An update. New bill introduced in US Senate:
Quote:Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, will introduce new legislation today that would prohibit Internet network operators from charging companies for faster delivery of their content to consumers or favoring some content providers over others.
The bill is meant to ease growing fears that open Internet access may be blocked or compromised by the Bell phone carriers and cable operators, which may create tiers of service for delivering content to consumers, much the way the post office charges more for overnight mail delivery than for regular delivery...
The Wyden legislation, called the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, aims to prohibit network operators from assessing charges that give some content providers better access than others or blocking its subscribers from accessing content...
full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/techno....html?_r=3&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Update: score one for BellSouth and the other telco
s:
Quote:A key senator said Tuesday that a much-anticipated proposal to overhaul U.S. telecommunications laws may not require network providers to follow Net neutrality principles.
Because Stevens' committee is the Senate panel responsible for updating the 1996 Telecommunications Act, his lukewarm endorsement of Net neutrality could be a setback for companies that have been pressing for it to be mandated by law. Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, eBay, Amazon.com, Skype and liberal advocacy groups have been pressing Congress for strict laws in this area.
Net neutrality, also called network neutrality, is the idea that the companies that own the broadband pipes should not be able to configure their networks in a way that plays favorites--allowing them, for example, to transmit their own services at faster speeds, or to charge Net content and application companies a fee for similar fast delivery.
full article:
http://news.com.com/Senator+Net+neutrali...g=nefd.top
Update: backers of Net Neutrality gained a powerful lobbying voice in Washington as the AARP took up the cause
Quote:The American Association of Retired Persons, better known as the AARP, may be more famous for its lobbying muscle on pension plans and Medicare, but now it's taking up a new platform: keeping the Internet free and open for the age 50-plus set.
The 35 million member group is among a growing list of companies and organizations that signed a new letter Thursday urging senators to require Net neutrality principles by law...
"We're not traditionally someone who would be involved in technology legislation and things of that nature, but this has a direct impact on our members and their lifestyles," said AARP spokesman Mark Kitchens...
full article:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6051062.html?part=rss&tag=6051062&subj=news
The side that offers the most bribes will win. Both the AARP and Telecom industry are masters at buying politicians. Congress gets a nice bag of goodies no matter which way the battle goes. :
Update: House Republicans Reject Net Neutrality
Quote: partisan divide pitting Republicans against Democrats on the question of Internet regulation appears to be deepening.
A Republican-controlled House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Wednesday defeated a proposal that would have levied extensive regulations on broadband providers and forcibly prevented them from offering higher-speed video services to partners or affiliates.
By an 8-to-23 margin, the committee members rejected a Democratic-backed "Net neutrality" amendment to a current piece of telecommunications legislation. The amendment had attracted support from companies including Amazon.com, eBay, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and their chief executives wrote a last-minute letter to the committee on Wednesday saying such a change to the legislation was "critical." ...
full article:
http://news.com.com/Republicans+defeat+N...tml?tag=nl
Idiots. Right now I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm a Republican. >
Idiots is too nice of a word for them. This is one of the few times where I'm actually on the same side of an issue as eBay but...
...if there is a tiered Internet, eBay/Yahoo/Amazon.com will be able to pay the fees to keep their sites in the fast lane. I won't be able to.
What's really infuriating is the mention/knowledge of how much more money the telecoms have *donated* to Washington politicians than the major internet companies. Sick way our government politicos make their decisions.
A new Net Neutrality bill was introduced in Congress on May 2nd.
Quote:After failing last week to add a provision to a telecommunications reform bill, four Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives Tuesday introduced a free-standing bill aimed at preventing broadband carriers from discriminating against competing Web content or services.
The bill, sponsored by Representatives Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jay Inslee of Washington state, Anna Eshoo of California and Rick Boucher of Virginia, would create a 'Net neutrality law banning phone and cable companies from charging Web sites for faster data transmission, or blocking their online competitors' content and services. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has introduced a similar bill in the Senate.
full article:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/05...-bill.html
A good article on Net Neutrality in the May 1st Slate written by a Columbia professor:
Quote:Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality
The future of the Internet depends on it!
The Internet is largely meritocratic in its design. If people like instapundit.com better than cnn.com, that's where they'll go. If they like the search engine A9 better than Google, they vote with their clicks. Is it a problem, then, if the gatekeepers of the Internet (in most places, a duopoly of the local phone and cable companies) discriminate between favored and disfavored uses of the Internet? To take a strong example, would it be a problem if AT&T makes it slower and harder to reach Gmail and quicker and easier to reach Yahoo! mail?
Welcome to the fight over "network neutrality," Washington's current obsession. The debate centers on whether it is more "neutral" to let consumers reach all Internet content equally or to let providers discriminate if they think they'll make more money that way...
full article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/fr/rss/