If I had all the money I've spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink. - Tame Alien
|
|
|
US House of Representatives opposes FCC on net neutrality
THE US House of Representatives has moved to oppose Federal Communications Commission (FCC) net neutrality rules that would prevent Internet service providers (ISPs) from offering higher quality Internet service to paying customers and putting everyone else in the slow lane.
The House has passed a resolution saying that the FCC's proposed regulations should "have no force or effect", after a vote on disapproving the FCC's ruling drew 241 yays and 178 nays.
Yesterday net neutrality lawsuits filed by Verizon Communications and MetroPCS Communications were dismissed as premature by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Big content corporations are trying to prevent the FCC from protecting users against their two-tier plans, and have claimed that the FCC is overstepping its mark.
The FCC requested that their cases be dismissed because they were filed prematurely and the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed.
The House vote was just political grandstanding by the Republican party in Congress, which has a majority in the House. It is in the minority in the Senate, however, and even if the Senate were to also pass the resolution, President Obama could veto it, and likely would. µ
Tags: Internet
Share this:
Share
What everyone doesn't see is who would be affected.
They can charge the web sites to "get permission" to let their home users view their web sites.
It would make the internet become another version of cable TV. You want on, you've got to pay serious money, otherwise we'll give you 256 kbs connection to our customers.
Oh you've paid to be on the internet, just not on our internet.
Fools or naive are those who believe the net-neutrality is a "right". It's a business tactic, no more. Accordingly is a political tactic as well.
It's just a question of time, and this is not my opinion but a reality, when net-neutrality will be transformed into something evermore profitable. It's in the nature of laws of this economy, is it not? Think so: creating the market (dependent services) first, at some point milk the cow. Natural and logical. Just a question of time... fools.
BTW, who wrote the article has poor skills for this. Who hired.. or why..? Nevermind.
here who is concerned about fair and open access to the internet rather then bickering about politics? No wonder net neutrality is dying in the US :-(
Almost everyone will suffer if big bisness succeeds to end net neutrality. At the moment everyones traffic is given the same priority, regardless of wealth, power, ethnicity, political affiliation (with some exceptions like dictatorships), etc.
If net neutrality dies then big business will make a mint selling priority traffic to the highest bidder, who will shurely pass the cost on to thier customers.
Everyone else who doesn't want to, or cant afford to, pay the highest price will be overcharged for poor service. Don't like it? Don't complain, just pay more! Its a monopolist wet dream.
Jose Miguel puts forth some very interesting questions. Here's what I see as the answers.
1.) Mr. Obama has proved to be just like every other President we've had in the last 30 years. He'll do whatever the big-money campaign contributors tell him to do, same as nearly every Representative and Senator.
2.) The Republicans got their majority because A.) Mr. Obama is black and too many Republicans hate any non-white person (especially a black man) being President, and 2.) unfortunately Mr. Obama is continuing the bad policies of the Bush Administration (TARP, bailouts, state secrets, etc.). Point B gives them fuel to whip up anger about Point A.
3.) The "outrage" doesn't matter, only the votes do. And there are too many "sheeple" who simply vote party-ticket instead of actually voting for the best candidate. Hey, the electorate are entertained, and they've got food in their bellies, so why should they change their voting habits? And no, I personally do not share that view.
--SYG
"President Obama could veto it, and likely would."
Unless of course, he caves in and bends over as he has over the last two years.
What I don't get is how a party that's willing to stick it to the workers in favor of the greedy 2% gets a majority in congress.
Next they will try to stick it to the internet and people won't mobilize soon enough. Where is the outrage?
Isn't that a sign of the Apocalypse or something...