Yesterday, the measures intended to maintain “Net Neutrality” failed in the Senate Commerce Committee, meaning it looks like the bill to change Internet access pricing will be headed toward a full senate vote. If passed, telecom companies will be able to create a two-tiered system of Internet access based on how much you can and are willing to pay. Olympia Snowe of Maine co-wrote the proposal to maintain the same access for everyone, hence “Net Neutrality.”
Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has put a hold on the bill, intending to fillibuster it. But it’s uncertain whether or not the opposition has the votes to break it. Wyden says:
The Internet has thrived precisely because it is neutral. It has thrived because consumers, and not some giant cable or phone company, get to choose what they want to see and how quickly they get to see it. I am not going to allow a bill to go forward that is going to end surfing the web free of discrimination.
While this bill does not in any way regulate what Internet users can access, it does begin to set up a system where the haves get more in terms of faster and better connectivity for video distribution, multimedia sharing and more. To me, at least, it feels like a dangerous precedent, and another way potentially for some of our more fortunate kids to get a leg up on those who may not be able to pay.
Just like with DOPA, this needs our attention. For more information, check out the Wikipedia entry or head on over to Save The Internet where you can get a rundown on the potential threats. You can find your Senator’s phone numbers there too.
technorati tags:net_neutrality, blogging, education
“While this bill does not in any way regulate what Internet users can access, it does begin to set up a system where the haves get more in terms of faster and better connectivity ”
i.e. the capitalist version of censorship
I’m glad to see you wrote that the net neutrality debate won’t affect what content users can access as this is a common misconception.
I’m working with the Hands Off the Internet coalition coming from the other side of the issue. We are opposed to further intrusion into the market by the govenrment in the form of net neutrality regualtions.
This wouldn’t contribute to a divide between wealthy and poor children accessing the internet, because it’s about the content providers paying their share and not the consumer paying more. The Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Ebay’s of the world should contribute to the fiber upgrade that will bring us the next generation of the internet. I’m not claiming to know the logic behind Senator Wyden’s stance on net neutrality, but he does have several large content providers; Yahoo, Microsoft and Google operating in his state.