Airencracken

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6...feed&subj=zdnn

The U.S. House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept of Net neutrality on Thursday, dealing a bitter blow to Internet companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google that had engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign to support it.

By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others.

Of the 421 House members who participated in the vote that took place around 6:30 p.m. PT, the vast majority of Net neutrality supporters were Democrats. Republicans represented most of the opposition.

The vote on the amendment (click for PDF) came after nearly a full day of debate on the topic, which prominent Democrats predicted would come to represent a turning point in the history of the Internet.

"The future Sergey Brins, the future Marc Andreessens, of Netscape and Google...are going to have to pay taxes" to broadband providers, said Rep. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat behind the Net neutrality amendment. This vote will change "the Internet for the rest of eternity," he warned.

At issue is a lengthy measure called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act, which a House committee approved in April. Its Republican backers, along with broadband providers such as Verizon and AT&T, say it has sufficient Net neutrality protections for consumers, and more extensive rules would discourage investment in wiring American homes with higher-speed connections.

The concept of network neutrality, which generally means that all Internet sites must be treated equally, has drawn a list of high-profile backers, from actress Alyssa Milano to Vint Cerf, one of the technical pioneers of the Internet. It's also led to a political rift between big Internet companies such as Google and Yahoo that back it--and telecom companies that oppose what they view as onerous new federal regulations.

As the final House vote drew closer, lobbyists and CEOs from both sides began stepping up the pressure. eBay CEO Meg Whitman e-mailed more than a million members, urging them to support the concept, and Google CEO Eric Schmidt on Wednesday called on his company's users to follow suit.

Defenders of the COPE Act, largely Republicans, dismissed worries about Net neutrality as fear mongering.

"I want a vibrant Internet just like they do," said Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican. "Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it...I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet."

The debate over Net neutrality had become more complicated after earlier versions of the COPE Act appeared to alter antitrust laws--in a way that would have deprived the House Judiciary Committee of some of its influence.

But in a last-minute compromise designed to placate key Republicans, the House leadership permitted an amendment (click for PDF) from Smith that would preserve the House Judiciary Committee's influence--without adding extensive Net neutrality mandates. That amendment to COPE was approved.

While the debate over Net neutrality started over whether broadband providers could block certain Web sites, it has moved on to whether they should be permitted to create a "fast lane" that could be reserved for video or other specialized content.

Prohibiting that is "not a road we want to go down, but that's what the Markey amendment would do," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican. "The next thing is going to be having a secretary of Internet Access (in the federal government)."

janked from http://www.digg.com
=============================================================

This does not bode well. Hopefully google will start buying up all the black FOC it can to establish it's own backbone. Sigh. Besides I don't trust the Telecom companies with much. Aren't we all supposed to have Fiber to the door by now? Sigh.

__________________
"I remember my first orgasm, I just wish someone was there to share it with me..."11-05-2003 05:33 AM - Topane
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, & the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opiate of the masses. - Karl Marx
Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre

blueindian

so, what was this law supposed to do?

__________________
yeah, pretty much we missed the boat on that one. but it's still here. get you some.

Jeffbx

If I remember correctly, it would have prevented ISPs from treating certain sites or data types differently than others.

For example, putting a low priority on streaming video unless you pay for an 'enhanced' subscription; or charging sites that generate huge amounts of traffic a fee to allow users to connect (like Google and Amazon).

It all boils down to ISPs being able to charge extra for things they don't charge for today.

But I must say I AM curious to know why someone like Alyssa Milano would have a strong opinion on this. Maybe she's a bigger geek than we all suspectted...

Airencracken

Right on the head jeff.

Vdawwg

She probably just heard about the topic, and jumped on to support it for reputation, or maybe he is a geek
Net nuetrality is more than that though, I pay my ISP 40 bucks a month to connect me to web sites I want, what the heck gives them the right to slow some sites down, and make other ones load at the speed of blazes. I hope for the Democrats to sweep on Congress and have another vote

TruckStuff

Interesting info. I'm surprised that more Reps didn't support it to make blocking of adult-oriented web sites easier. But I suppose the free-market issues pointed out by Jeff outweigh the potential gains in the "War on Porn."

__________________
DISCLAIMER
The preceding statements are meant to be taken as a whole, in their entirety. They may not be quoted in part and then used to flame me. They also do not imply that I believe the exact opposite of their meaning. They do not make any implication about any group, race, ethnicity, age group, or other cohort beyond what is stated above. They do not make any implications at all. They have no "tone" or "attitude." They are words. Nothing more.

Grubbie

Without Porn the internet would be nothing like it is today. The Porn industry spurred a lot of internet growth.

BigJon

This news just plain sucks. I'm with Airen...I don't trust the Telcom companies with the internet.

__________________

Jeffbx

Absolutely - there's no money to be made in blocking porn. In allowing this, however - $$$cha-ching$$$!

Maarchk

Well, i think the truth is, free things can never last forever. The internet is relatively free. You buy a standard connection, and you can take and give as much as you want to and from anyone. Its a great free flowing system. SOme people have moderate regulations such as logins and we monitor people so they don't get wicked on each other, but there is enough free flow and a person can live happily in net land for a long time.
Hmm, oh wait, big companies are not making enough money. So now its a battle of who will get more dollars from you, the providers of content, versus the provider of the connection. and that is the basis of net neutrality. Sadly, just like aliens versus predator, it seems that whoever wins, we are going to lose.
If the ISP's win, we pay more and probably soon we pay by usage amount. If content providers win, than my guess is before too long, we will pay a penny a page to view yahoo and google and a few cents to see a photograph, and a few dollars to see media clips...

Sadly, i think the internet may become an expensive world before too long. I'm going to hide in the Internet2...

Mark

__________________
"The girl is crafty like ice is cold."

"I left my heart in san francisco... And my liver at Moe's Tavern."

A real friend is one who listens to you as much as they talk to you.