Ted Stevens, biggest A-Hole in US Senate, and that’s saying something
Telecom bill would leave U.S. lagging behind rest of world
The new telecommunications bill before Sen. Ted Stevens’ Senate Commerce Committee this week has been touted as reform of the cable-franchise laws. But it is much, much more. The bill is really a wholesale rewrite of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, the world’s oldest existing telecom law. It is probably the most important piece of legislation the Congress will take up this session.
The thousands of startup visionaries living in the Northwest might want to find their passports, because creating new business models in the U.S. will become much more complicated, and expensive. In the rest of the developed world, it won’t be a problem, because every developed country has a strong network-neutrality law in place, extending not just to the Internet, but also to mobile networks, cable TV and television. Stevens’ bill puts the U.S. out of step with the rest of world, a world that is fast passing us in productivity, the knowledge economy and broadband connectivity.
This is the same guy that wanted to build the “Bridge to Nowhere”, right? Why does Alaska put up him? He is a freak’n embarrassment.
The US out of step with the rest of the world?
Don’t say its true! I didn’t even know that was possible. Have we ever been in this situation before? I cannot recall anything like this ever happening…
Not good for start ups or you and me but great for AT&T, Comcast, Cox, Verizon and the other big network providers. Now they will have the playing field all to themselves and be able to continue to charge outragous fees to use their services. I’m sure the money will be flowing heavily this week in the Senate as the telcom lobby begins greasing the appropriate Senators for their vote.
improbus –
Yes, that’s the one. Grrrrrrrr.
Don’t forget that Ted Stevens is 3rd in line for presidential succession, right after Dick Cheney and Dennis Hastert. We have the best leaders that money can buy, and soon we’ll have the best telecom laws that money can buy.
How many times do you have to be told? No net neutrality isn’t something that Congress is passing, it is the current law. Everyone who wants net neutrality is calling for an extra law to make it happen, not the other way around. It is Google, Amazon, and other similar companies that are pushing for Congress to make this law happen because they are worried about what the telcos might do.
‘creating new business models in the U.S. will become much more complicated, and expensive. ‘
How about a business model where I deliver bandwidth at a higher speed for my own services, and charge other companies for access based on bandwidth? Would that be more complicated under a net neutrality regulation scheme or the current law?
The article really doesn’t say what’s in the bill. The 1934 law has been amended many times.
If Stevens is involved, it’s corrupt! One of the worst Senators of all time. Greed and power is all these guys think about.
Not so incidentally — Kongress was ripped over the Bridge To Nowhere. So, instead — they gve the same amount of money to Alaska without the specific earmarking to “do with as they please”.
So, dorkula gets his bridge and ignorant Amerikan voters get snowed, again.
Oh, and AB CD, as usual, hasn’t a clue. Must be the archetype for Amerikan voters.
The law sucks. Kongress sucks. Attempts to amend the bill have all failed, so far. Including the last version which liberal members of Kongress signed onto because of benefits, bullshit, beanies and whatever. Because “we’ll get the amendments onto the next version”.
Ayuh.
So in a few decades the USA will be the new USSR and the EU will be the new USA?
So in a few decades the USA will be the new USSR and the EU will be the new USA?
Sure seems that way, sometimes, doesn’t it?
Oh really, so if this law doesn’t pass, then Verizon won’t be able to charge Google money? Those other posters who said Comcast is blocking Skype when they have their own VOIP service are all lying?
/sarcasm
Sounds like a great idea…Where do I sign?
This is just one more thing that will make the U.S. even more irrelevant on the world scene. In 15 years, we will be sucking hind tit to China and India anyway.
Mike T
It is truly frightening the path we find ourselves on.
Idiotic. Hopefully the lawmakers up here in the true north strong and free don’t get the same idea. That would be horrible. I’d move to India – I’ll bet they protect their IT industry.
This former Republican will be voting Democratic across the board during the next election. A deadlocked Congress is a safe Congress. The less they get accomplished the safer I feel.
>A deadlocked Congress is a safe Congress.
Also one that will not produce net neutrality. Right now there is no net neutrality in law.
#17 AB CD, if I understand the situation correctly, we currently neither have NOR NEED legislated net neutrality. It’s only the new telecom bill that will make the bifurcated internet possible for telecom providers, with higher rates for high priority delivery of privileged content. That’s why there’s such an outcry against passing the new law without including provisions to insure CONTINUED net neutrality.
The telecom companies are already making plans to implement fast/slow rate differentials based on the new bill they expect will pass in the same form they lobbied for it. Including an amendment for net neutrality will thwart their plans.
I’ve seen fast slow rate differentials for sale already on existing bills. Offering different services in those rates wouldn’t be different. I think the providers just took a long time to figure out what to do with the QoS tags. They don’t need this bill to charge different rates for different services, what they need are the services. I haven’t seen a good description of what this bill does. Perhaps they need it to charge Google and Amazon properly. I’m leaning against passing restrictions on internet companies. I think it’s a good idea for these telcos to proceed with this. Comcast is already charging $60 a month. That would be the final push for another class of carrier, either a shared Wi-Fi or WiMax in every Walmart, or satellite, or something.
Then it sounds like, with or without the new bill, the internet is destined to change to the bifurcated model. The keyword, though, still seems to be “change,” and the only way to prevent that change is a provision that embodies what is still mostly the status quo, net neutrality. I’ll take your word that discrimination is already happening on some small scale and that the parties involved haven’t run afoul of current regulations by so doing, but whatever you’ve seen doesn’t seem to be widespread….. yet.
Can I ask what company is charging extra for a preferred class of network traffic?
I haven’t seen charges for a class of network traffic, but rather for a high speed connection vs a low speed. http://www.wmiscable.com/plans.php
Others have posted about Comcast ruining Skype in some areas when they have their own VOIP service.
These high/low speed rates that you’re referring to are very much standard fare among ISPs (my ISP has them too), and simply amounts to limiting the size of the pipe at the consumer’s end. That’s quite different from the what is envisioned once the new telecom bill takes effect, assuming it is without net neutrality provisions, which Senator Stevens and others vigorously oppose.
The Comcast/Skype issue you mentioned is more what they have in mind, where traffic from a source that doesn’t pay extra for preferential handling may be discriminated against, especially during periods of high net traffic, or even blocked outright. When there are moments of network congestion, these “low priority” packets won’t get through, and they’ll have to be re-sent from the source server.
The argument is that these quality differences will be noticeable to the consumer and they will disadvantage the content providers who don’t pay the “blood money” to the telcos for preferential packet handling. New business startups that aren’t yet profitable will find it harder to build a following than in today’s more neutral packet handling world.
Anything that Comcast is for, I’m against….it’s inherantly evil.
lol … and if they’ve contributed even a nickel to Stevens’ campaign, that makes them evil-squared!