neutrality bill was the way to solve it? Not necessarily. More government regulation can only hurt us.


RE: WOW
By tictac on 5/26/06, Rating: 0
RE: WOW
By rrsurfer1 on 5/26/2006 11:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
Riiiight. We had a surplus before republicans took control of congress and the white house. Now we're deep in debt. All the debt was incurred by a republican majority. How are you warping the blame onto democrats again? Most of that debt stems from two things - the war in Iraq, and MASSIVE tax cuts, primarily for the richest.

LESS government regulation ? Republicans like to say they are all for this but look how much the government has grown in the Bush administration and you'll find that the rhetoric is just that. Not to mention the number of freedoms that are slowly but surely being taken from us.



RE: WOW
By bobdelt on 5/26/2006 12:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
We had a recession at the end of Clinton's term and then 9\11 and 2 wars and some natural disasters. All things considered, you can't blame bush or the republicans for that. Even Kerry voted for the war in Iraq.


RE: WOW
By filibusterman on 5/26/2006 11:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed that Bush is not a classical Republican for some of the reasons you state. However, the 'surplus' that is being mentioned was a projected one.


RE: WOW
By miekedmr on 5/26/2006 12:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
Are you Kidding??
You do realise the debt was dropping for the first time in a long time when Clinton had office, right? When Bush came in, that progress quickly negated.


RE: WOW
By Kilim on 5/26/2006 1:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
I thinks his, very valid, point was that the debt increase was so sudden after Bush took office, it was more of a function of Clinton's mistakes coming due. More than it was due to the actions of Bush.

Bush is no great president, but as Clinton was leaving office the downward trend had already started. The first Bush presidency was coming out of its recession as Clinton was coming into office, but I still think Clinton got credit for that.

And another thing, wasn't the surplus caused by the Internet bubble during Clinton's presidency? And the crash was happening as Clinton was leaving office? Hard to blame Bush for that, unless, of course, you wish to attack Bush for all of America's wrongs.


RE: WOW
By daschneider on 5/26/2006 4:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are simply just trying to maintain what the U.S. constitution says - the government needs to stay out of as many areas as they can.


I can't find anything like that in the U.S. Constitution, but I do find the phrase "promote the general welfare" right there in the preamble. Doing the right thing for the majority of the people is the government's job.


RE: WOW
By meyerds on 5/26/2006 11:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
The United States Constitution was built entirely on a system of checks and balances - Executive power is regulated by the Judicial branch and passed by Legislative. Judicial branch is chosen by the Executive and Legislative. Legislative can be vetoed by Executive and declared unconstitutional by Judicial. ...and so on.

The entire constitution is built in such a manner that no area of the government can become too powerful (i.e. president doesn't become dictator). One of the major concerns of the founding fathers was that the government would become too powerful in the lives of citizens as well. For that reason they put into place a Bill of Rights to protect the people from an overly-powerful government.

One may also note that the Bill of Rights, as good as it seems to us today, was actually highly controversial at its conception. People feared that it would allow the government too much lea-way, as the plain old constitution protected the peoples' rights from the government simply - and adding the Bill of Rights would just add a way for the government to interpret its right to do things it shouldn't.

quote:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? - Alexander Hamilton


You're right, promoting the general welfare is definitely in there also - however it comes back to the government not being granted the right to interfere with business practices, with exception of those businesses that are regulated under the Sherman Anti-Trust act (etc.) - monopolies - which I don't believe this case falls under.


RE: WOW
By filibusterman on 5/26/2006 11:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
Checks and ballances went out the window with the Patriot act II.


RE: WOW
By creathir on 5/26/2006 11:08:27 AM , Rating: 2
The House is EXTREMELY conservative. As such, they want as much limited government as possible. That is why they voted the way they did, not that they are pay rolled by AT&T. Take your tin foil hat off for just a minute.

Also, isn't it William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana, that is currently in the process of being indicted for bribery...

If I had to guess, corruption exists on both sides of the aisle.

- Creathir


RE: WOW
By rrsurfer1 on 5/26/2006 12:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I had to guess, corruption exists on both sides of the aisle.


Agreed.


Sad..
By nangryo on 5/26/2006 4:16:20 AM , Rating: 2
It is sad to see company these days... making money by legalizing way to monopolize something...

The greedines that is never end.




RE: Sad..
By geeg on 5/26/2006 10:43:29 AM , Rating: 2
That is called capitalism.


RE: Sad..
By RyanM on 5/27/2006 9:15:49 AM , Rating: 2
No, it's not. Capitalism can succeed without the absense of absolute greed. There's a different between wanting to make lots of money and greed.


