U.S. House Votes to Allow Cable Providers to Throttle Internet

[erek]

It has seen the end of the net neutrality legislation, it will soon see the end of the Rebellion...

House Republicans have managed to pull off a high profile rejection of a key tech-related component of the Obama administration's initiatives. In control of the House for the first time in four years, Republicans have voted to overturn so-called "net neutrality" rules proposed earlier this year by the Obama administration.

The rules had previously been approved by the Democratic House, but were stalled in the Senate as Republicans awaited the prospect of regaining control of the House in the new year.

(please visit the source link for much more detailed information)...

Source: DailyTech

[Hyrax]

Originally Posted by erek

It has seen the end of the net neutrality legislation, it will soon see the end of the Rebellion...

House Republicans have managed to pull off a high profile rejection of a key tech-related component of the Obama administration's initiatives. In control of the House for the first time in four years, Republicans have voted to overturn so-called "net neutrality" rules proposed earlier this year by the Obama administration.

The rules had previously been approved by the Democratic House, but were stalled in the Senate as Republicans awaited the prospect of regaining control of the House in the new year.

(please visit the source link for much more detailed information)...

Source: DailyTech

I think the headline title should be changed to, "House votes that owners can do what they want with their property."

[@md_Guy]

Originally Posted by Hyrax

I think the headline title should be changed to, "House votes that owners can do what they want with their property."

except of course as a County, State and Federal Tax payer, I (and some among us here) ALL are partial owners as those "company lines" (fiber/copper) were given subsidies, tax relief and other benefits as part of their initial installment. I'm far from a socialist however unless said companies are now going to cough up the monies OWED to the local/state/federal governments for initial taxes plus any back and future taxes and repay any and all subsidies, then I/WE sure as hell should have a say, those fiber lines they put down the side of our streets 10 yrs ago, cost me, my neighbors, local businesses etc money.

[Treeckcold57]

I don't understand....what does this suppose mean?

[Brain]

What a BS title.

Ignorants is bliss

[DarkSyde]

Originally Posted by Brain

What a BS title.

Ignorants is bliss

So is ignorance.

[noko]

Originally Posted by @md_Guy

except of course as a County, State and Federal Tax payer, I (and some among us here) ALL are partial owners as those "company lines" (fiber/copper) were given subsidies, tax relief and other benefits as part of their initial installment. I'm far from a socialist however unless said companies are now going to cough up the monies OWED to the local/state/federal governments for initial taxes plus any back and future taxes and repay any and all subsidies, then I/WE sure as hell should have a say, those fiber lines they put down the side of our streets 10 yrs ago, cost me, my neighbors, local businesses etc money.

So what are you saying? We can randomely come up with ways these businesses have to pay us not ever agreed upon in the legistration? Over and over again? At any time? Hey if I am a company and a city, state or what not wants to give me a tax break and maybe some other incentives so I can afford to build some infrastructure (otherwise maybe I could not) which when built helps the citizens and the area to thrieve in commerce, education and what not, we all win. I do not want people now thinking that they can just make stuff up and then come in and take over my company tell me how to run it etc. Just because a given government, local or federal gives out contracts and incentives doesn't mean it becomes a free for all later. As for the citizens, if they don't like the policy CAST A VOTE and attend open government meetings and write to your reps.

[EfrainMan]

From the text of the bill, this is *basically* what republicans blocked:

"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."

[DaNdo]

With the attitude of certain US posters on this topic, i no longer wonder how USA got into a economic ****hole.

[EmpTe]

"Big business runs government in the US shock!"

[Crisler]

In fairness until I saw the effects of this personally I was not all that concerned either. Over the last few weeks I have noticed that when I use Netflix to stream a movie my bandwidth falls drastically. I pay for 20 meg and within 20 minutes of using netflix my bandwidth from various test sites is down to 2 meg. My internet becomes a dog and Netflix is a pain to watch.

However once I have logged off Netflix for about 30 minutes my bandwidth suddenly shoots back to normal.

I have tested this repeatedly and am able to reproduce this at will. Did some investigating and found the Mediacom is testing this in my home town, they are looking at limiting video streaming. The arguement is that this hurts everyone by cutting into bandwidth. The truth is it is cheaper to use Netflix than their On Demand system.

