Net Neutrality Measure Fails in House

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

June 9, 2006, 1:05 PM

The concept of net neutrality received what could be a serious blow on Thursday, as the U.S. House of Representatives rejected a Democrat-backed amendment that would have put net neutrality regulations into an upcoming telecom bill now being debated in Congress.

In a vote that fell mostly along party lines, the amendment was rejected 269-152, with 14 members not voting, and occurred after a day of debate. Republicans represented the large majority of votes to strike down the amendment, with most Democrats supporting the legislation.

Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Ed Markey, who has spearheaded the call for net neutrality regulations, lamented the defeat of his amendment, and warned of its consequences. However, he pledged to fight on to ensure some type of protection.

"We are making progress, and although we did not prevail tonight, we intend to prevail in the end," he said in a statement. "Net Neutrality is as basic to the function of the Internet as non-discrimination is to the U.S. Constitution. We will win because we must."

If passed, the amendment would have been attached to the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act, which was approved by a House committee in April. The telecommunications industry and Republicans say the bill has sufficient provisions to prevent the creation of a "two-tier Internet."

However, opponents disagree, saying the word of the telecoms that they would not charge for priority access is not enough. Telecoms maintain that it is their right as owners of the pipes to charge those who use excessive amounts of bandwidth.

Companies such as Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have come out in support of net neutrality, along with a coalition of musicians. Google CEO Eric Schmidt published an open letter on Thursday, calling for consumers to contact Congress and demand that the Internet remain a level playing field.

"The phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest," Schmidt wrote. "Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight."

Add a Comment (35 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By zridling

edited Jun 13, 2006 - 12:37 AM

TPM has the list of who was/is naughty and nice on Net Neutrality:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/net-neutrality.php

Support
Senate
(Membership Total: 12)
Sen. Barbra Boxer (D-CA)
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Sen. Joesph Lieberman (D-CT)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Oppose
Senate
(Membership Total: 4)
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)

"FINGER IN THE WIND"
No position
Senate
(Membership Total: 31)

Sen. George Allen (R-VA)
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI)
Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH)
Sen. John Warner (R-VA)

No Information
Senate
(Membership Total: 54)

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO)
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE)
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO)
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE)
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID)
Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Sen. William Frist (R-TN)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX)
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
Sen. Johnny Isaakson (R-GA)
Sen. James Jefford (I-VT)
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ)
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)
Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL)
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Benjamin Nelson (D-NE)
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)
Sen. James Talent (R-MO)
Sen. Craig Thomas (R-WY)
Sen. John Thune (R-SD)

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited Jun 12, 2006 - 10:49 AM

"The phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest," Schmidt wrote. "Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight."

This part has FUD written all over it. The idiot doesn't bother to mention that the current monopolies are as a result of previous government regulation...now they want more. They attribute strange motives to a profit driven industry. Like they will sit around choosing who gets high speed...that one is easy...those that pay for it... Just like now I can get higher speed if I pay more (yes I know I am mixing up local loop bandwidth and carrier traffic shaping but the concepts are similar). That is fine with me. Next are these bozos going to try to tell ISP's that they can't discriminate against the poor by offering premium broadband for those that want to pay for it. After all, you are disenfrachising all of those poor folks that don't have any money...now we are conspiring to keep them down because it took them 2 seconds longer to upload their resume using their slow connection, they will be kept poor and ignorant.

This is about fear, ignorance, politics and power. You have nothing to lose if the carriers can deliver the products their customers want, and much to gain.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited Jun 12, 2006 - 10:29 AM

Dont see a compelling case for government intervention here or anywhere on the Internet. They should enforce the law, but their meddling has already put the US behind in broadband adoption and mobile technology. The enforced monopolies they have created have allowed companies that deliver sub-par services to survive because of the regulations. In this case, let the free market drive the technology, and keep government hands off of it. They ruin almost everything they touch (amtrack anyone)...unless you want the Internet to run like the US Postal system does you should vote against any politician that is pro-regulation. Innovation does not require government regulated net-neutrality. The sky is not falling. We cannot know what will be thought up in the next few years to change the entire landscape of technology...of course making the regulations created now at best obsolete, and at worst, crippling.

