dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Neutrality Circus Roars On As Waxman Shelves Latest Bill
Conservative Barton wouldn't support Goorizon proposal echo
by Karl Bode 05:45PM Wednesday Sep 29 2010
As we noted earlier this week, a new network neutrality bill proposed by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman was leaked. The bill not coincidentally mirrored the Goorizon neutrality proposal unveiled in August -- exempting wireless networks from neutrality rules, while containing carrier-friendly language restricting the FCC from moving forward with their plans to partially reclassify ISPs as common carriers. But this afternoon Waxman declared the bill dead and now supports FCC reclassification:
quote:
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) confirmed Wednesday afternoon that his net neutrality bill was effectively scrapped after Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) declined to support the legislation. In a statement, Waxman urged the Federal Communications Commission to reassert its authority to regulate broadband access providers. Doing so would allow the FCC to create its own net neutrality rules...
Telco lobbyists are tired of this debate, and as such are pushing full throttle to have something close to their Goorizon proposal passed into law. Some consumer advocates are on board, driven by the belief that half-assed protections are better than no protections. Unfortunately, both the Waxman bill and the Goorizon proposal are loaded with loopholes, don't apply to wireless, and are about as tough as a pillow fight.

Amusingly, the Waxman bill first tried to appease Republicans and telco/cable lobbyists by stripping the FCC's ability to partially reclassify ISPs under Title II of the Communications Act. However, with the bill dead due to lack of Republican support -- Waxman's now supporting the FCC's desire to reclassify ISPs under Title II of the Communications Act -- assuming a bi-partisan balance can't be reached:
quote:
I do not close the door on moving legislation this Congress. Cooler heads may prevail after the elections. But I want my position to be clear: my goal is the best outcome for consumers. If our efforts to find bipartisan consensus fail, the FCC should move forward under Title II. The bottom line is that we must protect the open Internet. If Congress cant act, the FCC must.
As we noted the other day, the chance of a neutrality bill of some kind passing is good, but the chance that said bill will contain any tough consumer protections whatsoever is virtually nil. Industry watchers seem to think this Waxman episode gives FCC boss Genachowski the political cover needed to move forward with ISP common carrier reclassification, but such a scenario would require an FCC boss willing to make some waves, and from every indication -- that's not Genacowski. Let the network neutrality circus continue.....

view:
topics flat nest 

SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

Quote

"my goal is the best outcome for consumers"...

LOL
ROLF
Ha ha ha!

Thanks for the laugh!
gorehound

join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME

Re: Quote

to bad our country is now the united corporate states of america.
we must win back our country and free it from big business lobbying
TheGuvnor9

join:2006-06-23
Beverly Hills, CA

1 recommendation

Joe is a ....

Karl,

I believe Joe is a Republican.

THX

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

Re: Joe is a ....

Thanks, it was actually an error in the Post piece I quoted, which they fixed, and I've subsequently fixed.
lesopp

join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
What does being a Republican have to do with it? They did not need the Republicans to pass their herculean quid pro quo and health care travesties.

runzero

join:2005-09-16
DC

Re: Joe is a ....

We all know Republicans are corporate sellouts, representing big cable and the MAFIAA rather than the people.
--
This signature has consumed several bytes of your bandwidth.

Abaddon

@rr.com

Re: Joe is a ....

You do know that it's pretty much common knowledge the Dems beloved V.P. Joe Biden is bought and paid for by the MAFFIA, Comcast and the rest of the entertainment & telcom industries, right?
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

did he even know?

I wonder if ole Henry even knew what was in the bill. Probably got written by some telco lobbyist, handed to one of Henry's staffers, then right into the queue for consideration.

that's what it sounds like and that's the way laws get written these days.
Methadras

join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA

Re: did he even know?

said by nasadude:

I wonder if ole Henry even knew what was in the bill. Probably got written by some telco lobbyist, handed to one of Henry's staffers, then right into the queue for consideration.

that's what it sounds like and that's the way laws get written these days.
Waxman has never read a bill, in my opinion, in his entire tenure in office. He's a waste of oxygen.
zed2608
Premium
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN
kudos:1

reclassifiy brodband is only way

from looks of things congress wont pass anything its trapped in partisien bickering

the only way forward for any net netruilty action is ether fcc reclassifes or no net netruilty rules at all congress from looks of things is caught in gridlock

newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·Comcast

Re: reclassifiy brodband is only way

said by zed2608:

the only way forward for any net netruilty action is ether fcc reclassifes or no net netruilty rules at all congress from looks of things is caught in gridlock
I'm all for Common Carrier status for cable companies, and the corresponding FCC regulations that would entail.

