Net Neutrality Fight Returns to Senate

[Suhit Gupta]

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6083297.html

"The political tussle over Net neutrality shifted back to the Senate's turf Tuesday, taking center stage at the last public hearing before a mammoth communications bill goes up for a preliminary vote. As leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee continue negotiations over how to deal with the controversial concept, committee members and witnesses from advocacy groups took turns airing their positions yet again. The latest draft of the sweeping bill, called the Consumer's Choice and Broadband Deployment Act, numbers 151 pages and covers everything from the digital television switch to city-run broadband networks to changes in the procedure by which video services operators seek franchises to serve new areas."

Hmm, I am now totally confused. As the article points out, the most contentious portion has turned out to be Net neutrality, the idea that network operators should not be allowed to prioritize Internet content and services that travel across their pipes or to make deals with companies seeking special treatment. Initially I was in favor or something like this because what I understood was that users get to decide how they would like to navigate the Internet. But then in the last paragraph, a free-market proponent seems to be an opponent of this part of the bill. Am I missing something? If he is for the free market, shouldn't he be for the bill? Sorry, I am reading this at 2am, probably not the optimal time to read something that has to do with bills and lawyer-speak.

[Suhit Gupta]

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6083297.html

"The political tussle over Net neutrality shifted back to the Senate's turf Tuesday, taking center stage at the last public hearing before a mammoth communications bill goes up for a preliminary vote. As leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee continue negotiations over how to deal with the controversial concept, committee members and witnesses from advocacy groups took turns airing their positions yet again. The latest draft of the sweeping bill, called the Consumer's Choice and Broadband Deployment Act, numbers 151 pages and covers everything from the digital television switch to city-run broadband networks to changes in the procedure by which video services operators seek franchises to serve new areas."

Hmm, I am now totally confused. As the article points out, the most contentious portion has turned out to be Net neutrality, the idea that network operators should not be allowed to prioritize Internet content and services that travel across their pipes or to make deals with companies seeking special treatment. Initially I was in favor or something like this because what I understood was that users get to decide how they would like to navigate the Internet. But then in the last paragraph, a free-market proponent seems to be an opponent of this part of the bill. Am I missing something? If he is for the free market, shouldn't he be for the bill? Sorry, I am reading this at 2am, probably not the optimal time to read something that has to do with bills and lawyer-speak.

[Felix Torres]

Depending on the phrasing and interpretation of the various competing "net-neutrality" proposals, the result would vary from a full free-market to a fully regulated market.
At its core, net-neutrality as presented in congress, is about compulsory licensing; about forcing telcos to sell all their levels of bandwidth service to would-be competitors at the same price.

(One proposal would've forced google to carry yahoo or MSN ads and might've even forced Amazon or eBay to provide space on their web sites to would-be competitors.)

Of course, buried in the same bills is the abolition of local cable system regulation, which has more immediate impact and which hardly anybody is talking about.

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/06/quietly_your_ri.html

It is gotten to the point that the intended beneficiaries of these bills, the cable operators, would prefer to see no bill come out of Congress.

http://news.com.com/Net+neutrality+M...3-6082444.html

"Would you rather see the telecommunications bill as approved by the House become law--or would you rather have no new legislation at all?
Tauke: No legislation at all."

[mitchmeister]

I thought it was very simple. This fight AGAINST Net neutrality is being financed by the big telco's. Why would any internet user not want net neutrality. Who wants their access and access speed to their favourite websites to be determined by the greedy whims of some fat telco tycoon.

The telcos want to introduce a 2-class internet where big businesses get premium internet bandwidth and everyone else gets the dregs. Not only that, the damned telcos will effectively be able to control their ISP customers access to particular domains/websites. This issue is about the greed of telcos vs the freedom of internet users, and the fact that it has got this far must also indicate something about the corruption of government.

[Felix Torres]

Yeah, it sounds simple but it isn't.

Cause what the debate actually turns on isn't about end users or two-tier-ing the internet, but about high-speed vpn's and (expensive) specialty back-end services for advanced apps like hd video streaming, and IPTV and vertical industry networks and all sorts of advanced communications networks that have nothing to do with the Internet as we know it.

This is all about the cable companies and the big portals versus the telcos; there are no good guys in this fight. Its just one group of lobbyists trying to skew the playing field against the other group of lobbyists.