Why am I not surprised? As you may have heard, this past Friday the   
   Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives voted against a bill   
   which would have strengthened the concept of what has been termed "Net   
   Neutrality".   
      
   For those of you who may not be familiar with it, the principle of Net   
   Neutrality basically prevents greedy telephone monopolies, cable companies,   
   ISP's, etc., from offering better and unrestricted Internet services to   
   those broadband customers who are willing to pay extra money for it, while   
   at the same time, offering inferior quality, and more restricted services to   
   those who aren't. In other words, the main idea behind the Net Neutrality   
   principle is that everyone should be treated the same, and receive the same   
   level and quality of broadband Internet service without partiality or   
   restrictions. However, Net Neutrality does not rule out tiered rates   
   systems, as far as I know.   
      
   The principle point of contention is that broadband providers feel that they   
   have the right to regulate their Internet services as they see fit, while   
   the FCC feels that said companies require more oversight in order to keep   
   things fair and above table.   
      
   As I said, I am not the least bit surprised by the outcome of Friday's   
   debate, or by the position that has been taken by Republicans -- and a few   
   Democrats -- in the House. Whenever Big Business interests are involved, it   
   is almost a certainty that the Republicans will be there to support them.   
   This bill was no different, and the Republicans reacted according to   
   expectations.   
      
   A New York Times article entitled "House Votes Against Net Neutrality" noted   
   in part:   
      
   ----- Begin Quote -----   
      
   During the debate on Friday, each side accused the other of safeguarding the   
   interests of big companies. Democrats said that Republicans were protecting   
   the interests of the cable and phone company giants that are the dominant   
   providers of broadband Internet service to American households. Those   
   companies generally oppose the F.C.C. order, because they believe they need   
   to be able to direct traffic on their networks as they see fit.   
      
   Republicans countered by accusing Democrats of protecting big technology   
   companies, like Google, Amazon and Netflix, that have become successful   
   because of the lack of Internet regulation but which now want to protect   
   their turf from new competitors.   
      
   Few of the debaters raised some of the more technical issues that are at the   
   center of the debate over broadband regulation, like specialized services   
   and tiered rates. Specialized services, for which a broadband company uses   
   part of its Internet pipeline to deliver dedicated services to specific   
   customers, worry regulators who fear that companies will invest more to   
   develop those more profitable offerings while neglecting to update basic   
   broadband service.   
      
   ----- End Quote -----   
      
   Personally, considering how much we already pay for our broadband Internet   
   service, I can't begin to imagine what would happen if these companies are   
   not brought under tighter control. Then again, handing too much power to a   
   government agency is worrisome as well.   
      
      
      
   Jeff Snyder, SysOp - Armageddon BBS  Visit us at endtimeprophecy.org port 23   
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------   
   Your Download Center 4 Mac BBS Software & Christian Files.  We Use Hermes II   
      
      
   --- Hermes Web Tosser 1.1   
    * Origin: Armageddon BBS -- Guam, Mariana Islands (1:345/3777.0)