Of course when I called Mediacom and asked about this, speaking with a supervisor at that point, I was told this was not true and they would look into why this was happening. I asked for a time frame and they explained they where not sure. At this point I kid you not they then told me that I could however enjoy a wider selection using their On Demand service.

I procedeed to explain that their On Demand Service had been broke at my house for 8 months and they kept putting off fixing it. So they had a chose, fix my On Demand within 24 hours, fix my internet within 24 hours or I would find a new provider for my entertainment and internet options.

My internet has not throttle since.

Now here is my issue, I understand throttling to preserve bandwidth. I understand that the pirates out there suck up the bandwidth from everyone running their little servers and such. I could understand throttling such behavior.

However outside my performing an illegal act with their service when I pay for Internet I expect to get open internet access without them telling me what I cannot do with it.

While cities may have a number of internet options to create competition and give consumers choices when companies pull this crap, rural areas do not often have these options. Many times they are stuck in defacto monopolies due to limited choices.

Normally I would say Congress hsould leave something like this alone but seeing the impact first hand I think this is actually needed!

[D0T-C0M]

I can't believe people aren't up in an uproar over this. I'm from Canada and we are in a similar fight with big telecoms with our version of the FCC, the CRTC. Canada and the US have many similarities with respect to the makeup of the Internet market. Both countries’ Internet markets are largely controlled by a duopoly of cable and telephone companies. This ersatz competition between telephone and cable companies has given regulators and policy makers on both sides of the border the excuse that this supposed competitive market will solve all problems. More importantly both countries are also allowing major concentration of ownership between pipe and content providers. In the US it is the marriage of Comcast and NBC. In Canada it is Bell and CTV as well as Shaw and Global TV.
Much of the recent ballyhoo in Canada is about the huge difference in the size of caps between the two countries. In the US for example Comcast has a cap of 250 GB versus 25 GB typically available in Canada. I suspect service providers in the US will start lowering their caps now that the Comcast-NBC acquisition is completed, especially if they see the Canadian providers get away with such a strategy. All the service providers hate competition from the “over-the top” content providers like Netflix, Hulu, etc. If Canadian telcos and cablecos remain successful in their ability to impose low level caps on themselves and their competitors, you can be darn sure that US service providers will not be far behind. This will allow them to protect their investment in their recently acquisition of content providers. And you can be damn sure they will not impose usage “caps” on their own IPTV or digital cable service offerings – even though they are delivered using IP packets just like the Internet.
Now that Verizon has terminated FiOS there will no significant future build out of fiber last mile networks in the US. We are facing an increasing danger that the cable companies with their DOCSIS 3.0 will effectively become the monopoly service provider in North America.
Until we follow the example of Europe or Australia and move to structural separation of the underlying infrastructure I suspect we will continue to have battles with incumbents on creating a truly competitive Internet framework in North America.

[acidosmosis]

Originally Posted by D0T-C0M

I can't believe people aren't up in an uproar over this. I'm from Canada and we are in a similar fight with big telecoms with our version of the FCC, the CRTC. Canada and the US have many similarities with respect to the makeup of the Internet market. Both countries’ Internet markets are largely controlled by a duopoly of cable and telephone companies. This ersatz competition between telephone and cable companies has given regulators and policy makers on both sides of the border the excuse that this supposed competitive market will solve all problems. More importantly both countries are also allowing major concentration of ownership between pipe and content providers. In the US it is the marriage of Comcast and NBC. In Canada it is Bell and CTV as well as Shaw and Global TV.
Much of the recent ballyhoo in Canada is about the huge difference in the size of caps between the two countries. In the US for example Comcast has a cap of 250 GB versus 25 GB typically available in Canada. I suspect service providers in the US will start lowering their caps now that the Comcast-NBC acquisition is completed, especially if they see the Canadian providers get away with such a strategy. All the service providers hate competition from the “over-the top” content providers like Netflix, Hulu, etc. If Canadian telcos and cablecos remain successful in their ability to impose low level caps on themselves and their competitors, you can be darn sure that US service providers will not be far behind. This will allow them to protect their investment in their recently acquisition of content providers. And you can be damn sure they will not impose usage “caps” on their own IPTV or digital cable service offerings – even though they are delivered using IP packets just like the Internet.
Now that Verizon has terminated FiOS there will no significant future build out of fiber last mile networks in the US. We are facing an increasing danger that the cable companies with their DOCSIS 3.0 will effectively become the monopoly service provider in North America.
Until we follow the example of Europe or Australia and move to structural separation of the underlying infrastructure I suspect we will continue to have battles with incumbents on creating a truly competitive Internet framework in North America.

