Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

House Democrats Shelve Net Neutrality Proposal

Posted by kdawson on from the neutron-walks-into-a-bar dept.

crimeandpunishment writes "A compromise on net neutrality appears to be as likely as Google and China becoming BFFs. House Democrats have pulled the plug on efforts to work out a compromise among phone, cable, and Internet companies. House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, who shelved the proposal late on Wednesday in the face of Republican opposition, said, 'If Congress can't act, the FCC must,' and called this development 'a loss for consumers.' Internet companies and public interest groups say the new regulations are needed to keep phone and cable companies from playing favorites with traffic, while those companies insist they need flexibility so high-bandwidth applications don't slow down their systems." The net neutrality debate seems to have fallen victim to the extreme polarization evident in the larger political culture.

4 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. My first "bump" where this law could help by cybrthng · · Score: 5, Informative

    As some of you know Xbox Live is getting a cool update called ESPN3. The concept of the app & system is pretty amazing, technology has come a long way to make it so. What you probably didn't know is that to get the deal, Microsoft had to get the ISP's to agree to license the content for Internet Users in order to broadcast ESPN3 over the internet. Not all ISP's bought the license, so not everyone will have ESPN3 - even if you're a Xbox live subscriber.

    This is an area where net neutrality should shine. It should protect Microsoft and allow them to license content to distribute and it should protect consumers to not be held hostage to a carrier paying for content as a middleman. I hope this EPSN3 thing can light the fire under the community so they understand how net neutrality can impact them. I know this isn't the "typical case of concern" in regards to p2p or throttling or priority of services, but this just goes to show that Internet Traffic is already beeing bought and sold not just as a commodity itself but something that people have now had to license in order to push specific traffic over that commodity on as a carrier - not just a distributor.

    With that said, the app is freaking amazing and i don't even like much sports. The fact you can watch scores, hedge on who will win and i'm sititng in my living room watching HD games on demand or live is pretty awesome. I admire comcast for building out the network to support stuff and maybe, that is what the license agreed to but damn, these backroom deals are dissapointing for the consumer and only pollute the fairness & equality of having broadband now into having to chose a carrior that has the right license deals, not just the best performance.

    1. Re:My first "bump" where this law could help by j0nb0y · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's a separate fee for ESPN3 (previously known as ESPN360). Almost every provider provides ESPN on basic access, so that's not the issue. The issue is that ESPN is charging a PER SUBSCRIBER FEE for a WEBSITE to ISPs. This means that if your provider has ESPN3, you are paying for it, whether you want it or not. ESPN wants to turn the Internet into cable TV. That is the issue.

      --
      If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
    2. Re:My first "bump" where this law could help by j0nb0y · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'll also note that this per subscriber fee is significantly higher for small ISPs. By about a thousand percent... as a result, small ISPs do not carry the service. If you *want* ESPN3, you have to switch to a big carrier, because you cannot buy an individual subscription to the site.

      --
      If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
  2. Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? by AmigaMMC · · Score: 5, Informative
    You got that one wrong, you meant to write Republicans (homophobic, racist, anti-middle class...). Who voted against the repeal of DADT? Republicans, Who voted against a more comprehensive anti hate crime law? Republicans. Who sleeps with the religious right bowing to its will? Republicans. Who voted against tax breaks for small businesses 2 weeks ago? Republicans. Who voted against tax breaks for corporations who keep jobs in the U.S. less than a week ago? Republicans. Who created a $13 TRILLION hole in the government finances? BUSH thank you very much, he's a republicans.
    and the list goes on... As for the last 30 years, actually I beat you, let's do 60 years, under Democrats the income of the middle class has steadily increased by 3%/year and that of the upper class by 2%/year, under Republicans the increase has been around 1% for both.

    if you want to believe propaganda go right ahead, You would look a lot smarter if you did some research first though. I'm an independent and I can think with my own brain. There are lots of stupid Democrats but they don't resemble the Republicans by far.