Republicans defeat Net neutrality proposal!!!!

[AGENDA21]

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."

Before the vote, amendment sponsor Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, assailed his Republican colleagues. "We're about to break with the entire history of the Internet," Markey said. "Everyone should understand that."

This philosophical rift extends beyond the precise wording of the telecommunications legislation. It centers on whether broadband providers will be free to design their networks as they see fit and enjoy the latitude to prioritize certain types of traffic--such as streaming video--over others. (In an interview last week with CNET News.com, Verizon Chief Technology Officer Mark Wegleitner said prioritization is necessary to make such services economically viable.)

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6058223.html?part=rss&tag=6058223&subj=news

[acmejack]

1. This is bad news!

If this flies it is really going to be very bad for those that can't pay a premium for their internet services, don't live in the best parts of town, don't subscribe to the preferred providers, etc. Market forces are going to now screw up the internet.

The lobbyist money won yesterday, once again. Big Telecom won, once again. The consumer took it in the shorts, once again. A familiar pattern is repeated, once again.

[AGENDA21]

2. Bad News indeed!!!!

[INdemo]

3. Exactly what is this all about..

Will the internet now be regulated?? Or if rural customers want DSL or Broadband they cant get it..I dont understand

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. Not exactly

I watched the hearing late last night (technically, early this mornig :coffee: ). It is very difficult to grasp all of the technicalities and implications, but here goes at least as far as I understand...hopefully the more knowledgeable people here at DU can tweak and correct as needed.

The Dems proposed an amendment requiring carriers (SBC, the Bells, etc.) to be equal with content providers. IOW, if Disney has a video it wants to put out and a small independent startup company has a video it wants to put out, the carrier cannot charge high fees which would in effect raise barriers to entry...Disney could afford it and the indy couldn't. The indy would be discriminated against and it would stifle free market capitalism.

By voting it down, the big companies by virtue of being able to afford it would have priority. One Con argued the amendment "tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist" and the Markey responded that they've already been told it's going to happen if Congress allows it. Another Con claimed it was regulating business...we all know how that goes when it comes to consumer protections and the new kid on the block businesses.

The amendment allows companies to charge more to consumers without restriction, of course. The carriers want it because it is a second stream of revenue. They can charge at both ends (front end content providers as well as end user consumers). Since the amendment was voted down...CA-CHING!!!

Several Dems voted no, one Con (Miller from New Mexico) voted aye.

Anyone care to explain better, correct, or expand please jump in!

[qanda]

4. Can someone explain this.

The language is very confusing.

[Karmakaze]

5. Here is what I gather it is about...

Internet providers can choke certain kinds of traffic on their systems, giving priority to traffic generated by "partners". So if you signed up to an ISP called "XYZ" who had a strategic partnership with a media company called "IJK", Any data you got from "IJK" would come fast, but if you tried to get data from media provider "DEF", it would go slow, because the ISP's bandwidth would be prioritising traffic from "IJK".

In other words this will kill independent content providers, because only the large companies will be able to go into strategic partnerships with the large ISP's, so everyone elses content will be inferior as seen from that ISP's customers. It will be slower and lower quality (as it tries to increase speed by lowering quality).

Eventually the companies that are not able to provide content at the speeds of the "strategic partners" will be forced out of the market due to loss of market share.