Personally I'm so fed up with this government that I don't consider myself an American anymore. The only time I will ever support my country ever again is when it's people have the balls to step up and remove this government. Otherwise, I want nothing to do with it and hopefully one of these days I can leave.

[Brutalix]

Originally Posted by acidosmosis

Personally I'm so fed up with this government that I don't consider myself an American anymore. The only time I will ever support my country ever again is when it's people have the balls to step up and remove this government. Otherwise, I want nothing to do with it and hopefully one of these days I can leave.

I am not an American, and english is not my first language, so I beg pardon if I have misunderstood something.
But I can't get the meaning in your statement, you say you are fed up with this government, but isn't it the opposition (republicans) that just stopped net neutrality? Or are you against net neutrality?

Kind regards
Brut.

[acidosmosis]

Originally Posted by Brutalix

I am not an American, and english is not my first language, so I beg pardon if I have misunderstood something.
But I can't get the meaning in your statement, you say you are fed up with this government, but isn't it the opposition (republicans) that just stopped net neutrality? Or are you against net neutrality?

Kind regards
Brut.

It's always the government. Republicans are the government. No non-government person or entity makes decisions about these sorts of things in America. Or practically anything for that matter. The government has it's hand in everything. It tells us what we can and can not do, regardless of whether it's our business or not. Before long, we will be told when we can and cannot breath and how much oxygen we're allowed to breath per minute.

[EmpTe]

Doesn't matter which government is in office in the US, the big corporations will always have a far bigger say in policy making than the average citizen. Unfortunately, it is becoming like that in the UK too....

[Fleksta]

ffs..."an affront to capitalism"...what a load of crap. IF there were actually some competition in the market I would see the point of letting companies decide their own policy regarding use of bandwidth. But where I live, there is only Comcast cable, Verizon DSL, or satellite. That in my opinion, is the real affront to a free market.

So of course I have Comcast cable since it is the fastest option, but if they were to start throttling what would my recourse be? Its not like I can just hop over to another cable company

[gamefoo21]

Americans really need to set limits on 'campaign contributions' and 'lobbying' then maybe their government and elected officials will stop being pawns of big business and stop taking fat steaming dumps all over their populace.

That means capping private personal donations just like capping business donations, along with making 'elected' officials have to wear jackets with the decals of all the companies that paid them off, so you know just why someone is voting the way they are...

Maybe then some of the jokes about democracy and freedom in the US will subside...

[noko]

We just need dedicated politicians who are honest and know they can't fix everything in the world especially through government failing programs. Now really where is the problem, the people in office or the folks that vote them there?

[Oversearch]

Originally Posted by noko

We just need dedicated politicians who are honest and know they can't fix everything in the world especially through government failing programs. Now really where is the problem, the people in office or the folks that vote them there?

lol, honest politicians! You're quite the comedian...

"Power corrupts..."

[traitoR]

Originally Posted by noko

We just need dedicated politicians who are honest and know they can't fix everything in the world especially through government failing programs. Now really where is the problem, the people in office or the folks that vote them there?

You need far more oversight / accountability / transparancy, just like us.

It's far to easy to hide improprieties as a politician what we really need is the paparazzi to stalk all these jerks and put out every dirty detail they can dig up, maybe some would walk the straight and narrow then.

[jlpktnst]

Problem is as I see it that all the sh*t from USA translates to other countries. They say : "oh nicely done USA, we will do the same" when the local politicians see some gains. Or the large corporations from USA start paying the right people abroad to implement the "necessary changes"... even EU has some countries with crazy bandwidth limits like 5GB.

Even in my country the state-owned telecom is blocking all other business attempts and the state is helping em (while it is a monopoly, state owned monopoly, sweet).