Hands off the Internet!
If I want premium service I should be able to pay my provider for it, the same goes for content providers. The internet is not a basic human right. It is an interconnection of telecommunication carriers' networks. They are not the government, they are companies and should be able to do whatever they and their customers want to with it and not be shackled with a bunch of shortsighted and useless regulation that locks the current technology in place. This just demonstrates that we stil have a bunch of neo-luddite ostriches in Congress (not enough thankfully). Net-neutrality is not a good term for it...it should be crappy-connections-for all because it prevents investment in higher throughput that the carriers would make if they had content providers and customers willing to pay for it.

The irony here is that the republicans who have done more for big government than any lib in the last half century are the ones voting against it...and they are doing so because they are in the pockets of the telecoms and cable companies. The libs probably feel like they are doing the right thing because it feels good to keep everyone down to the the same low level of access...

Score: 0

By shrader3

edited Jun 11, 2006 - 3:20 PM

Never, never, never trust your politicians reguardless what they are looking at.

Score: 0

By ghammer

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 2:18 PM

Greed kills.
The content providers already PAY for their bandwidth.
It isn't as if Google/MS/Yahoo get a free pipe.

Lousy telcos and scum politicians. What do you expect from a 70 year old Congresscritter anyway. "Eh, speak up sonny. Neutrality! We'll get the Kaiser yet"

Score: 0

By iamtux

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 10:52 PM

I'm partial to Republicans, I can't believe they voted No. I'd have to side with the Democrats on this one. I hope they realize what they've done once this transition happens. bas****s.

Score: 0

By Dont_tread

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 8:25 PM

The sky is always about to fall on somebody.

Instead of demanding that ISPs be required to provide everyone with everything equally how about demanding that you have the freedom to choose whatever ISP plays the game with rules you like? Remember when AOL gave AOL members just what AOL thought was best for them?

AOL made a ton of money until users started fleeing in droves because they wanted access to the entire WWW without AOL's gatekeeping.

I for one would love it if my ISP started putting the brakes on ISPs from China where tons of spam is coming from and where the scummiest of the spammers have their illegal websites hosted. I don't have any sense of urgency about sending my PayPal password to some phishers in China or Rumania so I'd be very happy if my ISP blocked them entirely or at least charged them enough to make my access free of charge.

Freedom of choice for the smallest consumers also requires freedom of choice for large providers.

Score: 0

By infosquawk

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 6:55 PM

Here's the roll-call vote:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll239.xml

Score: 0

By The Inquisitor

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 8:06 PM

I'm beginning to regret voting for my current congressman during the just-over primary's. He voted no...

Score: 0

By stopbuggingme

posted Jun 11, 2006 - 7:20 PM

i'm voting against mine in november partially due to this.

Score: 0

By Ken101

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 2:26 PM

I am conservative and I reject the notion that government should be controlled by business. There are "business conservatives" who believe that it it good for government to "help" business.
However, those of us who are true conservatives do not support such intervention. Only to the very limited extent that intervention promotes sound economic and social policy should government apply force. Sometimes the appropriate force is anti-trust. BTW. "Government," in the words of George Washington, "IS force."
I have no confidence in AT&T, Verizon, etc. either.

Score: 0

By zeekle

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 5:53 PM

I'm a computer programmer, webdeveloper and SEO - I know from experience that running a successful online business is very hard - now it will be impossible for you - probably not for me.

These days, everything is being outsourced and internet was the last refuge of free enterprise. The internet was a place where you could compete - the competition was tough - but you could still compete - now the only internet players that will matter are the ones with millions of dollars to play with.

Who knows? Maybe I will survive because of my years experience in the field - but the end of net neutrality equals the end for the plucky newcomers - the American dream is virtually dead for you. What now, America? What pipe dream are you going to sell the American people now? Because the internet is off the list.

You need to organize some sort of boycott and you need to get smart and quit buying crap you don't really need from these monster corporations. Quit buying crap. And while you're at it - grow your own food if you can - after the economy nosedives, you'll be glad you picked up some gardening skills.

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 9:47 PM

If you're so experienced, then surely you know that internet is spelled as Internet and you know the difference between them. The "American Dream" will not "die" (or even get close to it) just because net neutrality ends. I have a low opinion of telcos and consider them to have held the nation back when it comes to decent broadband everwhere. However, your arguments don't hold water (well, I do agree with the last paragraph) and are not very convincing. The Internet is not required for "pipe dreams" or for the "American Dream". And not everything is being outsourced. It'll be idiotic to outsource the position of network administrator, for example (especially for large companies). And on a teasing note, I'll love to see the position of President of the United States outsourced. *grin*

Score: 0

By zeekle

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 4:06 AM

>>>"The "American Dream" will not "die" (or even get close to it) just because net neutrality ends."

