In somewhat of a surprise win, the House Judiciary Committee voted approval of legislation that would assure Network Neutrality, meaning ISPs could not create a two-tiered Internet charging some content providers more to guarantee faster and unhindered delivery of content. If adopted by Congress, the bill would amend current anti-trust law. Passage is far from assured, though. There is a competing bill from another committee that attempts to block any regulation of the network.
In addition, our friends at AT&T (who own the only fiber line connecting Humboldt County to the world) will continue to lobby vigorously inÂ opposition to any such ‘regulation.’ From the Wired article:
“We are optimistic that the majority in Congress will see this legislation as an attempt to solve a problem that does not exist,” said Tim McKone, AT&T executive vice president for federal relations.
If the net neutrality legislation addresses an problem that doesn’t exist, then why do they oppose it? They shouldn’t care, right?
Democratic representative from California Adam Shiff is also quoted in the article. What’s odd is his statement, which is apparently meant in opposition to net neutrality legislation sounds very much like what people say in favor of it:
“We like the principle of net neutrality (but) I think this is still a growing, vibrant, key industry that we don’t want to take steps that will chill that growth and development.”
I’m not sure what the fear of regulation of the Internet is. Especially in this case where the ‘regulation’ is simply designed to keep the network working as it already is, and to prevent monopolistic ISPs from changing how information flows so they can make more money.