  User0101 Premium join:2002-12-12 S-ZZ9-PZA clubs:  | Better Understanding...
Will someone take the political speak out of this topic and put it in real world terms. First I've heard of the "Cope Act" but I've not followed this topic very strongly due to my lack of patience with Telcos. |
|
 rdmiller
join:2005-09-23 Richmond, VA | House Rejects Net Neutrality
Not even close! And not really along party lines. |
|
  TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | A majority of Democrats supported HR 5252
This bill passed in a bi-partisan manner. Even Democrats approved it by a vote of 106-92. Here is a link to the vote and who voted how. Look up your Congressperson and vote in November based on your beliefs. »clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll241.xml
HR 5252 must be passed by the Senate or reconciled with a different Senate bill in a conference committee. No date has been set yet for these actions. Given the limited amount of time in the current Senate legislative schedule, no broadband bill may make it into law this year.
The law as passed would set up a national video franchise system overriding local laws; let the FCC determine what net neutrality is on a case by case basis; and let the FCC extend the USF to VOIP if it so desires.
P.S.> If any Senate bill moves forward this year it will likely be S.2686 sponsored by Sen Ted Stevens of Alaska. It would be very similar to the House bill according to Stevens. »thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z···s.02686:
-- Join Red Room Forum BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com My Web Page |
|
  TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to User0101 Re: Better Understanding...
said by User0101 :Will someone take the political speak out of this topic and put it in real world terms. First I've heard of the "Cope Act" but I've not followed this topic very strongly due to my lack of patience with Telcos. See this msg thread for more info on the law and the positions of advocates and opponents. »Debate in progress on CSPAN on COPE Act -- -- Join Red Room Forum BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com My Web Page |
|
 Odie97
join:2006-04-19 Oak Creek, WI
| reply to User0101 Dominant telco's will now become the "gatekeeper's" to the traffic on the network (Internet) and the on/off ramp paths as well as "fast" and "slow" lanes of traffic (applications)based upon a set of conditions that they (the Telco's) will be able to set, fix and control.
Should make your lack of patience for the Telco's to move to anxiety and anger |
|
 chemaupr
join:2005-06-06 Alexandria, VA
| We will be buying Internet like we buy cable soon
I can just picture this very soon!!!
Family internet tier... Disney.com, discovery.com, cnn.com, myspace.com....
Sport Tier... nba.com, mlb.com espn.com....
Basic tier all your government sites, msn, google
If the telco have it their way is going to be the end of the Internet as we know it. And I dare to say that all the innovation that have come from the internet will just slow down. Why? There is an extra cost!
Is really sad that or Representatives votes are influenced by this companies. As far I'm concern they stop representing thier constituency years ago... Now they are just a mediator of the Private Industries with us... |
|
  tsu9
join:2001-08-17 Wheeling, IL | Doom!
Queue posts ringing the forthcoming demise of the internet. |
|
 rdmiller
join:2005-09-23 Richmond, VA
| reply to TKJunkMail Re: A majority of Democrats supported HR 5252
"Given the limited amount of time in the current Senate legislative schedule, no broadband bill may make it into law this year."
Don't count on it. It's amazing what can get rolled into an end-of-session omnibus bill, especially during an election year! |
|
  TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to rdmiller Re: House Rejects Net Neutrality
said by rdmiller :Not even close! And not really along party lines. Here is the vote on the net neutrality amendment: »clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll239.xml
58 Dems voted against the net neutrality amendment. 140 voted for it. -- -- Join Red Room Forum BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com My Web Page |
|
 jpark
join:2005-02-05 Jackson, TN | USA shoots itself in the foot again.
So we (US) will be saddled with Internet restrictions, extra costs, failed and blocked services while the rest of the world will have an Internet that is unshackled.
Damned intelligent. |
|
 nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to User0101 Re: Better Understanding...
the COPE act is the bill (H.R.5252) containing various provisions on net neutrality, TV franchising and "competition". Things in the bill:
national franchising for TV: BAD - telcos no longer have to build out service to everyone, they can redline; GOOD - telcos can build out faster
net neutrality: weak provisions are BAD - in absence of clear rules telcos will set up a "fast" lane and a "slow" lane; if you don't pay for the fast lane, applications or web sites will be in the slow lane. Think of it as the AOLization of the entire U.S. internet (please note this will only diminish the U.S. network; rest of the world is not impacted). By AOLization, I mean the telcos will control what you can access and how you can access it - if youtube doesn't pay for the fast lane, streaming videos could be slow and jerky, with frequent pauses while video loads. |
|
  tsu9
join:2001-08-17 Wheeling, IL | reply to Odie97 They now, effectively, can dictate what you can and cannot reach. |
|
  Masque
join:2001-12-04 Auburn, MI | Wait Until The Rest Of The World Reads This......
