Net Neutrality Advocates Losing DC Battle > And what are the content providers spending on lobbying ?

And what are the content providers spending on lobbying ?

quote:

---

With the exception of Microsoft, companies engaged in the heated lobbying battle over "network neutrality" spent considerably less than their Bell and cable counterparts. Neutrality safeguards would prevent companies that own high-speed Internet networks from blocking or degrading competing services carried over their pipes.

During the first half of 2005, Yahoo spent $800,000, followed by Amazon.com ($460,000) and eBay ($400,000). Google had $220,000 in lobbying expenses for all of 2005, according to PoliticalMoneyLine's data.

---

quote:

---

The money spent on lobbying by the 2 sides isn't affecting these laws.

---

reply to Karl Bode

reply to fAcEtIOUs
Please explain why congress should keep their hands off a monopoly? And it IS a Monopoly. There is a GREAT article over on MSNBC today, and I'm paraphrasing it a bit for those who want Net Neutrality and high speed access. This is exactly the same situation the majority of users who are FORCED to use cable internet due to distance limits on DSL. And it explains perfectly why comcast and TWC keep jacking up their prices.

"There is no free market in operation. There's no shopping around for the best deal. You have one choice, and one choice only. As a result, companies can charge almost anything they want for these replacement items. In fact, the situation becomes akin to what critics have at times called reverse competition: the only pressure on the price set by companies is upward pressure -- that is, how much money can the seller squeeze out of the buyer, because there's no countervailing force, like competition, creating downward pressure."

"I know, people always respond to these articles by saying this is simply capitalism at work -- companies trying to make the most money for their bottom line and their shareholders. Phooey. This is a monopolistic situation, where a captive consumer has no choice but to buy one product from one company. There is no free market in operation here. That's not capitalism."

»redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/the_hi···t_o.html
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself.

reply to fAcEtIOUs

reply to fAcEtIOUs
couldn't agree more.
I am not against muni broadband as long as it's put to vote and the citizens vote it in, but the federal government should stay out of these types of affairs. We have a free market economy, let it runs it's course without interference.

reply to G_Poobah
broadband isn't deemed a monopoly because telephone service is a necessity, broadband is not. As much as I hate to admit it broadband isn't a utility, it's not needed to make 911 calls, and dial-up exists as an option (albeit a slow one).

I am certainly no corporate apologist, but to much government regulations on the telephone industry was almost as much to blame for jacking up the costs as the telcos themselves. Costs trickle down to the consumer whether they are taxes or upgrades.

The way to strike back is as someone mentioned earlier, sites blocking access to their services from telcos/cable companies that want to charge. For companies that use google and yahoo based technologies on their sites, strip them of their rights to do so...the market will let it pan out. When enough people leave/complain they'll do something. These big telcos/cable companies may think they can live without google/yahoo, but they can't live without customers.