Friday, April 07, 2006

U.S. Subcommittee Rejects Net Neutrality Provision

U.S. Subcommittee Rejects Net Neutrality Provision : "U.S. Subcommittee Rejects Net Neutrality Provision

A U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee has rejected a proposal to strengthen provisions in a telecommunications reform bill that would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or impairing competing Web content and applications.
The Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday rejected an amendment to strengthen so-called net neutrality provisions in a telecom reform bill largely focused on creating a national video franchising system for Internet television services."


oldhats said...

I, for one, am opposed to net neutrality legislation. I really don't see the "problem" to be solved and I think that if there were a problem, the market would sort it out.

pkp646 said...

Oldhats makes a good point. Why regulate when there is no reason to do so? Leave it up to the customer to solve problems by exercising their voice and their dollar.

michael hotrum said...

When the market is controlled, market forces aren't free to let the customer make the choces. And without netrality, the net market is closed. The net, like the airwaves, should be public spcae and not probe to control and blocking by anyone entity ot institution.

oldhats said...

Michael, It's taken me a while to get back to this--sorry.
1) Is your point that the market is "controlled" by a telco monopoly? If so, I'd argue that the vast majority of consumers have a choice of more than 2 ISPs...
2) I agree that the principles of net neutrality are important. Having said that, I haven't seen any evidence that those principles are being violated and if they were violated, I do beleive the market would sort it out. Do you really beleive that consumers would tolerate an internet experience that didn't include google, iTunes, eBay etc.?

Timothy Karr said...

Readers of this comment thread should know that oldhats and pkp646 are part of a tag-team of industry shills who invade blog comments on net neutrality to argue against any government regulation of the telephone companies. Other names who run with this crowd are John Rice, lessgove, AJ Carey and Paulaner01. (Google any of these names in combination and you'll see how their game works).

By tag-teaming the blogs, this small handful of individuals gives the false impression of broad popular support for an industry-friendly position.

What they fail to point out is that Net Neutrality has been the rule that has governed access to the Internet since its inception. It's the reason that the Internet has become such a dynamic force for new ideas, economic innovation and free speech. What they really want is for Congress to radically re-write our telecommunications laws so that companies like AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth can swoop in and become gatekeepers to Internet content -- in a way that benefits no one except the largest ISPs.

I'd like these people to tell us how it is that they appear together (usually one after the other) spouting identical industry talking points.

What gives fellas? Are you being paid to do this? And by whom?