RE: Sad..
By Nocturnal on 5/27/2006 4:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, it's not. Capitalism can succeed without the absense of absolute greed. There's a different between wanting to make lots of money and greed.

QFTMFT


RE: Sad..
By PseudoKnight on 5/27/2006 7:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
What? Greed IS the desire to acquire lots of money among other material possessions.

Furthermore, while capitalism can succeed without "absolute" greed, it encourages greed and self-interest. No system is perfect.


RE: Sad..
By AncientPC on 6/8/2006 7:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
Capitalism works because of greed. However capitalism also depends on competition within a free market which and monopolies prevent that.

Well everyone hails the net neutrality bill, people need to remember that telephone companies act in their own self-interest as well. I'm not saying I like tiered networks, but at the current state telphone companies don't have incentive to increase / improve internet infrastructure. That is why US's infrastructure lags behind certain Asian countries.


What a moron
By bighairycamel on 5/26/2006 7:28:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tim McKone, AT&T executive vice president for federal relations said that the House Committee had approved of a bill to help solve "a problem that doesn't exist."


They stopped a problem that could and WOULD probably occur had this bill not been passed. That guy is a total moron.




RE: What a moron
By DigitalFreak on 5/26/06, Rating: 0
RE: What a moron
By GoatMonkey on 5/26/2006 8:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
If it's a problem that doesn't exist then why is he commenting on it?


RE: What a moron
By llbbl on 5/26/2006 9:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
Well if you got paid millions of dollars to "defend" your company from the evil people on the internet wouldn't you be against net netrality. I know I couldn't do his job. I am FOR this bill and don't really like ATT.


RE: What a moron
By vingamm on 5/26/2006 12:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
I could be wrong but I think how this works is it goes to a subcomittee first, if they see it as something that needs to be addressed it is put before the house. If the house approves it, it goes to the Senate. If they approve it the president has to sign it into law. At any point the Judicial branch can say it is unconstitutional and it gets the kabosh. The fact that it died in committee means it will never make it to the house to be voted on. That is if I remember my school house rock ("I'm just a bill. Yes, only a bill and I am sitting here on capitol hill......")


RE: What a moron
By bobdelt on 5/26/2006 11:19:46 AM , Rating: 2
Can't you guys read? The bill has not passed. It went through committee which means nothing to us. Lets see what happens when it actually goes to the House.


My take on this is different...
By Chocolate Pi on 5/26/2006 12:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
People keep saying "government intervention is bad", and yet this "net neutraility" is nothing more that the government telling teleco's what to do. Net neutrality is worded to make it sound like it is anti-regulatory, but it is regulation through and through.

The Internet got to be the great thing it is today by being unregulated. Telecos are not some big, evil, anti-competitive monsters, just look at Comcast's recent speed hikes and proposed 16mb service! We have done fine without net neutrality for years, what kind of total BS is "upholding net neutrality"? WE'VE NEVER HAD IT! You can't uphold a regulation that was never in place!

Why would telecos overnight decide to start blackmailing certain sites for bandwidth access? For countless years now they have not, and doing so would cause a consumer uproar they cannot afford. They would never do the things paranoid "sky-is-falling" parrots are claiming. The only thing net neutrality DOES do is FORBID telecos from offering premium service to things like video provides. That's right, big government regulation RESTRICTS companies and consumers alike, who would have thought?

I hope people snap out of their anti-corporate fever to realize that regulation is in fact, regulation.




By miekedmr on 5/26/2006 12:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure telco's ARE big evil anti-competitive monsters. The increases in bandwidth aren't a contradiction to that. They are regular and small, thanks to the basic duopoly of dsl/cable high speed ISPs. If competition were really at work, we would have seen affordable 100Mbit connections in our homes by now.


RE: My take on this is different...
By vingamm on 5/26/2006 1:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
My response to that is the same response I have to when they decided that they did not need affirmative action in Cali. almost overnight educational institutions and businesses changed their acceptance and hiring policies. they made you believe it was a good thing that there was no need for it and if you look at acceptance into higher education instutions now (check SoCal if you think I am exaggerating)they are considerably lower. So the answer is as long as greed and prejudice are present in this country some people will act on it. The telcos may not have tried to regulate the net before but I think if they could make a buck they would. Freedom of enterprise and all that.


RE: My take on this is different...
By TomZ on 5/26/2006 2:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would telecos overnight decide to start blackmailing certain sites for bandwidth access?

You obviously haven't been following the news, where SBC officials have been in public complaining that companies like Google and Yahoo are getting to "use their bandwidth for free" and that they should be paying for that.

