Jon Ippolito on Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:01:02 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> Net Neutrality Provision Rejected

As in many news stories about the latest legislative vote, it's not 
immediately obvious what the following news means. In this case the vote 
cast by the relevant committee wasn't against the monopolistic bill 
itself, but against an anti-monopolistic amendment to said bill.

In other words, it was a vote in favor of monopolies.

In other words, the good guys lost.

Despite my eloquently worded petition statements, passionate earfuls to 
my Congressman's hapless administrative assistant, and whining on 

Double Negatives 1, Net Users 0.



Net Neutrality Provision Rejected
Committee votes down a provision that would prohibit ISPs from blocking 
or slowing customers' connections.,aid,125567,00.asp
Grant Gross, IDG News Service
Thursday, April 27, 06

WASHINGTON -- Internet companies and consumer groups calling for a new 
U.S. law that would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or 
degrading some connections lost a major battle this week when a U.S. 
House of Representatives committee voted
down such a provision.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee, during debate on a 
telecommunications reform bill, rejected an amendment that would write 
so-called net neutrality provisions into U.S. law. Backers of a net 
neutrality law want Congress to prohibit U.S.
broadband providers from blocking or slowing their customers' 
connections to Web sites or services that compete with services offered 
by the providers.

The committee rejected the amendment, on a vote of 34-22, largely along 
party lines, with all but one Republican opposing the net neutrality 
amendment offered by Representative Ed Markey, a Massachusetts 

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: contact: