[Ace]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6081882.html

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 152-269 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 that 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 Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, 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)."

Emphasis mine.

[Deepblue]

Well, I agree with the principle of net neutrality but I don't agree with forcing companies to comply. It's a slippery slope towards a nanny state.

[Kamikaze]

Ugh. My other topic was a bit late eh...

[Ace]

Also, am I the only one so sees the abbreviation 'COPE' as a giant middle finger to the net-using American people?

[Rictor]

Now, aside from the "OMG, the Internets is totally dying!" arguement, why exactly should I care about this? How will it change my daily interaction with the Net, especially given that I live in Canada. Politicians make stupid laws - it's what they do. But I don't see them having the power to regulate the Internet or even steer in in a certain direction.

[Kamikaze]

Now, aside from the "OMG, the Internets is totally dying!" arguement, why exactly should I care about this? How will it change my daily interaction with the Net, especially given that I live in Canada. Politicians make stupid laws - it's what they do. But I don't see them having the power to regulate the Internet or even steer in in a certain direction.

This isn't about extra regulation. This allows corporations to charge websites for better service. From another viewpoint, this allows corporations to deny service to websites that don't pay up. Anti-net neutrality bills have the potential to destroy useful websites and communities (which will affect you too if websites you visit are hosted in the US) by allowing the ISPs to **** everyone over.

[Kosh]

Well, I agree with the principle of net neutrality but I don't agree with forcing companies to comply. It's a slippery slope towards a nanny state.

ISP's won't comply unless you twist their arm to the breaking point. The entire point of government is to force everyone to play nicely.

[Nuke]

i have no idea what the **** this amendment or whatever is about. it seems to be the typical republicans hate democrats and vice versa sort of thing. if you havent noticed the internet has already gone to hell. could they make it worse, yes, do i care, no. butlerian jihad mother****er!

[Ace]

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to do an experiment in memes.

Spread these banners everywhere, please.

[NGTM-1R]

Only because it has Prometheus in it.

[jr2]

Hmm.  I would not be opposed to ISPs giving faster access to certain people / companies if they paid more for it, but I would definitely not like them slowing down/disabling/redirecting sites that didn't opt to pay for that extra speed.  So you could pay to go faster (speed costs money.. how fast do you want to go), but I'd hate (okay, punk.. yous want access to my customers, yous got to make a deal.  I'll leave you directions).

[Turambar]

i'm just afraid they'll use their new unrestricted powers, sign deals with the RIAA and MPAA, and **** with my torrents.  they'll make the internet stop being the awesome free place it now is.

look at it this way.  if universal decides they don't like the BSG mod, they wouldnt even have to talk to us.  they could pay off our ISP's to shut off access to game-warden.  when we deal with these people, we have to assume the absolute worst, because thats exactly what theyre going to do.

[Colonol Dekker]

Prometheus and Shodan, The parents i always wanted.........

[SadisticSid]

I'm in agreement with Deepblue for once. It would empower the consumer, but legislation is the wrong way to go about this. ISPs offer you a paid-for service that is subject to their own terms and conditions and contract law. Now if enough people care about this, then an ISP that offers equal (within technical limitations) access to all sites around the globe will prosper more than one that doesn't.

And also, what's to stop ISPs citing and/or deliberately introducing technical limitations to deal with sites that don't pay them a premium even if this law were passed?

[Fineus]

I don't see what's wrong with ISPs limiting / stopping sites that don't pay them at all.. but only if that site signed up to a service that requires it to pay. That is to say, you should get what you pay for. Assuming that everyone on Earth is a sneaky bastard, the ISPs could potentially take someones money and then change their terms of contract so that you not only are signed into a 12 month contract or whatever with them, but also have to pay double what you paid originally merely to maintain the speed you started with - because they decided to change their payment plan.

[Kosh]

And also, what's to stop ISPs citing and/or deliberately introducing technical limitations to deal with sites that don't pay them a premium even if this law were passed?

That's what ENFORCED REGULATION is for.

I'm in agreement with Deepblue for once. It would empower the consumer, but legislation is the wrong way to go about this.

So what do you suggest? Let the ISPs roam freely and let them do whatever the **** they want?

[Kazan]

Well, I agree with the principle of net neutrality but I don't agree with forcing companies to comply. It's a slippery slope towards a nanny state.

do you even know wtf you're talking about?

the government developed the technology, the companies already have peering agreements.  "Net Neutrality" can technically be counted as part of their common carrier requirements, something they VOLUNTARILY submit themselves to to be allowed government sanctioned monopolies.

the idea of a "tiered internet" constitutes double billing and extortion

[SadisticSid]

And also, what's to stop ISPs citing and/or deliberately introducing technical limitations to deal with sites that don't pay them a premium even if this law were passed?

That's what ENFORCED REGULATION is for.

I'm in agreement with Deepblue for once. It would empower the consumer, but legislation is the wrong way to go about this.

So what do you suggest? Let the ISPs roam freely and let them do whatever the **** they want?

Yes. Why shouldn't they? If they want to make bad business decisions and replace their services with crappy ones then they'll lose their customers to those ISPs that don't. Short of a huge organized cartel of ISPs (which would be illegal) I can't see how at least one "neutral" provider would not appear.

And any sort of regulation is almost totally unenforcable as far as I can see. For example, if a user or group of users can't download tracks from iTunes at their full capacity, is that because of discrimination or a multitude of transient or permanent cross-network issues? Is the ISP overloaded? Is iTunes overloaded? Are any of the intermediate nodes experiencing troubles? Has a low-speed router link been selected over a malfunctioning high-speed one?

[Kazan]

there is no competition in the communucations sector in the US - pretty much ever company has captive audiences that have no other choice - and they're in collusion with each other, so that if one starts pulling anti-consumer crap they all do it

[Kazan]

Yes. Why shouldn't they?

because the internet is public property and is a common medium - they're just licensed to host it by the US Gov as part of their common carrier status

If they want to make bad business decisions and replace their services with crappy ones then they'll lose their customers to those ISPs that don't.

no they wouldn't - because that is impossible to do - all those "local ISPs" buy their bandwidth from the Big Comm companies and are subject to every anti-consumer thing they do.

Short of a huge organized cartel of ISPs (which would be illegal) I can't see how at least one "neutral" provider would not appear.

they're ALREADY a huge cartel - the communications industry, the oil industry, the pharma industry, RIAA, MPAA, etc are all cartels

And any sort of regulation is almost totally unenforcable as far as I can see.

then you have sun glasses on in a dark room - it's REALLY easy to tell if a server/router is traffic shaping

For example, if a user or group of users can't download tracks from iTunes at their full capacity, is that because of discrimination or a multitude of transient or permanent cross-network issues? Is the ISP overloaded? Is iTunes overloaded? Are any of the intermediate nodes experiencing troubles? Has a low-speed router link been selected over a malfunctioning high-speed one?

those are all testable conditions