Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member curiouspat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA. area!
    Posts
    3,341

    We have to be able to communicate freely!

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... JBHQE1.DTL

    Setback for Internet coalition
    House OKs bill to make subscription TV market more competitive

    Tom Abate, Verne Kopytoff, Chronicle Staff Writers

    Friday, June 9, 2006
    The House passed the most extensive telecommunications legislation in a decade Thursday, opening the cable TV market to more competition but rejecting efforts to prevent telephone and cable companies from creating toll lanes on the Internet.
    The bill, passed by a lopsided 321-101 vote, would give telephone companies a national license to deliver television through their wires to compete with the cable industry. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., who heads the telecommunications subcommittee, estimated that people could save $30 to $40 each month if given a choice in video services.

    The vote came shortly after the House rejected by a 269-152 tally an amendment by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., that would have given the Federal Communications Commission broad powers to regulate network neutrality, the principle that all Internet traffic should be delivered on a first-come, first-served basis.

    "There is going to be a fundamental change in the whole history of the Internet," Markey warned, predicting that the bill would lead to the creation of fast and slow lanes on the information superhighway, and would stifle online innovation.

    Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who authored the House bill, argued that Markey's amendment would hand the FCC "a blank check" to regulate the Internet and prevent phone and cable companies from attracting the "billions and billions and billions of dollars" they would need to expand their capacity to deliver new forms of online traffic, notably television.

    High-tech leaders and consumer groups said they would carry their fight to the Senate, which is in the early stages of considering its own version of the House bill.

    "We're disappointed, but I can't say we're surprised," said Gigi Sohn, president of the consumer interest group Public Knowledge. "We are hoping for something a lot better in the Senate."

    Although Internet activists had focused on aspects of the House bill that, they argued, would change the open character of the Web, the overwhelming vote for its passing reflected the desire of Congress to force competition in the paid television market.

    The measure spells out new rules that would create national franchises, allowing telephone companies to get into the cable television business without first having to obtain licenses from municipal authorities, as is currently the case.

    In the floor debate Thursday, several Democrats spoke out in favor of the bill's trade-off -- a free hand to telephone companies when it comes to pricing new Internet services in return for their entry into the cable market.

    "This bill does a lot and goes a long way to making sure that the cost of cable television will be reduced," said Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill.

    Reps. Anna Eshoo of Palo Alto and Zoe Lofgren of San Jose expressed bewilderment that the House would vote, as Lofgren said, to "turn the Internet into the equivalent of cable TV."

    Now the Internet coalition, which includes such Silicon Valley giants as Google, eBay and Yahoo, must focus on the Senate, where it faces an uphill battle. The House added language that acknowledges the importance of network neutrality but stopped short of giving the FCC the regulatory powers that Markey had sought.

    The current Senate bill has less language on network neutrality.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report. E-mail the writers at tabate@sfchronicle.com and vkopytoff@sfchronicle.com.
    TIME'S UP!
    **********
    Why should <u>only</u> AMERICAN CITIZENS and LEGAL immigrants, have to obey the law?!

  2. #2
    Senior Member xanadu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    958


    I knew this was coming just how many holes in the dike can we stick our fingers into.

    IF it is the stupid thing I saw it will split the bandwidth. Companies get the fast lane the rest of us get the gravel road. There will be costs assessed for the use. Europe is really torgued about this.

    I dunno maybe it won't pass the Senate (ya I know I know just give me a thwap on the head to knock out foolish toughts)

    IF this passes ... our ability to organize will be demolished! It will all be over but "the people" exiled from their own country.

    I think I am going to be SICK!
    "Liberty CANNOT be preserved without general knowledge among people" John Adams (August 1765)

  3. #3
    ForFutureGens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    24
    The content providers believe in maintaining "net neutrality" while the telecommunications companies think they should be able to use a pricing structure depending upon how much bandwidth the content requires. This is the FCC's fault because they deregulated the telco's a few years ago (regarding broadband) allowing them to charge different pricing structures to content providers for different things. Now that infrastructure needs updating to accommodate all the new WOW technologies, the telco's want to pass the cost of build-out and upgrade onto the content providers. If this happens, content providers will have to start charging for internet content that was previously free. If the content providers prevail and the telco's have to absorb all the cost themselves, they will pass that increase along to consumers as fees.
    What ticks me off about this is that the Telco's are using as their argument that the content providers have been getting a "free ride" for too long (and thus their customers....us). This is bull-hocky because companies like Google and Yahoo HAVE been paying for services and infrastructure access to push content and WE are all paying (too much in my opinion) for our access (to the Telco's). How do they see this as being a "free ride?" Either way, it seems, we lose. You will either wind up paying for once-free content or paying higher fees to your Telco/cable (same monster) for access. Ultimately, this is the beginning of the government sticking their incompetent noses into the business of the internet. It's just a matter of time before we are paying taxes for internet use, a fee for email, and suffering loss of access to certain content unless you can pay for it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •