• House subcommittee votes to kill net neutrality
    89 replies, posted
[release]A U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee has voted in favor of a resolution to throw out the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's recently adopted net neutrality rules. The communications subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 15-8 along party lines for a [url=http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blcra.htm]resolution of disapproval[/url] that would overturn the FCC's rules. Those rules would prohibit broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web traffic. The resolution would also prohibit the FCC from re-attempting to create similar net neutrality rules. The FCC lacks legal authority to pass the rules, and government intervention would hurt the Internet, said Representative Greg Walden, the subcommittee's chairman and an Oregon Republican. "The Internet works pretty well -- it's the government that doesn't," he said. The net neutrality rules will slow investment in broadband networks, Walden added. "These regulations will cost jobs," he said. The resolution will next go to the full committee, and if approved there, to the full House. If the Republican-controlled House approves the resolution, it would then move to the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority. The Senate is unlikely to pass the resolution. Subcommittee Republicans pushed through [url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hjres37ih/pdf/BILLS-112hjres37ih.pdf]the resolution[/url] despite statements from AT&T and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association saying they could live with the rules. AT&T would prefer no net neutrality regulations, but the rules passed by the FCC Dec. 21 represent a better solution than an earlier FCC proposal to impose additional common-carrier regulations, said James Cicconi, AT&T's senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs. The FCC's net neutrality rules are consistent with AT&T's business practices, Cicconi said. "We do think it's a reasonable middle ground," he said. Net neutrality rules are needed to allow small businesses to use the Web without interference from broadband providers, said Robin Chase, co-founder of car-sharing service Zipcar. An open Internet was essential to Zipcar's success, she said. "Network neutrality is not excessive regulation that will stifle innovation," she said. "Network neutrality promotes innovation and protects consumers by preventing telecommunications companies from stifling new thinking, new services and new applications." Democratic lawmakers argued that the resolution was taking committee time away from more pressing broadband matters, including proposals to free up new spectrum and the creation of a nationwide, mobile public safety network. The resolution, given its dim chances in the Senate, is a "waste of time," said Representative Anna Eshoo, a California Democrat. The net neutrality rules allow Web users to control their online experiences, she added. "We want the consumers to make the choice, not corporations," she said. Democrats tried to offer seven amendments to the resolution, but Walden struck them all down. Republicans introduced the resolution under the little-used Congressional Review Act, a streamlined legislative process that makes it difficult to make amendments. While Cicconi said AT&T can live with the net neutrality rules, Verizon Communications and mobile provider MetroPCS Wireless have filed court challenges. The rules would hurt wireless Internet service providers (WISPs) that don't have the bandwidth to deliver high-definition video and other bandwidth-intensive services, said Tom DeReggi, president of RapidDSL and Wireless, a Maryland broadband provider. DeReggi told lawmakers he may want to block services like Netflix because they take up too much bandwidth for WiMax-based broadband. The FCC rules unfairly create the same rules for WISPs that they do for fiber-based broadband providers, he said. "One size does not work and does not fit all," DeReggi said. Many of his customers operate home-based businesses, but services like Netflix compromise those businesses, DeReggi said. "You block the source of the problem," he said. "Broadband provides jobs, not HD video." Eshoo disagreed, saying Neflix has created hundreds of jobs in recent years. But net neutrality rules will hurt both broadband providers and Web application providers, by discouraging network investment, said Anna-Maria Kovacs, an investment analyst with Strategic Choices. "Far more devastating to Google, Skype and Netflix than being charged for transport is an Internet whose evolution and capacity are flash-frozen for lack of investment," she said. "Their innovative applications can only follow a step behind the network's capacity and quality."[/release] [url]http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/379330/house_subcommittee_votes_kill_net_neutrality/[/url]
-snip confused-
-Snip. This is all confusing to me.-
Republicans. There I summarized the entire thread.
[QUOTE=Elizer;28520439]Isn't this a good thing?[/QUOTE] [quote]Those rules would prohibit broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web traffic. [/quote] Sound like something you want?
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;28520460]Sound like something you want?[/QUOTE] -Snip. This is all confusing to me.-
That is true, but I don't think it would ever stand a chance in hell of passing.
-pins-
[QUOTE=Elizer;28520476]Well, I meant isn't it a good thing that this committee is fighting against net neutrality?[/QUOTE] Not having net neutrality= ISP's can do whatever the FUCK they want because they can. What part do you not understand?
You know what, I'm okay with this. Don't need the god damn FCC on the internet.
[QUOTE=Binladen34;28520512]You know what, I'm okay with this. Don't need the god damn FCC on the internet.[/QUOTE] So you would rather not have the FCC protect us all from ISP's that decide that steam is a horrible thing and should be blocked no questions asked?
"Get the basic internet package now! Featuring top hits such as Facebook, Fox News, Palin-show.com, Fox News, and Hotmail!"