And as soon as net neutrality falls in USA we can probably see it going down everywhere else. Problem is the ignorant louts also - need to be clotted over their dumb heads. How the hack can you support a motion like this against freedom? Do you argue that freedom is bad for human beings? Do you argue government is not human? I just don't see the logic, populist governments ofcourse are usually the worst. Buying their popularity cheaply and doing bad stuff. Usualy the long-term good stuff is painful at the moment and people prefer to be blind now but will suffer later. Fun today outweights centuries of suffering of our children it seems?

[AluminumHaste]

Originally Posted by Crisler

Now here is my issue, I understand throttling to preserve bandwidth.

when I pay for Internet I expect to get open internet access without them telling me what I cannot do with it.

Those two sentences don't work together. Throttling internet IS them telling you what you can and cannot do with it

EDIT: Also P2P is NOT illegal, it's an architecture for transferring files. It's bull**** that I can't download Ubuntu distros without being throttled all because the TELCOs deem that act as "illegal". It's like saying cars can be used to transport drugs so all cars must be stopped for inspection.

[Crisler]

Originally Posted by AluminumHaste

Those two sentences don't work together. Throttling internet IS them telling you what you can and cannot do with it

EDIT: Also P2P is NOT illegal, it's an architecture for transferring files. It's bull**** that I can't download Ubuntu distros without being throttled all because the TELCOs deem that act as "illegal". It's like saying cars can be used to transport drugs so all cars must be stopped for inspection.

You know what I have no issue with you downloading stuff. I take issues however when people use their systems as servers to handle file downloads for others and suck up all the available bandwidth from the area.

[AluminumHaste]

Originally Posted by Crisler

You know what I have no issue with you downloading stuff. I take issues however when people use their systems as servers to handle file downloads for others and suck up all the available bandwidth from the area.

Oh I see, it's okay for you to use your internet however YOU want, but as soon as someone else does it's not okay.
Dude you are either for net neutrality or you aren't, not this bull**** where you want to be able to use your internet the way you want to, but everyone else can go **** themselves.

[jlpktnst]

Originally Posted by Crisler

You know what I have no issue with you downloading stuff. I take issues however when people use their systems as servers to handle file downloads for others and suck up all the available bandwidth from the area.

This statement is funny.

So internet provider is selling 10/10 mbit internet. Then when I utilize it 100% they suddenly cannot sell it to me anymore? So actually they are selling beyond their capacity with no safeguards? Well, thats interesting, I wonder what would happen if I tried to sell stuff I don't even have. I guess i'd be declared swindler or something in the league.

But no, those poor telecoms, they need to be protected coz evil peoples ares abusings the internets and thes comms lines. We should be utilizing 1% rather than 100%

Old order is breaking. I don't want the new order be like in 1984.

[noko]

hehe, I am glad the net-neutrality bill got axed. Because if anyone thinks the FTC would be proficient, competent and good for overall networking I would very much dissagree. Don't be fooled by fancy names on bills. The bill stunk to high heaven and indeed your new regulator would be the US government. Now more competition is needed, and usually it is government interferance that limits open markets deciding who wins and who looses. If you don't like your service, COMPLAIN! SEEK BETTER SERVICE! FORM GROUPS TO PUSH ISSUES! but for gods sake don't let the US government decide or any government decide for you on such as thing as free (information wise) as the internet.

[fivefeet8]

Originally Posted by noko

hehe, I am glad the net-neutrality bill got axed. Because if anyone thinks the FTC would be proficient, competent and good for overall networking I would very much dissagree. Don't be fooled by fancy names on bills. The bill stunk to high heaven and indeed your new regulator would be the US government. Now more competition is needed, and usually it is government interferance that limits open markets deciding who wins and who looses. If you don't like your service, COMPLAIN! SEEK BETTER SERVICE! FORM GROUPS TO PUSH ISSUES! but for gods sake don't let the US government decide or any government decide for you on such as thing as free (information wise) as the internet.

What exactly in the bill are you against? The US has one of the most monopolistic broadband industry in the world. There are only a few providers in any given area and the broadband services fall behind most modernized countries.

I'd agree that we don't want the government controlling the internet, but we also don't want corporations controlling it as well with no rules at all.