RSSNet Neutrality Suffers Narrow Defeat
By Ed Oswald | Published June 29, 2006, 1:31 PM
Net neutrality was dealt a bitter defeat late Wednesday, after a Senate committee rejected a Democratic amendment to add statutes to communications legislation by a 11-to-11 tie. The effort would have ensured that all traffic would be handled equally, say supporters.
It is now unclear if net neutrality will be able to recover, as efforts have suffered defeats in both houses of Congress. While Democrats and Internet companies say not including the rules could create a "two-tier Internet," Republicans have sided with the telecommunications industry saying the laws are needless regulation.
Much of the language from the amendment was borrowed from a full bill proposed in May. Under the statutes, it would be illegal to charge a company for priority access to its network, or attempt to squeeze out competitors by giving its traffic priority access.
Supporters of the effort lamented the amendment's defeat. An unlikely coalition of MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, and the Christian Coalition said however that it felt the effort was gaining momentum.
"The little guy has seized the momentum in this fight to preserve Internet freedom," said Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Civic Action. "Millions of Internet users are fighting back together to preserve Net Neutrality, and we're holding politicians accountable on this issue."
Another effort to pass a broader net neutrality amendment failed on a 12-10 vote. However, supporters say the fight is not over, now that the bill moves on to the Senate for a floor vote.
Amendments are likely to be brought to the floor during debate, and Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden said he would attempt to prevent a vote on the bill due to its lack of net neutrality regulations.
How can anyone really make a judgement based on the information you provide. I tend to keep pretty abreast of the news and I have not heard of the above proposal. Before I can make a judgement I would need more that a slanted (as above) description of the issues.
Score: 0
Methinks AOL is trying to own the real internet,how many $25.90 dial-up accounts does it take to buy a senator these days?
Score: 0
Net Neutrality is not the right way to solve this problem. We should let the telco's run their network as they wish. We just need to require truth in labeling. The government steps in and fines companies that try to sell “Organic” produce that wasn't grown organically. They should enforce “The Internet” as label the same way. You can ask for “The Internet” and if they give you BigTelco LightningTV Network (with internet-like features) they get fined. That way everybody gets what they want. The Internet is preserved as a place where all data is free from discrimination, and the telco's can offer products that I wouldn't want to buy.
Score: 0
The President does not understand the similar business-building & citizen-improvement benefits of this-- just like it's always been for telephone & other utilities.
It's only small business & the average citizen--ergo this country vis a vis others, who ends up suffering.
Score: 0
Republicans support big business. Verizon, Comcast and AT&T are big business. The lack of Net Neutrality is something that will only help these big companies prosper.
Obviously that Republican from Oregon sees everything right and wants Net Neutrality...oh well.
Score: 0
Bush and the conservatives love to spy, but hate it when their spying is revealed. They hate it when information is freely shared over the net. They hate it when a conservative paper like the NYT prints their nonsense. They hate it when people blog freely. Their solution? Get the politicians involved fixing something that isn't broke, and sell it off to the telcos who buy republicans by the dozen.
Our taxes already paid for the "pipeline" the telcos built (check your phone, cable, and cell bills), so now we really get to pay for them over and over and over.
Score: 0
The Times is a conservative paper? On what planet?
Score: 0
What did you expect? Bush who was against protecting the planet from global warming and his Republican big business gouls would never approve of something that protect the middle class. My suggestion. Even if it's Ed the Talking Horse running in this election on the democratic ticket, vote for the talking horse. Get legislative control out of the Bush camp and let's see if we can get some kind of protection from their Big Brother campaign.
Score: 0
It's scary when politicians in cohoots with big corporations force their limited technological understanding on people.
Score: 0
The amendment that was defeated was the Snowe/Dorgan amendment. It was a bipartisan (Snowe being the republican).
Score: 0
you can find any democrat's name, but for republican, there are only that many names who can sponcer these kind bill of "protecting small people". count it: snow/ collins/McCain/Hagel/Specter
Score: 0
So, since the big companies will be paying to choke my connection, do I get my connection for free?
Score: 0
I am appalled. The telecommunications industry seem to have got a lot of your senators in their pockets. The power that a lot of money brings a small self interested group.
A neutral net is going to make the USA a lot wealthier in the long run. A two - or three or four, or ten or twenty tiered net - is going to add a lot of administrative costs - is going to discriminate between rich and poor, and will prevent a lot of decent democratising ground breaking applications getting off the ground.
Why? To keep a few Senators happy?
Why? To keep a few of their friends happy.
Small minded, selfish, short term thinking.
VOTE THEM OUT !!
Score: 0
Bah. I see it as progress. If the next happens to be 12-11, net neutrality will be safe. All we gotta do is convince another senator.
So.. How hard would it be, do ya think, to storm one of their offices, throw up a few presentations and hand him a petition signed by thousands of internet users? ;)
Score: 0