[QUOTE=jordguitar;28520521]So you would rather not have the FCC protect us all from ISP's that decide that steam is a horrible thing and should be blocked no questions asked?[/QUOTE] I don't like it when I can't say fuck uncensored. Or when I can't watch porn uncensored, or when I can't say I want to destroy everything relating to the federal government without the police at my door. Also, don't like what an ISP does? Change it. No big deal.
[QUOTE=jordguitar;28520495]Not having net neutrality= ISP's can do whatever the FUCK they want because they can. What part do you not understand?[/QUOTE] Well, it just seems that there's no clear cut answer on what to do.
[QUOTE=Elizer;28520536]Well, it just seems that there's no clear cut answer on what to do.[/QUOTE] Keep the ruling the FCC put in place to protect us. The internet is designed to be a open forum for everyone. Not what a company deems what should and should not go on it.
[QUOTE=Binladen34;28520512]You know what, I'm okay with this. Don't need the god damn FCC on the internet.[/QUOTE] Have fun when cost explodes and you have to pay for packages of sites
[QUOTE=jordguitar;28520554]Keep the ruling the FCC put in place to protect us. The internet is designed to be a open forum for everyone. Not what a company deems what should and should not go on it.[/QUOTE] The FCC regulates what we can see and what we can say. There REALLY isn't much of a difference between the two besides, one we cannot change what's blocked and not, and one we can. But there will be blocks regardless.
[QUOTE=Binladen34;28520512]You know what, I'm okay with this. Don't need the god damn FCC on the internet.[/QUOTE] The FCC was the good guy in this.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ[/media]
[QUOTE=Binladen34;28520564]The FCC regulates what we can see and what we can say. There REALLY isn't much of a difference between the two besides, one we cannot change what's blocked and not, and one we can. But there will be blocks regardless.[/QUOTE] The FCC was doing things to protect the open internet. Why do you not understand this? They know the internet is world wide and there is NOTHING any country can do to shut it down.
[QUOTE=Binladen34;28520533]I don't like it when I can't say fuck uncensored. Or when I can't watch porn uncensored, or when I can't say I want to destroy everything relating to the federal government without the police at my door. Also, don't like what an ISP does? Change it. No big deal.[/QUOTE] I mostly agree with this, if AT&T started seriously disabling my ability to use some services on the internet... i would fucking change ISPs. I pay plenty to keep them and if they don't want my business that's fine with me. The FCC however had that whole decades long incident with the Janet Jackson's nipple where they censored everything on TV and radio over zealously and ruined a lot of good radio programs i enjoyed.
[QUOTE=jordguitar;28520495]Not having net neutrality= ISP's can do whatever the FUCK they want because they can. What part do you not understand?[/QUOTE] you're forgetting: this is america. our dollar has the final say
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28520609]you're forgetting: this is america. our dollar has the final say[/QUOTE] Not when all of them jump on the bandwagon and do it. You forget that?
[QUOTE=jordguitar;28520618]Not when all of them jump on the bandwagon and do it. You forget that?[/QUOTE] Yes so there's a vast collaboration between ISPs to ruin the internet experience for everyone, nobody will dare compete against them, consequences will never be the same!!! Seriously, cite sources now or :frog:
HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN TO MEEEEE I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO SURF THE ENTIRE INTERNET FOR THIS PRICE maybe Im just over reacting. lets all just settle down and hope to god they don't pass this
[QUOTE=Binladen34;28520564]The FCC regulates what we can see and what we can say. There REALLY isn't much of a difference between the two besides, one we cannot change what's blocked and not, and one we can. But there will be blocks regardless.[/QUOTE] Just fucking stop now. The FCC isn't doing anything wrong and is actively trying to defend internet rights thus far. Stop. stop.
[QUOTE=s0beit;28520630]Yes so there's a vast collaboration between ISPs to ruin the internet experience for everyone, nobody will dare compete against them, consequences will never be the same!!! Seriously, cite sources now or :frog:[/QUOTE] it would be a classic monopoly
[QUOTE=s0beit;28520630]Yes so there's a vast collaboration between ISPs to ruin the internet experience for everyone, nobody will dare compete against them, consequences will never be the same!!! Seriously, cite sources now or :frog:[/QUOTE] Telecom.
good luck switching to a different provider when in the majority of the country one provider often holds a monopoly on service
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28520652]Just fucking stop now. The FCC isn't doing anything wrong and is actively trying to defend internet rights thus far. Stop. stop.[/QUOTE] Yeah so they're playing you for suckers, all i remember is when all those people got fined for obscenity haphazardly for obscene amounts of money on the radio and television. You [b][i]had[/i][/b] to be around for that, don't tell me they're all sugar and spice and everything nice after the censorship crusade they went on during the late 90's - 2000's.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.