RSSSenate Republicans suspend opposition to FCC net neutrality regulation
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published September 23, 2009, 4:35 PM
As first reported in the Washington Post this afternoon, and as has been independently verified by two other Washington news sources, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R - Texas) has agreed to withdraw her amendment to an Interior Dept. spending bill that would have cut off funding to any Federal Communications Commission effort to regulate "net neutrality." This as aides to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, as reported by Congressional Quarterly, approached Sen. Hutchison seeking her withdrawal, at least until the Chairman can put forth a complete proposal.
On Monday, Chairman Genachowski made a public policy speech outlining a framework for new FCC regulations that would prohibit service providers from disabling certain Internet services on behalf of customers, as well as more transparently specify for customers what allowed measures they are taking to regulate traffic on their networks. The implication of these "Fifth" and "Sixth Principles," as they're being called, is that the FCC would in turn prohibit ISPs from being able to provide better bandwidth to certain classes of content providers willing to pay a premium.
That latter provision has long been part of proposals by Sen. Hutchison and others in Congress to create state- and/or federal-level broadband franchising operations, when they believe would simplify carriers' ability to build out broadband services in outlying and rural areas. Permitting ISPs to charge premiums has been offered by Senate Republicans as an incentive for ISPs to seek state- or federal-level franchises to carriers, since carriers would still have to pay local-level franchise taxes -- or, at least, pay into a fund that would in turn compensate municipalities for the taxes they would have received through municipal licenses.
Hutchison's next move may also have been influenced by Chairman Genachowski's appearance earlier today at a luncheon of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. There, accompanied by newly appointed Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, he promised the same broadband plan that would include new net neutrality initiatives would also create incentives for businesses to expand broadband to low-income areas -- one of Hutchison's hot-button issues.
There, Comm. Clyburn formally received the Joint Center's Broadband Imperatives report, a set of recommendations for the FCC that could play into Genachowski's final policy proposal. Many African-American policy organizations contributed to the report (Clyburn is herself African-American); and her father is no less than House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D - S.C.). Assuming Hutchison's amendment would have passed the Senate, the Interior Dept. bill would then have faced opposition in the House.
Last month, Sen. Hutchison announced her candidacy in the 2010 Texas governor's race.
When I made my post I don't know if I past my point right or not. I'm a software developer and have been "working" in the web almost since its infancy. So I come from a point where people and companies weren't all that aware of the net. This discussion didn't make sense at the time because really no one was getting millionaire with the web yet.
So let me be clear. I'm all for less or no intervention from governments. But the fact is, in some areas, a government body is needed to ensure the peoples interest. For instance, food safety regulations, job safety regulations and so on. If for instance there were no job safety regulations, no company would be required to provide a safe working environment and we would see the same conditions here as we see in nations with less interest for their peoples life. If there were no food safety regulations we all know that there many companies that are willing to sell rotten food and they would sell rotten food. This are two simple examples.
And what is happening today with the web is that there are companies that are marketing internet packages with a certain speed and that now want to pick that up and tell you. "Look. The thing is we sell you this 20Mbps/s package. But we don't ensure you quality. We even don't ensure you a 20 Mbps speed. If you want quality we have this other product." Ok this all feels fine right. But what is really happening is that companies are proactively affecting internet services by using traffic-shaping technologies to limit customer access to p2p, streaming, voip and so on. They're selling a 20 Mbps package and then laughing their hearts out, fully aware that you will never achieve those speeds and at the same time their delaying any upgrade of their network lines and hardware. They are basically fooling you. So today our web is no longer neutral. And this is what is in discussion people. Obviously companies can give better access to those they want. They always could. Google, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, pays ISPs a premium to get quality dedicated internet lines, they spend huge amounts in order to provide quality access no matter how much loaded internet lines are. They are ALREADY paying for the network. So that you the customer do not need to worry about network congestion. And this is the point where ISP companies are fooling other companies too. They sell Google dedicated lines, hardware and so on, and then they actively limit the connection of Google customers by traffic shaping your connection.
Score: 0
|Let’s review.
The Republican, or Conservative party, is supposed to be aligned with less restrictions, more personal freedom, and less interference with people as they live their lives.
Net neutrality, while an intrusion by the government, is also a way to remove preferential treatment of persons, places, or websites. This is actually allowing more, not less, freedom for the public. It means that people, as they traverse the internet, will be less interfered with, and able to get anywhere they wish, without delays, or roadblocks.
Conclusion: Every person that calls himself a Republican should be for, not against, net neutrality.
Conclusion 2: Any Republican lawmaker should be in favor of net neutrality, and any one that is not we must suspect of being involved in graft.
Score: 2
|Why do some people think that government regulation always equals communism?
No matter what you do, SOMEBODY is going to control the internet, it's going to be either the government or the cable/phone company, the government at least claims to care about the people, the cable/phone company only cares about profit.
Score: -2
|I trust the profit motive over government concern any day of the week.
As for Net Neutrality, as much as I am a champion of the idea, having government get involved is a sure way to fail. Consider free speech. Governments are now getting restricting the free speech rights of some to "enhance" the free speech rights of others. I fear that Net Neutrality may end up going down the same road.
It would have been best to stay out of the fray until intervention, either through the court system or potentially at some point through legislation were needed to address a problem. Legislation passed to prevent a potential problem that has not yet manifested itself is the worst way to address the problem. Even when the problem is clear, present and well defined, and especially in the technology arena (i.e. SPAM) government solutions are largely ineffective at best, and often introduce negative unintended consequences.
Score: 2
|Yeah, as one example that's worked really well with health care in your country.
Thank God Europe and Canada are sane.
Score: 0
|Hang on hang on hang on. You need to regulate the internet to ensure it's neutral? Sorry but is this America or China?
Score: 0
|When the internet was "something" mostly accessed by academics and those with an interest in the tech industry this wasn't an issue.
Now that this technologies have become mainstream companies and politicians start to ruin stuff.
Anyway, I agree that it is time to take action, since companies are starting to do their "evil things".
And on this issue I support the Net neutrality side. It is about ensuring equal standing to all customers who access a service.
Score: 0
|Isn't Hutchison the politician whose web site for re-election had hidden terms inside the meta data to paint the opposing candidate as gay and more? Perhaps, she received a good dose of reality?
I still have trouble believing that anything about net neutrality will actually make things neutral but we can always hope for the best.
Score: 0
|