Slashdot Mirror
House Committee Approves 'Net Neutrality' Bill
An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the US House Judiciary Committee approved a bill yesterday that will prevent broadband providers from charging extra fees to websites for delivering their content to users." Ars's response is only guarded optimism, unfortunately. From the article: "The fate of the bill is not clear, as there are now two competing bills vying for the attention of the House floor. HR 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act, was overseen by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and is expected to be considered by full House. That bill is seen by some proponents of 'Net neutrality as being too weak, particularly after a Committee vote tossed aside an amendment put forth by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have enshrined the principle of network neutrality into US law. There is speculation that today's bill, HR 5417, could be proposed as an amendment to HR 5252."
The situation for home users is slightly different, but the same principles apply. If you live in any relatively urban part of the US you will have at least two if not more choices for Internet access. If some or both providers try to charge extra or degrade your service then the providers need to offer some compelling reason to stick with them or another competitor will take your business. If you happen live in a rural area that can only support one service provider, then you've made your choice by living there. Urban folks pay a lot more for everything from housing to insurance to dinner and movie; but pay less and have more choices for Internet access. If you want the Feds to give everyone the same access everywhere and for the same price (such as was done with phone, mail, and electrical service) then you penalize the rational consumers and promote things like urban sprawl and government sponsored (universal access) monopolies.
-- Steve Myers
Libertarian Candidate,
California State Assembly, 43rd District
http://myers4assembly.com/
Yes, we should do our best to have as little state intervention as possible, after all lack of government interference has turned Somalia into the Libertarian Free Market Paradise that it is today. Now if only all of the Randroids would move there and leave us alone.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
i know this site is more liberal than conservative and i dont mind being a minority on here but i think we can all agree that this piece of legislation is crucial to new technologies and ultimately the user. Plus its always nice to put a slap in the face of the rich when they are all for this because they want to richer. I think we can also agree that right now on both sides of the aisle equally, that congress is running the shottiest outfit this side of Mars run by the Mafia and money grubbers.
So you're saying: we have so many regulations that there is no free market. And your cure for this disease is asking for even more regulations?
How 'bout *making* telecom a freer market than it is now, so entrepreneurs and consumers can choose better what fits their needs?
One of the reasons there are few providers is the very State regulation, which already exists, to force the telecoms to play nice.
If a provider pays the money to connect a home to his network, he must, by law, permit other providers to sell their services over that connection.
Result?
No one lays new connections.
Would YOU shell out your initial expensive outlay, just to see someone else - who doesn't have that cost to deal with - undercut your services?
Of course not, the idea is preposterous. But that's what you get from politicans; they're not economists and they can ignore reality, when passing laws, because of political pressure - but of course reality doesn't go away, and the practical result is disaster.
The existing major providers, who have the existing connections are of course forced to share, but as you say, they own the line in the first place.
These laws, they're all passed with the very best of intentions, but their *actual* effect is usually the opposite of their intention; they end up harming the public good, but being extremely benficial to a special interest group - in this case, the encumber providers.
As it is, there have been efforts in recent years to prevent the State from regulating new connections; this is why a few providers are now starting to invest in fibre to the home.
I believe your real concern should be your lack of ISP choices at home. There are two factors at work here. First your local municipalities limit by law the number of cable providers, or telephone operators, or any other service providers who can do business in your neighborhood. This is done out-right in the case of the cable TV duopolies, and more subtly for any new facilities based telecom carriers by using regulations to make it very difficult to upgrade or stringing new cables. I used to work for a CLEC and believe me, politicians from cities like LA and Pasadena and in Sacramento are very happy to protect their cozy ($$) relationship with incumbent carriers at the expense of their citizens. If you want better home ISP choices you'd be better off fighting for less telecom regulation then for more regulation in the form of "net neutrality". There are plenty of new technologies like fixed wireless, Passive Optical, and such that could make SBC and Verizon's built out copper look as antiquated as a horse and buggy. But no one is going to risk capital on these technologies in an environment where the Federal government can take away any chance for profit in the name of some populist mantra like "net neutrality".
-- Steve Myers
Libertarian Candidate
California State Assembly, District 43
http://myers4assembly.com/
PS. The 43rd State Assembly district doesn't include Pasadena, but if you change your mind about us Libertarians, Jim Keller is running for US Congress in the 29th district which does includes Pasadena.