No Net Neutrality?

**gameoverDude** · 30 Jun 2006, 11:40 PM

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/20384

Originally Posted by BoycottRIAA.com

Saying "goodbye" to the Net - No net neutrality
Posted by leflaw on June 29, 2006 at 4:14 PM (printer friendly)

Saying "goodbye" to the Net
Posted by Mitch Ratcliffe @ 9:10 pm
Digg This!

The Senate Commerce Committee, splitting 11 to 11 and therefore rejecting compromise language, set the stage for a carrier-controlled Internet. If the bill passes the Senate and is signed by the President, you can kiss the Net you know "goodbye." Farewell, open networks and open standards. Soon every packet will be subject to inspection and surcharges based on what it carries and who sent it or where it is going.

The compromise language would have guaranteed that all traffic sent Farewell, open networks and open standards. Soon every packet will be subject to inspection and surcharges.over carrier backbones would be treated equally, regardless of its source or destination. Carriers will be free to target especially profitable traffic for surcharges.

In the Republicans' version of the bill, which will likely be passed, there is a "consumers' bill of rights" (click for the draft legislation) within a new universal service regime based on carrier services that are "as competitively and technologically neutral as possible." Unfortunately, the legislation leaves the definition of what's possible to the carriers. "Broadband service" is defined by the Republicans as "at least 200 Kbps in at least one direction." In other words, anything over 200 Kbps is unregulated territory when it comes to pricing.

The Republicans are reported to be supportive of a measure that would allow anti-trust prosecution of predatory pricing by carriers, but that's an approach that requires years of exhorbitantly expensive court action to pursue. Network innovation would still be choked off in any reasonable horizon for a viable business competitor to a carrier-approved service, as the history of Microsoft has shown.

The vote was down party lines, except for Maine Republican Olympia Snowe, who had co-sponsored the compromise and voted with Democrats. This fall, if you want to reverse this pending legislation, you can see for yourself how to vote.

I urge you to take a look at the thread between myself and commenter Anton Philidor, who argues in favor of the carrier's position, in this posting from Monday. We were able to approach agreement about what's fair, and it falls within the Net neutrality framework we need to preserve to keep new services flowing over the Internet without carriers forcing new content or Web service providers to pay surcharges.

If only the Senate would take the time to look at this issue before acting.

Carriers are already free to charge for dedicated services. The Internet is not architected on a foundation favorable for dedicated services, which is where the carriers want to ghettoize Web services that won't pay a surcharge for their success. At the same time, the carriers enjoy monopoly or duopoly pricing power at both ends of their network. All the Senate is doing is clearing the way for carriers, which are already very profitable, to make more money without any additional investments in improved services.

Pro-carrier advocates like to argue that it is the telco and cable companies' network so they should be able to do with it what they want. Indeed, we've handed it over to them in a tragic giveaway to duopolists that fight any upstart network or network service. It's their network now

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
independentm...
Date: June 29, 2006 @ 4:31 PM
This upcomming give-away of the Internet to the corporations would be NOTHING NEW nor unprecedented folks.

...just LOOK what happened to the airways (radio) ...or the telephone lines, electric power, or cable, satelite, or ANY of the once PUBLIC DOMAIN connections we supposedly shared.

But, go ahead ...EACH of you! Sit on you asses and be "happy" you got a shiney new iPod to show for it while these corporations rape us all once again of something that belongs to ALL of us.

I know, I know (yawn) political sh*t is a snooze-fest to most of you because you don't give a damn when you don't know what you are missing and you don't think it affects you directly at this moment!

*sigh*

(Now I know why George is often so damn apathetic.)

Well, this is really some bullshit. Hopefully this bill will go down in a 19XX-style flaming wreck at the hands of the Senate. Congress needs to stop smoking the cocks of fatcat corporate pigopolists.

The packet inspection idea is so Orwellian BTW.

**Master of 7s** · 01 Jul 2006, 01:17 AM

Instead of whining about it on a message board, why don't you write your congressman?

They DO work for you you know.

**Tommy Tallarico** · 01 Jul 2006, 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by Master of 7s

Instead of whining about it on a message board, why don't you write your congressman?

They DO work for you you know.

I don't see how him making a thread about it definitively excludes the possibility of him also writing to someone important about the issue.

**Diff-chan** · 01 Jul 2006, 01:34 AM

On top of that, the thread also induces more debate on the subject, which is never a bad thing.

**ChaoofNee** · 01 Jul 2006, 01:47 AM

So, what's this saying? They snuck it in as part of some larger bill?

**Mman** · 01 Jul 2006, 02:13 AM

TSDR.

**Fe 26** · 01 Jul 2006, 01:27 PM

Question. Why is this being put into law? What excuse is being used to waste time on this, and fuck everyone in the ass?

lol at the bit about 200kps max. That is just absurd. Hey guys, lets pass a law where I can do whatever I want with my car....as long as it was made pre1970.

**SpoDaddy** · 01 Jul 2006, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by buttcheeks

Question. Why is this being put into law? What excuse is being used to waste time on this, and fuck everyone in the ass?

lol at the bit about 200kps max. That is just absurd. Hey guys, lets pass a law where I can do whatever I want with my car....as long as it was made pre1970.

This is clearly being backed by the RIAA. They probably did some sort of market research and determined that there's a dropoff in music downloading with connections slower than 200kbps. From a business standpoint it's a smart move, but it won't get passed. Politicians know that most people pirate music at one point or another.