The net neutrality amendment introduced by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) was tonight soundly defeated in the House vote on the Barton telecom reform bill. Despite signs that public opinion and press sentiment were rapidly shifting in favor of net neutrality regulations, the House voted down the amendment 152 to 269, handing the cable and telco lobbies a big victory.
In a wistful-sounding statement, Rep. Markey said
The Internet community is now aroused, and as the telephone and cable companies continue to use their political clout to turn the Internet from a democratic Field of Dreams to an exclusive set of Gated Communities, the looming danger to the Internet is becoming more obvious to everyone. I will continue to fight for an open and non-discriminatory Internet because the future of our country depends on it, literally, in that the jobs of tomorrow will depend on every inventor, innovator and dreamer finding an on-ramp onto the Internet superhighway.
Gigi Sohn, President Public Knowledge, which worked hard to get a net neutrality amendment passed, said in a statement
It is a shame that the House turned its back on the open essence of the Internet. Instead, the House ignored the arguments of consumers, technology companies and interest groups from across the political spectrum and voted to allow the telephone and cable companies to discriminate by controlling the content that will flow over the network and to assess whatever additional fees the telephone and cable companies want to charge on top of normal access rates.
Needless to say, broadband providers were overjoyed. In a statement, NCTA CEO Kyle McSlarrow said
By rejecting network neutrality regulation, the House has clearly stated a preference for telecom reform that allows the marketplace and not the government to pick winners and losers. And consumers will reap the benefits. We continue to believe that government should further study the emerging broadband marketplace before injecting itself into a thriving, dynamic market where investment and innovation are flourishing.
Herschel Abbott, head of government affairs for BellSouth, said in a statement
Given the amount of debate over so called ‘net neutrality’ during consideration of this bill, let me again assure consumers that BellSouth will not block or degrade access to any legal content on the internet. Net neutrality is a phony issue and it ought to be laid to rest by today’s vote.
Legislation now moves to the Senate, which is decidedly less persuaded by public opinion. The current Senate companion to the Barton bill contains no provisions at all regarding net neutrality, although Senate Commerce Committee co-Chairman Ted Stevens (R-AK) recently indicated a willingness to include some form of net neutrality requirement in his committee’s bill.
Update: The “net neutrality” amendment introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) was approved. This amendment, largely viewed as a device to undercut the Markey amendment, preserves the authority of antitrust agencies to step in on net neutrality matters.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 11:14 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Apple is under fresh attack in Europe for its proprietary iTunes DRM technology, with goverment agencies in Norway and Sweden pressing the online music leader to open up its system so that non-Apple devices can play the purchased music. And in the U.K., the British equivalent of the RIAA told Parliament that Apple should make iTunes compatible with non-Apple players.
Part of the problem for Apple in Europe is the greater dependence on mobile phones for music. As the head of the Consumer Ombudsman Office of Norway, a consumer protection arm of the government, notes, his own personal experience in transferring songs to his mobile phone has colored his professional view of the situation.
“We are likely to rule against Apple, but it is fair to hear their point of view,” Mr.[Bjorn Erik] Thon said. “Consumers should be able to play music they have purchased on any device they want.”Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 9:09 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Mr. Thon said that he himself had bought a large number of songs from iTunes for about 1 euro apiece, and now wanted to transfer them to his new Nokia N80 cellular phone, but could not.
“I just cannot imagine an argument in favor of stopping someone from using a song they purchased,” he said.
Word has come down that the telecom reform bill, otherwise known as the COPE Act or Barton bill, will head to the House floor tonight for amendments and a vote. The House will apparently take up the bill following a farewell speech by outgoing former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), who has been indicted on money-laundering charges.
Why the bill has been moved up is unclear, although it has always been strange that the legislation was slated to hit the floor on a Friday. In all probability Members of Congress are just itching to get out of town to begin campaigning in what has turned out to be a crucial mid-term election and want to dispense with the floor vote so that everyone can leave tomorrow.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 5:33 PM | Print | Comments (0)
In a development that was bound to happen sooner or later, federal authorities arrested two men yesterday who had allegedly hacked into a group of companies’ VoIP networks and then resold discount phone service that used those networks.
According to authorities, Edwin Pena in Miami paid a Washington state computer hacker named Robert Moore to help him illegally route phone calls through the networks of fifteen VoIP providers. Pena, posing as a telecommunications broker, allegedly sold around ten million minutes of service at low rates, pocketing around $1 million for himself, which he blew on cars, boats and real estate.
What isn’t exactly clear to me from the press reports (and perhaps this is intentional on the part of law enforcement) is how Pena and Moore did this. The New York Times report says that they “hacked into computers run by an unsuspecting investment company in Rye Brook, N.Y., commandeering its unprotected servers to re-route phone traffic through them.”
An investment company with unprotected servers? Although Moore obviously has some technical chops, this firm clearly left itself open for chicanery if it didn’t protect its servers from unauthorized access. But, I suspect (actually I know) that so many small businesses — even large ones — and, of course, individuals, are simply unaware of how easy it is for others to gain access to computers and servers in an all-IP world.
It merely takes technical know-how and willingness for outsiders to get into private places. As crazy as tapping into servers to steal VoIP service sounds, it’s just one of probably a billion ideas germinating out in the minds of unscrupulous individuals.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 5:01 PM | Print | Comments (0)
The House Rules Committee agreed last night to consider two net neutrality amendments when the telecom reform bill, or the COPE Act, hits the floor for a vote on Friday. The Committee agreed to consider a total of eight amendments, and the two net neutrality amendments are scheduled to be the sixth and seventh amendments considered.
The first amendment, proposed by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), clarifies that even if the FCC has the main responsibility for adjudicating net neutrality disputes, the antitrust laws could still come into play in these cases. The second net neutrality amendment is the one backed by a group of Democrats led by Ed Markey (D-MA).
That amendment (modified now slightly) was barely defeated in the Commerce Committee mark-up, losing by only two votes. Since then, however, sentiment toward net neutrality regulations seems to have gained strength, particularly among House Republicans who are fearful of losing seats in the mid-term elections if they vote against an amendment that appears to protect a free and open Internet.
Update: Veteran Hill watchers say the Lamar amendment is just a vague nod to net neutrality and could be a clever tactic by cable and phone companies to give members something to vote for in order for them to say they voted for “net neutrality.” But the Lamar amendment doesn’t really do anything, not in the way the Markey amendment does.
Update: It’s been a busy day and I just now came across this editorial by Larry Lessig and Bob McChesney in today’s Washington Post, timed, obviously, so that it can have the biggest impact on the floor vote tomorrow. Like so many others, Lessig and McChesney warn that without network neutrality, the Internet will start to look like, well, cable TV.
Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs. Major industries such as health care, finance, retailing and gambling would face huge tariffs for fast, secure Internet use — all subject to discriminatory and exclusive dealmaking with telephone and cable giants.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 7:01 AM | Print | Comments (1)
Blogs We Read