I interpret this as companies like SBC trying to get paid for both sides of the pipe, first by end-users for the service, and then again by major web content providers. This only becomes a problems because in many areas, there is only 1 cable broadband provider and 1 phone/DSL provider. Because of this, free-market dynamics would not be able to "correct" against an Internet service provider that decided to increase their revenue in the way that I mentioned.

I am also generally against government regulation, but in situations where government regulation has reduced or removed competition, I think some degree of regulation is necessary in order to protect consumers.


OMG
By vingamm on 5/26/2006 8:02:31 AM , Rating: 2
This is a shocker! Since when does our government care about the user/consumer? I take back all the things I was thinking. I saw this as a way to limit access to common people and give the advantage to big business. I am proud of them and maybe there is some fairness in the world




RE: OMG
By z3R0C00L on 5/26/2006 9:37:54 AM , Rating: 2
" all 14 Democrats on the committee and they were joined by 6 Republicans. 13 other Republicans were opposed to the bill."

Democracts obviously care.


RE: OMG
By tjr508 on 5/29/2006 9:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
Of course they do. They care about making sure big brother has a firm grasp on economic activity in the state and making sure citizens cannot form corporations that are all corporationy and offer services in exchange for money.

Nearly ALL state invasion on private business is a bad idea and should at least be handled on a case by case basis instead of a gigantic blanket law prohibiting any control over bandwidth.


The right decision
By crystal clear on 5/26/2006 5:38:00 AM , Rating: 1
Web Inventer-TIM BERNERS-LEE was the first to call for neutrality of internet.His appeal was accepted.
He gave us the internet for free....he did not recv a penny/cent as royalties.It is the I.S. Providers,content providers etc making the millions/billions.
Who knows better whats good for internet than TIM.
I think daily tech should interview HIM on the future of the internet.




RE: The right decision
By olu on 5/26/2006 12:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
Tim Berners-Lee didn't give us the internet, he doesn't know what's best for the internet, and his page-based model for the web is hindering web development (AJAX is essentially a workaround to the problem of a synchronous, page-based model, for example).

He'd probably be the WORST possible person to interview on the future of the internet (Curl, anyone?).


RE: The right decision
By crystal clear on 5/26/2006 4:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
Suggest U do some reading-
BBC News website -tech/business section
&
WWW.2006

I am sure U will agree, BBC news site is not a trash site-well respected all over the world for its accuracy & correct reporting.


Passed by a COMMITTEE
By bigboxes on 5/26/2006 9:43:45 AM , Rating: 3
It is not a law yet. It would have to be passed by the full congress. I'm sure that the special interest groups (ISPs) will line enough pockets to defeat/delute any such bill that comes up for a full vote. I hope that I am wrong.




Content for a Price
By InternetGeek on 5/26/2006 10:09:12 AM , Rating: 2
It was only time until companies would want to profit from every bit going through the cables. They will keep trying and trying until they make it through. They day that happens I will see a lot of people going back to 56k to use the internet only for email because even Internet Shopping will be threatened by a tiered network.





Microsoft
By rklaver on 5/26/2006 11:31:47 AM , Rating: 2
Glad to see Microsoft on our side. At least they have some clout and money to buy off the other politicians.




Thats what I was afraid of
By Trisped on 5/26/2006 7:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The decision to support the current bill they said, had nothing to do with actual concerns on the future of the Internet and what net neutrality is all about.
Another crappy pork barrel for someone while I still don't have a safe solution.




Telcos
By builder7 on 5/28/2006 7:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
How is it capitalism if the government is the one responible for giving companies the power to stop good service? Why is our government of what is supposedly a free enterprise society always subsidizing and enabling the rich while at the same time the government that supposedly is for all the people doesn't give ordinary people ways to "charge" more for their labor? It seems that this is all right in a society that tolerates the candidate with the richest friends as the ones who make policy. When are the majority of the people ever going to be able to have a voice?




No ROI, no capital
By BenSkywalker on 5/29/2006 9:39:34 AM , Rating: 1
If this bill passed and I was calling the shots for a telco nearly every penny going towards improving communications infrastructure would be gone and put towards something that offers a decent potential return on investment. This wouldn't be due to greed- it is a responsible executive's job to do as much. If I was a shareholder under such circumstances and the CEO did not drop funding I would vote for his removal.

Offering tiered service leaves open the potential that a telco would be willing to drop obscene capital for long term gains if they could "gouge" their wealthier customers short term to help cover the initial hit. This bill passes, there is no reason to advance anything beyond the point it is at now.




"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














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