The House Judiciary Committee made good on its word — it voted out today by a margin of 20 to 13 a net neutrality bill, H.R. 5417, the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006, that makes it a violation of the antitrust laws for broadband providers to discriminate against third party content and application providers.
Net neutrality regulation proponents cheered the move, which represents a challenge to the telecom reform bill voted out by the rival House Commerce Committee. That bill contains what many net neutrality proponents believe are weak and toothless net neutrality requirements.
Gigi Sohn, President of Public Knowledge, said in a statement:
We are very pleased that the Committee this afternoon approved the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act. The legislation would go a long way to making certain that antitrust law functions in a broadband marketplace in which two industries provide 98 percent of the service. It would also restore the principles of non-discrimination that were so critical to the development of the Internet.
A new coalition (at least new to me) backed by Silicon Valley companies such as Yahoo!, eBay, Google and Amazon.com, also cheered the quick action by Judiciary. In a statement, ItsYourNet coalition said:
Today is a great day for the Internet. Today, the U.S House of Representatives’ Committee on Judiciary passed H.R. 5417, “The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006”, which ensures that the Internet will continue as a vital force for innovation and economic benefit for all Americans. This bi-partisan bill, sponsored by Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member John Conyers, recognizes the importance of meaningful and enforceable Net Neutrality legislation that will protect the rights of millions of Internet users.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 5:07 PM | Print | Comments (0)
In an all but inevitable move, the Hollywood studios have sued Cablevision over its plans to offer a networked DVR service. The press reports aren’t very clear on exactly what the studios are contending, other than Cablevision’s service does not constitute “fair use” and that Cablevision hasn’t paid for a license to deliver programs stored on a central server.
The network DVR proposed by Cablevision would allow viewers to choose which programs they want to record. But instead of recording on a hard drive in the home, the cable company would record the shows on a central computer, then allow viewers to watch them later.
Studios say the law, under “fair use,” gives consumers the right to time shift. But it doesn’t give that right to companies that license the content only for simultaneous broadcast, meaning that to store the shows and offer them on demand for a fee, companies must obtain a separate license.
“Such conduct would constitute willful copyright infringement,” the lawsuit states.
The studios are asking the U.S. District Court in New York to issue a preliminary injunction that would bar Cablevision from offering the service. I’m not completely sure, but I think the outcome of this preliminary injunction request will be a major, if not the first, test of the Supreme Court’s Betamax decision as it applies to the range of new TV recording technologies that have evolved post-VCR.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 6:58 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