Yes, you are right, there are about a dozen reasons the American Dream is dead - it's not just because net neutrality ended.

>>>"I'll love to see the position of President of the United States outsourced."

I nominate Ariana Huffington !!

>>>"If you're so experienced, then surely you know that internet is spelled as Internet and you know the difference between them."

No, I actually didn't know that the internet is supposed to be capitalized - thanks for the tip. That's just the sort of thing that computer science majors learn in college and thank God I didn't get a degree because I'd just now be getting out of college - only to learn that the internet revolution is over. Instead I skipped college, learned everything online and made millions with online advertising - before it was too late - before they killed the net. When I look down on all the little people while I'm swilling cognac in my East Manhattan high rise apartment, perhaps I'll be glad that net neutrality was killed - because I can afford to pay pay off AT&T while all the little guys get squished (insert evil laughter here).

Score: 0

By zridling

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 6:19 PM

And the bad part is that this bill will not make the internet we have any better. Corporations will just be able to triple their access charges for basically what we have now, only slower service for all who cannot afford to shell out $300/month.

Thank you, republicans. You're daily War on America and American values continues unchecked!

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 5:16 PM

This net neutrality thing confuses the heck outta me. On one side I'm hearing things like, it prevents companies from creating a 2 tier industry, thus passing the cost of content on to big businesses rather than consumers. That isps have the right to control and price the data on THEIR lines and such and such. On the other side, if it is passed then the gov't will regulate the net' and decide what can and can't be done, etc. etc.
Both sides scare the hell outta' me. Could someone explain exactly what each side is saying, without the bias of it all?

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 6:13 PM

Neo, here's the crux of the issue by Lawrence Lessing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html

Score: 0

By minus_seven_fold

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 4:23 PM

I told you this would happen a month ago.

Score: 0

By hamptonnews

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 4:14 PM

Vote 'em out! Someone please publish the names of each congressperson and how they voted on the web sellout bill. Thanks

Score: 0

By Flyne

edited Jun 11, 2006 - 10:30 PM

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll239.xml

Here you go.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 3:48 PM

Larry Johnson's summary of the last six years:

I wish we were making this crap up.

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 2:35 PM

"Net Neutrality is as basic to the function of the Internet as non-discrimination is to the U.S. Constitution."

AMEN TO THAT!

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 2:28 PM

WOW.

Question.
How fast can the US completely go to hell?

Answer.
In approx. 8 years.

WE MUST STOP THIS IDIOCY!

Score: 0

By Paradise-FH-

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 1:48 PM

did the house just ask us to trust a former conglomerate that had to be split six ways to sunday to end a monopoly?

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 1:26 PM

I am Conservative (yup, flames heading my way already ;). True "conservatives", generally speaking, believe the idea that anything that transfers control of business into the hands of the government is bad for the country and the economy most of the time. Even though it is a good thing in theory, even here I agree that the government should not decide who is discriminating and who is not--the circumstances will be waaayyy too vague. Too much power.

(Removed off topic flame starter...must not be a flamer, must not be a flamer...). Take this as you will. Some things the government must control, but business, IMO, should NOT be one of them.

Score: 0

By faradhi

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 5:07 PM

I can always tell when someone is going to take an extreme stance on an issue. The post starts with "I am a Liberal" or "I am a Conservative" and "I know I am going to get flamed for this but..." And, we all know comes from behind Butts?

I am neither a Conservative or a Liberal. Unless you ask a Conservative or a Liberal. Then I am a Liberal or a Conservative depending on who you are asking.

What both tend to forget is that the True evil is the extreme of each. If you do not regulate then you get polluters and monopolies and fewer small businesses. If you regulate too much then you get higher prices, more fees, and fewer small businesses.

So back to the topic at hand. At what point would you stop the Internet Providers from selling preferred bandwidth benefits? Would it be OK for company "X" to pay Internet provider "A" money to block content from company "Y" who is competing with "X"? Would it be OK for Apple to buy preferred bandwidth benefits from an Internet Provider so that Mac's have more bandwidth than IBM clones? Would it be fair for Microsoft to purchase extra bandwidth for everyone who purchases Vista?

You see, the potential cost not regulating far exceeds the potential cost of the regulation. Therefore, this is one case where the government can help ensure that competition is maintained. Here, is a case where the regulation is actually better for the overall economy.