quote:
The FCC has the authority to regulate common carrier communications under Title II of the Communications Act. These regulations are meant to ensure that telephone carriers act as common carriers. In a very broad and crude definition, common carriers are required to transmit exactly what they are asked to pass on. Title II requires that carriers not discriminate against or give any unreasonable preference to particular users of its telecommunications services.
»iptablog.org/2010/04/07/comcast-and-the.html

--
The Rules of Spam

Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
said by zed2608:

from looks of things congress wont pass anything its trapped in partisien bickering

This could actually be a good thing, especially concerning two unpopular pieces of legislation being considered. One is the online wiretapping, the other is the Internet blacklist or COICA as it is known.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
zed2608
Premium
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN
kudos:1

Re: reclassifiy brodband is only way

said by Doctor Four:

said by zed2608:

from looks of things congress wont pass anything its trapped in partisien bickering

This could actually be a good thing, especially concerning two unpopular pieces of legislation being considered. One is the online wiretapping, the other is the Internet blacklist or COICA as it is known.
they diffently wont pass anything once the next congress is in im expecting it to be extremly close probably around 50/50 in terms of senate repucliacans to demacrats

Sr Tech
Premium
join:2003-01-19
New Britain, CT
kudos:1

Maybe more to the story

Could there have been something else attached to the bill that needed to come out? Waxman possibly refused? I would not trust waxman as far as I could throw him.....
eakes

join:2000-10-20
Richardson, TX

1 recommendation

Regulation not needed

There is no need for NN. No one has shown where consumers are being harmed. This is all based on a nebulus idea or thought that there could be some kind of damage in the future.

The 'regulation hawks' seem to want to regulate for regulation sake, nevermind there is no known problem. And let's not open the 'classify providers as common carrier' can of worms. That will only lead to glacial technology roll-out.

Mendo

@mcn.org

Re: Regulation not needed

said by eakes:

That will only lead to glacial technology roll-out.
yeah, right. slower than now, with the current classifications?

D
RaTtMaN

join:2004-01-08
Parkersburg, WV
said by eakes:

There is no need for NN. No one has shown where consumers are being harmed. This is all based on a nebulus idea or thought that there could be some kind of damage in the future.

The 'regulation hawks' seem to want to regulate for regulation sake, nevermind there is no known problem. And let's not open the 'classify providers as common carrier' can of worms. That will only lead to glacial technology roll-out.
I guess you enjoy only having 2 ISP's to pick from, and no real competition, I'll remember that when I'm paying my over priced 50Mbps connection.

RaTtMaN

LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA

Re: Regulation not needed

The lack of competition is due to local exclusive franchising licenses rather than some supposed market failure.

I'm always curious how people on both left and right don't like the United Corporate State of America but too often the solution is to add more regulations--so what? so more lobbyists are needed and more special favors are sought. Why can't we try a free market for once?
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
RaTtMaN

join:2004-01-08
Parkersburg, WV

Re: Regulation not needed

I agree with this, but there are issues, a free market means essentially that all providers would need to line share (unless we ripped out all the current last mile infrastructure and rebuilt it with tax payer dollars) but then you come into an issue that unless you also do this with the back bones and other equipment behind the customer side and into the carrier side with tax payer dollars you're then running into if said Company X has the backbone that said Company Y needs to connect too to provide Customer Z with service, then what stops said Company X from making Company Y's packets on the lowest priority for Customer Z?

Then in this instance the free market really isn't anything other than what we currently have, large corporations killing smaller companies because their service is much better because still they are the gate keepers... Now of course we could vote to have tax payer dollars build out a complete fiber infrastructure for the entire USA, but this isn't feasible either, ok you create more jobs, great, but then who is going to be the gate keeper on this network? The Government, and you don't want that, that would probably bring a tax just for viewing web-sites (and don't say it won't happen, they've already tried it multiple times) along with all kinds of other things, only God knows what...

So then in these 2 cases what are the alternatives?

I'm always for a free market, but really regulation in some forms needs to be there, if not you run into issues (though this is not always the case) Of course there's always an opposite to what I said, and it could be that Company X slows down Company Y's packets and then all of Company X's customers resist this or complain and decide to go with another company because of the unfairness, and eventually Company X will stop slowing packets of other providers due to the loss in revenue and the huge media backlash they take.

But of course this is all speculation into what could happen, I for one would LOVE to see a free market in terms of High Speed Internet Service, and it would even have my vote, but until we can test it and trial it, I don't see it as a reality, too many people always want to be the owners and controllers over what you have/use.

RaTtMaN

DavePR

join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA
There is a known problem. It's called Deep Packet Inspection.

Bill Neilson
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA

So another attempt at TRYING to LOOK

consumer friendly but really another attempt at giving the corporations all the power they want?

Figures

Anyone who thinks we will get differently out of DC is living in a fantasy world