Defeat for net neutrality backers

[binaryman]

US politicians have rejected attempts to enshrine the principle of net neutrality in legislation.

Some fear the decision will mean net providers start deciding on behalf of customers which websites and services they can visit and use.

The vote is a defeat for Google, eBay and Amazon which wanted the net neutrality principle protected by law.
Read more:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5063072.stm

Yellow Light For Internet
Washington, D.C. -

The House passed legislation late Thursday night that will pave the way for telephone companies' speedy entrance into the video market, but rejected an amendment that would force cable and telephone companies to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing on their networks.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/eb...m-net-neutrality-cx_jh_0609netneutrality.html

 

[B33R]

:bah:

Dumb stupid politicians. Looks like the internet is gonna get worse instead of better.

 

[Damion]

Dumb? Corrupt would be a better word.

 

[JMJ]

Actually this is good news. It opens the doors up for IPTV

The COPE act

What It's About: Currently, cable companies negotiate local franchise agreements with local governments to offer video (television) service to communities. Telephone companies would like to begin offering video services to compete with cable TV. However, they say the local franchising process is too burdensome - that it would take decades to negotiate thousands of local franchises. This bill would create a national franchise that would set a single standard for every community in America.

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1539607


As it is right now there's only 1 choice for cable television for me.

 

[Damion]

Sorry this is for sure not good news. Anything that puts regular internet use as we know it as of now in danger is not good!

 

[sker]

I just wonder if it is easy to bribe or corrupt politicians in America ?

They did overturn their initial decision to break up Microsoft and now they back against Net-Neutrality.
On Microsoft's case, it is very obvious they should be punished severely based upon their monopoly abuse. Remember, John D Rockafella's Standard Oil was ruled to break up. Microsoft is modern days Standard Oil.
Now they back against Net-Neutrality. Probably they might have received personal gratuity from big American Telcos.

I see America itself another dominant monopoly who is setting the standard to the world to follow.

Monopoly,Monopoly,Monopoly!!!!

Where is democracy and open

 

[Luc]

Actually this is good news. It opens the doors up for IPTV...

As it is right now there's only 1 choice for cable television for me.

umm. how can you say that it's OK for ISPs to decide which web sites you can and can't visit, which ones will crawl and which ones will be smoking fast. so if AOL doesn't want you visiting NamePros because RJ didn't pay up and the page doesn't resolve that's ok right?

who cares about IPTV. get a dish. get an antenna. these types of restrictions will destroy the internet. it will be owned by the big guns and the once creative garage startup companies will never again exist.

 

[Noetic]

umm. how can you say that it's OK for ISPs to decide which web sites you can and can't visit, which ones will crawl and which ones will be smoking fast. so if AOL doesn't want you visiting NamePros because RJ didn't pay up and the page doesn't resolve that's ok right?

who cares about IPTV. get a dish. get an antenna. these types of restrictions will destroy the internet. it will be owned by the big guns and the once creative garage startup companies will never again exist.

The entire world is moving towards iPTV. It's not an *if*, it's a "when will it arrive at your door." That's a fact. Heavy roll-out areas are Asia, Europe, and now with a speedy deployment, the USA (local franchise fees regulations were an issue, but not the deciding factor... "House passes telecommunications bill" release: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/06/09/cable.phone.tv.ap/?section=cnn_tech) . iPTV isn't TV as we know it today - it's all about interactivity and highly targetted advertising.

All that said, because of deployment costs (and other factors) many investors/others wish for site gauging to "help" recoup costs and/or recover costs more quickly. Whether one thinks net neutrality is a must or not, it has nothing to do with iPTV. iPTV is NOT delivered or watched via the Web (domains), it is delivered via IP. It is watched on your home television sets (and other IP delivered capable media screens) iPTV is part of our evolutionary process (thank god!) out of traditional TV delivery services.

Aside from the personal investments in the iPTV industry, on a consumer level, bring on iPTV! I can't wait for all the services (not just TV) it will deliver

Thanks for all the thoughts.

 

[Luc]

...Aside from the personal investments in the iPTV industry, on a consumer level, bring on iPTV! I can't wait for all the services (not just TV) it will deliver

Thanks for all the thoughts.

This is where you're falling for the BS, just as everyone else...

You've posted an article from CNN.

CNN is owned by AOL Time Warner, one of the MAIN companies pushing AGAINTS net neturatily. It would be stupid of them to write anything negative about the issue, which is why they've conveniently set the title to "...possibly saving consumers hundreds of dolalrs a year..."

However, if you do bother to read the entire article (which is trying to convince the reader that this legislation is the way to go) you'll find...

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Massachusetts, offered an amendment stating that broadband network providers must not discriminate against or interfere with users' ability to access or offer lawful content.

Without that amendment, said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, "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."

As you can probably imagine, there is MUCH more money to be made in creating toll lanes than in creating IPTV.

Although I would love to see IPTV in the future, and I consider myself an investor in the industry (domain wise) because it opens up much greater possibilites than traditional TV, I do not think it's worth giving these companies so much power. Honestly, IPTV can already be realized, but by non ISPs.

I recommend watching the video on www.savetheinternet.com and reading through some of their articles.

Thanks for your input.
Luc L.

 

[Noetic]

This is where you're falling for the BS, just as everyone else...

You've posted an article from CNN.

CNN is owned by AOL Time Warner, one of the MAIN companies pushing AGAINTS net neturatily. It would be stupid of them to write anything negative about the issue, which is why they've conveniently set the title to "...possibly saving consumers hundreds of dolalrs a year..."

However, if you do bother to read the entire article (which is trying to convince the reader that this legislation is the way to go) you'll find...

As you can probably imagine, there is MUCH more money to be made in creating toll lanes than in creating IPTV.

Although I would love to see IPTV in the future, and I consider myself an investor in the industry (domain wise) because it opens up much greater possibilites than traditional TV, I do not think it's worth giving these companies so much power. Honestly, IPTV can already be realized, but by non ISPs.

I recommend watching the video on www.savetheinternet.com and reading through some of their articles.

Thanks for your input.
Luc L.

I think the point was missed, but no matter. Net Neutrality is the thread, and toll lanes (Web Tolls) are the issue, however, iPTV surfaced. iPTV, as far as its delivery mechanism is concerned "today" (tomorrow it will indeed evolve), is delivered via IP and will be part of the Triple Play/Quadruple Play service price packages. Price is a huge factor in the service offering as consumers will adopt/subscribe because of equal to/greater than known TV quality service AND pricing. Web Tolls/Net Neutrality issues apply/are geared towards Web access and from what I know is targetting more iTV/VOD-type sites. Of course this will probably be exploited by ISPs as well as most internet-related corporate boards, but as I was trying to point out, the Web is NOT iPTV.

"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." >> She is not referring to iPTV, rather, the broadband being delivered under Triple-Play and Quadruple-Play (Triple-Play is voice [phone], video [iPTV], and data [broadband/the Web] -- Quad-Play is the same + wireless/mobile). Ok...

On a side note, the first wave of iPTV is going to be "controlled" through content providers/services (much like AOL in the early days who marketed AOL as "the internet" when all they provided was managed content, *and* providing a gateway to the internet). The 2nd wave of iPTV will undoubtedly service the uncontrolled path, allowing anyone with a static IP to self-broadcast; homes, radio stations, gyms... . Set-Top Boxes to support iPTV are already evolving to support IP gaming (online gaming now with steady bandwidth), karaoke (VoIP here)... iPTV gone wild! Again, not being delivered using the Web, just IP.

* Lastly, I'm ANTI anything/anyone that controls or wants to control elements of the net. Keep your paws off what is largely the purest (and "free-est") form of communication reaching every corner of this earth. *

Thanks for your thoughts everyone. Mahalo!