Score: 0

By wren

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 4:54 PM

GENERALLY SPEAKING it's laudable to protect information from commercialization. Newspapers keep the financial and editorial departments completely separate, to help eliminate bias.

The Internet, the net-neutral Internet, will completely change the culture, because everyone has a voice. That is not profitable. Businesses will profit by selling more visibility to the established media -- with the side effect of reducing the free flow of information.

Net neutrality will increasingly put our culture in the hands of the people; businesses will sacrifice this, for profit, and keep our culture in the hands of the few.

Does anyone think Christmas sales starting before Thanksgiving is a GOOD thing for our culture? Hah.

Wren

Score: 0

By plumlipstick

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 8:19 PM

I have tried to see this debate from both sides. I usually lean toward the conservative side on many issues. This is one where I think the Republican party is making a big mistake. I'm disappointed in our lawmakers and their shortsighted approach to this issue. Though I have tried, I can't imagine how they could miss such room for abuse in a law they're voting on. They're mostly lawyers, and they know how loopholes in laws can be used better than most people in this country. For them to intentionally allow room for abuse seems idiotic to me.

I think we can see how this type of legislation works out by examining our own history with the radio and television. When radio came on the scene in the early 1900s, a group of creative inventors and performers led the charge, bringing content to other regions where it had never been heard. In order to give stations a fair method for using frequencies, the regulations began. They were necessary because they made sure that competition was reasonably possible. However, as corporations gained control of the air waves, they built large multi-city syndicates and pushed for laws that would give them some advantages. Independent stations began to struggle to compete with corporations who had better operating frequencies and licensing arrangements. Radio content began to evolve into the homogenized muck we have today. Smaller independent stations couldn't compete or meet the qualifications set forth by the FCC and FTC. Lacking the capital to take on the corporations, most independent stations closed shop and were sold to companies like Clear Channel. Ugh! Now over half of our local radio stations don't even have announcers. They're just playlists with commercials and occasional weather reports. If we allow it, I think the same mentality will overtake the internet, stifling both creativity and comsumer choice based on merrit. This isn't good for us as a nation and as individual consumers. Clear Channel internet, anyone?

Score: 0

By olerog

edited Jun 11, 2006 - 9:51 PM

Plumlipstick hit it on the head ! I am conservative, yet we should bash or call any Congressman that voted against this! and zeekle,well zeekle is just amusing is all!!!

Score: 0

By debonair

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 2:44 PM

well, conservatives don't want change. And this is something that shouldn't be changed. It's fine the way it is.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 1:22 AM

Actually, that's what the conservatives in the House voted against. The congresspeople who offered amendments for net neutrality (wan't just democrats, Sensenbrenner offered one too, but it wasn't voted on) were FOR keeping the internet the way it is now. The only thing I don't agree on is having the FCC having control, epsecially in light of the wiretap rules they made, but if there was some kind of independent agency made for the soul purpose of net neutrality and regulating anti-monoplistic actions by telecoms, I think that may be a good solution.

Score: 0

By Joe Dirt

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 1:16 PM

Such is life... ;)

Score: 0

By SkyPanther

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 1:51 PM

Funny thing is, I’m sure what bourgeoisdude wrote is true, however it seems that it does not work the other way around.

When Business starts to control government the "conservatives" are fine with that. Hypocrisy at its best.

Score: 0

By Arbulus

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 3:34 PM

Absolutely. And the problem is that Corporate America ownes Congress. That's what I fear most. The interests are not on the side of the everyday people, but on the side of big corporate sponsors to campaigns. Congress has sold its soul to big business and we're the ones who are going to burn in hell for it.

Score: 0

By Andruk Tatum

edited Jun 15, 2006 - 12:41 AM

If this is true, then how did Google come out from under M$? How did Apple suddenly bloom? What happens is that huge-a** corporations (my God, I sound liberal) become bureaucratic (spelling?) and soon fail to innovate their products *cough, Outlook, cough*. Eventually, consumers get fed up with absolute s*** (M$ Windows 98, or ME, anyone?) and start to buy...innovative products that..."just work". This is starting to take a hold of people, MAC really needs to start innovating the business intranet market, to make things really change. Google took the internet, asked themselves how they could make it better, and then applied it. The result is they kicked some corporate butt, expanded their innovative ideas, allowed workers to work on their own hobby projects (as long as they were coding), and the direct result of that was Google Local, Google Mars, Google Moon, etc. Most people love Google. I myself have about 13 GMail accounts just because I love it all. Innovation is the way corporations are toppled.

Score: 0