.....U.S. Internet Held Hostage. |
|
 jpark
join:2005-02-05 Jackson, TN | reply to TKJunkMail Re: A majority of Democrats supported HR 5252
I'll definitely vote against anyone who supported this bill. Unfortunately, I don't think even votes count for anything anymore. We just replace one POS with another POS. |
|
  Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02
Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| reply to rdmiller Tom doesn't mention this, as his primary concern is the performance of his incumbent and Comcast stock....but....
The goal is to get anything passed, so this can be pushed into private session, away from public discussion, while Lobbyists can still suggest changes and shape the laws free of consumer provisions....
»www.ajc.com/services/content/bus···&cxcat=6
quote: The House and Senate are preparing to vote on telecommunications legislation that could affect every American who surfs the Internet, watches cable TV or uses a phone.
But consumers shouldn't waste much time watching the floor debates on C-SPAN. The lawmakers themselves admit their goal is not to pass definitive legislation in public in the coming weeks.
Instead, they want the House and Senate to pass separate bills, regardless of how different they may be. The final version would be negotiated, largely in private, by about a dozen senators and representatives on a conference committee.
The Senate just needs to pass "anything to get us into conference," where the real decisions will be made, House telecommunications subcommittee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said Tuesday at a telecom forum hosted by National Journal's Technology Daily.
"It's not supposed to work like this," said Celia Wexler, vice president for advocacy for Common Cause, a government watchdog group. "It's appalling that you can hear a member [of Congress] say that in public."
Watchdog groups say that while most conference negotiations are closed to public view, lobbyists continue to influence the members and their staffers, sometimes even supplying language that ends up as the law of the land.
|
|
 bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
| why I do I have great trepidation when Congressmen think
"The United States doesn't even rank in the top 10 of the nations of the world in broadband deployment," said Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), the main sponsor. "This bill should change that statistic."
So because we do something completely irrelevant to competition, suddenly the vast majority of people will somehow acquire new isps where most only have 1-2 choices.
Note to Bagdad: Target these fools and do us a favor. |
|
  Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02
Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| The grand irony is that if this bill passes, it's very very likely fewer people will see service as incumbents will be largely freed of all rural or poor deployment obligations.
Note how it's reported on in the press as something that will bring about video price-Utopia. The ham-handed regurgitating reporters are almost as bad as the puppets being paid to pass these incumbent written laws. |
|
  tsu9
join:2001-08-17 Wheeling, IL | reply to bi0tech This is going to be absolutely no better than the great firewall of China.
So sad. |
|
  Topmounter Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20 Evergreen, CO
·Cox HSI
| reply to chemaupr Re: We will be buying Internet like we buy cable soon
I'll take a healthy dose of competition over government mandated "net neutrality" regulation any day.
Telco vs. Cable vs. Wireless vs. Mobile
If Telco wants to employ a "tiered" Internet, then I'll subscribe to Cable.
If Cable wants to employ a "tiered" Internet as well, then I'll subscribe to a fixed wireless provider.
etc, etc.
Idiotic competition-stifling government regulation is the reason it has taken so long to get decent high-speed to begin with, the last thing we need is further regulation. |
|
 NGOwner
join:2000-11-21 Leawood, KS
| reply to nasadude Re: Better Understanding...
said by nasadude :net neutrality: weak provisions are BAD - in absence of clear rules telcos will set up a "fast" lane and a "slow" lane; if you don't pay for the fast lane, applications or web sites will be in the slow lane. Think of it as the AOLization of the entire U.S. internet (please note this will only diminish the U.S. network; rest of the world is not impacted). By AOLization, I mean the telcos will control what you can access and how you can access it - if youtube doesn't pay for the fast lane, streaming videos could be slow and jerky, with frequent pauses while video loads. Keep in mind that the bolded you in the above phrase refers not to individuals, but to companies. The individual consumer will not be hit (directly) with any cost increase.
Here's the other thing. If the access pipe providers (telcos and cablecos) are unable to sufficiently monetize the development of next gen pipes, we as consumers won't be getting next gen pipes. The policies advocated under the broad umbrella of "net neutrality" eviscerate the access pipe providers' ability to monetize their networks.
Personally, I am happy to strongarm (some would say extort) google, yahoo, mytube, ebay, and all the other mega-internet firms to subsidize the next gen build for telcos and cablecos. Better that they subsidize the build than me.
I'd also like to see CNET's source for this: 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. Net Neutrality has NEVER been about blocking certain websites. The only example I'm aware of is a tiny ISP blocking a VoIP provider. And as soon as that came to light, the FCC ripped the tiny ISP a huge new one. Does anyone have a source that back's up CNET's claim? -- It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|