Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. House K.O.'s Net Neutrality

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
earthside Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 09:21 AM
Original message
U.S. House K.O.'s Net Neutrality
House K.O.'s Net Neutrality

InternetNews.com

Legislative language to make the controversial concept of network neutrality the law of the land failed in the U.S. House of Representatives late Thursday night.

In an amendment to an otherwise widely supported telecom reform act, lawmakers rejected by a vote of 269-152 a measure to require broadband providers such as AT&T and Comcast to treat all Internet traffic in a nondiscriminatory price manner. ...

... The bill passed on a 321-111 vote, with 215 Republicans and 106 Democrats voting in the affirmative.


Look at the Democrats who voted YES on FINAL PASSAGE of this terrible legislation.

Roll Call

Unbelievable.

Now we move to the U.S. Senate -- SaveTheInternet.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. maybe OUR payoffs to them are insufficient vs corporate ones? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
2. Worst. Congress. Ever. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. I'm ignorant - why is the final bill so terrible?
I understand net neutrality is bad, but that was only the amendment, not the final bill. The amendment was rejected. Could you tell me what the deal is here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Net Neutrality is bad?... Um...
From that point of view this outcome is a roaring victory then. Be happy, go home, celebrate.

Thank you very much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
earthside Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Good Grief!!!!
Edited on Fri Jun-09-06 09:51 AM by earthside
Net Neutrality is GOOD.

Read this: Hands Off Our Internet!

Over half the Democrats in the House last night voted for the bill that ENDS net neutrality.

This kind of stuff is also in this terrible piece of legislation ... from Democracy Now!:

Another provision of the bill would cut back the obligation of cable TV companies to devote channels to public access and fund the facilities to run them. And the COPE bill would replace local cable franchises with national franchises. The companies contend that this will create competition and lower fees but consumer groups and activists are concerned that it will take control and oversight away from local government as well as cut channel capacity for public, educational and governmental access channels or PEGs. The COPE Act would also permit providers to not provide service to low-income communities that they believe would be less profitable to serve.


There is NOTHING to celebrate here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
freethought Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. Net neutrality is what we are trying to preserve.
It sounds as if you're understanding on the net neutrality bill is a little off.

With the telecom bill this is supposed to amend, providers of broadband internet services will be able to impose a "toll road" on internet traffic thus creating a 'tiered' internet. Providers like Verizon, COMCAST, and others can charge website owners for a favorable amount of bandwidth. If you're a website like Ebay, who has lots a cash you can buy bandwidth on these broadband networks. People will be able to access your site easily. But if you're a website that has limited money or runs of off contributions, like DU, your content can be designated to an internet 'dirt road' where access to it would be slow or maybe cut off entirely by the broadband provider. Getting information out on the web now becomes discriminatory. Telecom corps think they have the legislative process locked up enough to get this crappy legislation through the congress.

Net neutrality simply says that these broadband providers must recognize the information out on the Net in a non-discriminatory manner. One should be able to access a website for basket weaving as easily as one could access a website for a Fortune 500 company. This was the original intent for the Internet, information flows freely and unrestricted despite some of the negatives such as porn or hate-sites. A website for "Mac's Baitshop" should be able to stand right next to Microsoft's site.
The amendment was an attempt to preserve that net neutral aspect.

Some of us see this as a move by corporations, repukes, and some dems as a means stifling or even censoring information on the web. It has been recognized that the Web and blogosphere has become a powerful element in politics. Some in the political and corporate arena see it as a threat.
Let me give you this example, you have obviously heard about the issues and problems involved with electronic voting machines. This has been circulating on the web for years but even to this day there has been nary a peep about it in mainstream media. Many here at DU knew about Bush Co. lies about Iraq long before they were ever reported in MSM and that because the web allows them to access alternative sources of information such as the various newspaper websites in the UK. There is corporate control of the major news networks, newspapers, and local broadcasting. Getting rid of net neutrality is another way of controlling information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Thank you, that was very informative.
I appreciate you taking the time to help educate me on this matter. I honestly was ignorant on the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Sorry if I sounded flippant earlier. Really.
I hear the telco propaganda for this is highly effective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RCinBrooklyn Donating Member (421 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
6. This is a windfall for the communications giants. Payback for helping spy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RCinBrooklyn Donating Member (421 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
7. That snippet is misleading - full story here.
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.

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.

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)."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
10. this happened while DUers were frothing over Ann Coulter yesterday
to orgasmic levels. We get what we deserve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. Zarqawi died - and Ann Coulter spewed...this vote happens....
Ummm....time to put on my super-duper tin foil head dress:

The powers that be are meeting at the Bilderberger annual in Canada.

The internet (free exchange of information) is the single biggest obstacle for The New World Order agenda. They are trying to cripple it with this legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
12. Wake up folks..
Edited on Fri Jun-09-06 10:33 AM by sendero
.. screwit .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lagavulin Donating Member (101 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
14. Actually, what the article actually reports is that...
...the House put the kibosh on making "Net Neutrality" a law. They did NOT, however, vote to give cable co's, telco's etc. the green-light to begin restricting access.

There are actually two pieces of legislation involved, this one which is directly FOR Net Neutrality (because until now the idea of Net Neutrality was more of a custom than a law), and another one which is directly AGAINST it (seeking to establish rights for companies to offer preferential/predjudicial treatment).

This bill, seeking to make Net Neutrality a law, will still have to go to the senate....but things don't look good.

Anyone for State Secession?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
15. Sad. Democrats are not doing much to define themselves....
Edited on Fri Jun-09-06 10:48 AM by AX10
as being different from the GOP.
Half of them voted with the GOP on this issue and many others as well.

The worse congress ever, indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-09-06 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
16. Anything whis congress does the next congress can repeal. I hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC