<nettime> Net Neutrality Provision Rejected
Via: "Jon Ippolito"
As in many news stories about the latest legislative vote, it's not
immediately obvious what the following news means. In this case the vote
cast by the relevant committee wasn't against the monopolistic bill
itself, but against an anti-monopolistic amendment to said bill.
In other words, it was a vote in favor of monopolies.
In other words, the good guys lost.
Despite my eloquently worded petition statements, passionate earfuls to
my Congressman's hapless administrative assistant, and whining on
nettime.
http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0502/msg00067.html
http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0512/msg00047.html
Double Negatives 1, Net Users 0.
jon
+++++++
Net Neutrality Provision Rejected
Committee votes down a provision that would prohibit ISPs from blocking
or slowing customers' connections.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,125567,00.asp
Grant Gross, IDG News Service
Thursday, April 27, 06
WASHINGTON -- Internet companies and consumer groups calling for a new
U.S. law that would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or
degrading some connections lost a major battle this week when a U.S.
House of Representatives committee voted
down such a provision.
09
The House Energy and Commerce Committee, during debate on a
telecommunications reform bill, rejected an amendment that would write
so-called net neutrality provisions into U.S. law. Backers of a net
neutrality law want Congress to prohibit U.S.
broadband providers from blocking or slowing their customers'
connections to Web sites or services that compete with services offered
by the providers.
The committee rejected the amendment, on a vote of 34-22, largely along
party lines, with all but one Republican opposing the net neutrality
amendment offered by Representative Ed Markey, a Massachusetts
Democrat....
As in many news stories about the latest legislative vote, it's not
immediately obvious what the following news means. In this case the vote
cast by the relevant committee wasn't against the monopolistic bill
itself, but against an anti-monopolistic amendment to said bill.
In other words, it was a vote in favor of monopolies.
In other words, the good guys lost.
Despite my eloquently worded petition statements, passionate earfuls to
my Congressman's hapless administrative assistant, and whining on
nettime.
http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0502/msg00067.html
http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0512/msg00047.html
Double Negatives 1, Net Users 0.
jon
+++++++
Net Neutrality Provision Rejected
Committee votes down a provision that would prohibit ISPs from blocking
or slowing customers' connections.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,125567,00.asp
Grant Gross, IDG News Service
Thursday, April 27, 06
WASHINGTON -- Internet companies and consumer groups calling for a new
U.S. law that would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or
degrading some connections lost a major battle this week when a U.S.
House of Representatives committee voted
down such a provision.
09
The House Energy and Commerce Committee, during debate on a
telecommunications reform bill, rejected an amendment that would write
so-called net neutrality provisions into U.S. law. Backers of a net
neutrality law want Congress to prohibit U.S.
broadband providers from blocking or slowing their customers'
connections to Web sites or services that compete with services offered
by the providers.
The committee rejected the amendment, on a vote of 34-22, largely along
party lines, with all but one Republican opposing the net neutrality
amendment offered by Representative Ed Markey, a Massachusetts
Democrat....
comments
No new comments allowed (anymore) on this post.