Re: [MLUG] Oh, look, Hulshof voted against net neutrality

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:

> I must admit that I don't know what net neutrality is really about. What 
> side am I supposed to be on.


Well, I get the impression that all the Linux and FOSS types (e.g., 
Richard Stallman) favor net neutrality.  They are united on this with 
Microsoft and others, so that is a remarkable coalition.  Perhaps 
surprisingly, there are still two sides to this debate.  Part of the 
reason seems to be that "neutrality" is actually a matter of degree.

Here's a short news article:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/business/ci_3922318

Here is a little ZDnet exchange that will probably help to clarify what 
some expert commentators are currently saying:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=242
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=243
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/index.php?p=1131
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/index.php?p=244

The Markey amendment was rejected in Congress but the bill that passed has 
some internet neutrality provisions in it:

http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/2619

   [The bill] also authorizes the Federal Communications Commission to
   enforce "net neutrality" principles, which require Internet providers
   to allow consumers to use the Internet as they choose.

So the big Democrat-Republican split was over the Markey amendment (Dems 
favored it), which lost, but the majority within both parties voted in 
favor of the bill even though close to half of the Democrats were opposed.

So I guess the Democrats favored a stronger position in favor of 
neutrality as presented in the Markey amendment, and the Republicans 
favored a softer kind of rule on neutrality which is the one we will be 
getting if the Senate passes the bill.

Mike

_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members