The House of Representatives has approved the procedures for a joint resolution that would overturn the FCC's controversial Net neutrality rules. The resolution (PDF) is scheduled for a vote on Thursday in the GOP-controlled House. If it passes, it would then move on to the Democratic-controlled Senate, where its chances of survival are less certain. Even if it passes the Senate, though, the White House would likely veto the measure.

Tags: Democrats, FCC, house of representatives, HouseOfRepresentatives, Net Neutrality, NetNeutrality, obama, politics, republicans, top, veto, Web, white house, WhiteHouse

source: Ars Technica

Net Neutrality is an important issue.  It even keeps the telecoms from gouging the federal, state and local governments.  It keeps the Internet open and affordable to everyone.

Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is a fundamental freedom and AT&T, Verizon, Fox News and ComCasket are trying to kill it.  They supported the bill that the House passed to kill the FCC net neutrality rule.

E-Commerce News has this to say about the subject.

No doubt you've heard the term "Net neutrality." Proponents and opponents have much to say on this topic. However, many Internet users don't even know what it means, or how it will affect them.

What is Net neutrality?
"Net neutrality" is short for "network neutrality" or "Internet neutrality." The concept addresses user access to the Internet, and the debate around Net neutrality centers on whether ISPs (Internet service providers) can limit, tier, block or otherwise affect Internet performance.
Without Net neutrality, ISPs can even charge higher fees for more bandwidth and higher-speed access to one vendor and not others, thus establishing tiers of service. For instance, without Net neutrality, an ISP could sign a lucrative contract with Netflix (Nasdaq: NFLX), then charge lower rates for its customers who use Netflix rather than Blockbuster (NYSE: BBI).
Or, if an ISP preferred (e.g. had a financial interest in) one search engine over another, that ISP could force its customers to the preferred search engine by charging customers more each time they used any other search engine.

<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript"><!--//<![CDATA[ document.write('<a href="http://www.ectnews.com/adsys/link/?crid=7196&ENN_rnd=13051823306104" target="_blank" ><img src="http://view.atdmt.com/MRT/view/264243123/direct;wi.160;hi.600/01/?ENN_rnd=13051823306104" /></a>');//]]>//--></script><noscript><a href="http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/264243123/direct;wi.160;hi.600/01/" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="http://view.atdmt.com/MRT/view/264243123/direct;wi.160;hi.600/01/?ENN_rnd=13051823306104" /></a></noscript>

The FCC Proposal

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) jumped on the bandwagon to address this issue with regulations. On December 23, 2010, the FCC issued a 170- page report establishing three guidelines for Net neutrality that include a two-tier system -- one for fixed lines and the other mobile:

i. Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services; ii. No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and
iii. No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

Interestingly, the FCC vote was 3-2, based on party lines; the two dissenting Republican commissioners issued separate statements.

Background of FCC Intervention

In 2008, the FCC sanctioned Comcast (Nasdaq: CMCSK) for improperly slowing down the traffic of BitTorrent file-sharing because the FCC Internet guidelines at the time required broadband providers to treat all network traffic equally (true Net neutrality).
As a result of the sanction, Comcast challenged the FCC in federal court. In April 2010, the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia unanimously ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to force ISPs to keep their networks open to all forms of content (Comcast v FCC).
Actually, the FCC's attempted regulation of the Internet has more history. As many of us remember, the FCC has historically regulated telecommunications, including managing the Bell breakup in the 1980s.
Of course, the world has changed a great deal since the Bell breakup, and now much of communication is Internet-based. As a result, the FCC sees its duties to include Internet regulation through Net neutrality. But the FCC's Net neutrality strategy is part of a bigger plan to provide high speed broadband to the entire U.S., a plan the FCC calls the "National Broadband Plan."
The National Broadband Plan was published after dozens of public workshops drawing more than 10,000 in-person and online attendees, and more than 23,000 comments from 700 parties. Essentially, the National Broadband Plan is a response to the perceived need for the U.S. to expand broadband Internet access and spur economic growth, much like the boom that resulted from the U.S. transcontinental railroad and electricity more than a century ago.
Among other things, the National Broadband Plan includes establishing competition policies to "have a broad set of tools to protect and encourage competition in the markets that make up the broadband ecosystem." The National Broadband Plan provides for Net neutrality as an essential part of the FCC's regulation of Internet communications.

What's Wrong With Net Neutrality?

As noted above, Net neutrality as proposed by the FCC creates two classes of Internet providers: fixed-line and mobile. After its loss in the Comcast case last year, the FCC had many discussions with significant vendors -- such as Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) and Verizon -- that were interested in shaping the future of the Internet.
Actually, Google has been very vocal about Net neutrality and has been posting public policy blogs on the topic for many years. Verizon has fought the FCC in the Courts as it believes that route to be cheaper than administrative challenges.
Also, organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have a more fundamental problem with the Net neutrality proposed policy, since the EFF just doesn't trust the FCC at all: "Historically, the FCC has sometimes shown more concern for the demands of corporate lobbyists and 'public decency' advocates than it has for individual civil liberties."
Essentially, the EFF opposes the FCC's Net neutrality plan solely because it has been offered by the FCC, so one can conclude that the EFF sees itself as a social watchdog that has a duty to challenge Internet regulators. One could conclude that the EFF thinks natural market forces are better than FCC regulation.

What Do Net Neutrality Proponents Say?

Net neutrality proponents make the case for the freedom of the Internet. That freedom has allowed startups such as Google, Facebook, Myspace and Groupon to flourish, since there have been no Internet access barriers to entry. Overall, the proponents fear that without Net neutrality, the larger ISPs will control which companies succeed or fail as the Internet continues to evolve.
No one can really predict the future evolution of the Internet. When "Web 2.0" was coined by Kevin O'Reilly in 2002, no one could have imaged the transformation brought about by Facebook, LinkedIn, Myspace, Foursquare and a myriad of social media sites. Net neutrality proponents support the idea that creativity and ingenuity will continue to propel such major changes, and that Internet access issues should not interfere.
As the Internet changes over time, it is fascinating to see its evolution and the great dependency that we all have on it. The growth of social media only makes us more dependent, and the proliferation of the iPad and other tablets has changed how we will use the Internet in the future. Net neutrality, or the lack of it, may impact Internet use for years to come.

Net Neutrality

This is from an Email I recieved:


Dear Friend,

Pledge to protect the open Internet today!

Today, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski gave AT&T a decision that was gift-wrapped for the holiday season. By a 3-to-2 vote, the FCC passed a rule that, in the chairman’s words, “protects Internet freedom.”
If only it were true.

After a year of promises to deliver on Net Neutrality, this chairman has pushed through a rule that favors the very industry his FCC is supposed to regulate, leaving Internet users with few protections.

The chairman chose to ignore your voice — and those of more than 2 million people who have urged Washington to support real Net Neutrality. His rule, for the first time in history, allows discrimination over the mobile Internet, paving the way for widespread industry abuses.

Now, the chairman is trying to spin the media that his toothless decision is a win for Internet users. We’re not going to let him get away with that.
Pledge to keep fighting for real Net Neutrality; and use the Internet to spread the word via Twitter, Facebook and e-mail.
Don’t let the FCC get away with fake Net Neutrality. Spread the truth about this bad rule.
We’d be lying if we didn’t tell you that this vote was a major setback. The new rule doesn't do enough to stop the phone and cable companies from dividing the Internet into fast and slow lanes, and it fails to protect wireless users from discrimination. It lets AT&T block your access to third-party applications and require you to use its own preferred applications.

But this bad rule is not the end of the story. Free Press and our many allies are going to keep fighting to secure your right to an Internet without gatekeepers.

By taking action and spreading the word, you’re telling the FCC that this isn’t good enough.

Thank you,

Misty, Craig, Tim and the Free Press Team

shoutcast is off the net

The thought police are starting up.  The RIAA is responsible for this backroom deal.  They are in league with the mob.  BOYCOTT ALL RIAA LABELS FOR NET NEUTRALITY.

Net Neutrality and why

First off, it is the First amendment right for an unfettered Internet.  Second, It keeps the prices down by competition in the market.  Third, the Telcos could rip off and gouge the federal, state and local governments including the military with the Internet prices.