Slashdot Mirror
U.S. House Rejects Net Neutrality
tygerstripes writes "A recent vote in the U.S. House of Representatives has led to a rejection of the principle of Net Neutrality from the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (Cope Act), in spite of massive lobbying from prominent businesses. According to the BBC, the bill '...aims to make it easier for telecoms firms to offer video services around America by replacing 30,000 local franchise boards with a national system overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'. However, according to House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, 'telecommunications and cable companies will be able to create toll lanes on the information superhighway... This strikes at the heart of the free and equal nature of the internet.'"
by a government that is supposed to by the people for the people.
Let's see, first we have:
1. An illegal war in Iraq
2. The government spying on its own people (NSA= Now Spying on Americans)
3. An Internet that is no longer free
My name is Winston, your name is Julia.
You have a very Starlinist view of soclilsm.
New Nutrality is socialist, in that it imposes a rule of business for the good of the people, and I think it's a good version of socilism. I think they understand the difference between left wing commie socilism and good old American capatilism.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Toll lanes on the information superhighway... wow... the big problem here is that the people who shape and pass these bills actually use terms like "information superhighway".
They have no business representing ANYBODY when it comes to technology. Why not find somebody who can display an understanding of computers and the internet instead of somebody who is fluent in 1996 buzzwords?
I like to think of the Internet backbone as a state highway... free, and everyone gets treated the same.
Wow. Just... wow. Okay, pay attention now...
The state highways are not free - those that are not toll roads are allocated a proportion of gas taxes, related to measured use of the road. Guess what? That means heavier users (like say, trucking companies, the equivalent of Google on the internet) pay... wait for it; MORE!
And that 'ma & pa' you refer to? In the analogy that sensible people advance, they are not users of content, they are small-scale providers of content. And yes, they should not pay as much for a fixed chunk of bandwidth as Google (or whoever), when they serve up much less data than the high volume content providers.
Really, this entitlement mentality on slashdot is embarrassing. Your corporate heroes are paying much less in proportion for real resources they that use to make a profit. In effect, they make their profits at the expense of smaller operators who are forced to pay more for their resources. But dealing with this disparity might inconvenience those of you who want what you want when you want it. In a sense it doesn't matter, because these are economic issues, and the market will extract remuneration for services/resources deliver. All this complaining about undemocratic partitioning of the net is just those big players playing you for suckers, like the movie studios who fooled people into signing petitions against "pay TV" 30 years ago.