net neutrality
You are currently browsing the articles from the VoIP Digest matching the category net neutrality.
Updated: Deal approved Friday afternoon. From Washington comes late word tonight that a compromise has apparently been hammered out that will clear the way for AT&T to acquire BellSouth for $85 billion.
That's the AT&T headed by "one-time," fierce net neutrality opponent Edward Whitacre, Jr. You're lookin' at him.
The compromise is said to be one [...]
Written by Russell Shaw on December 29th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on General and Regulatory and BellSouth and SBC-AT&T and net neutrality.
From the Progress and Freedom Foundation's Center For The Study of Digital Property's IPCentral.info blog:
(High bandwidth Web hosting and distribution service) Akamai and Sony have struck a deal whereby Akamai will distribute Sony's PLAYSTATION Network. The news story, translated from Japanese, says:
Through the use of Akamai's distributed delivery services, unlike alternative offerings [...]
Written by Russell Shaw on December 22nd, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on General and Regulatory and net neutrality.
VoIP.com wrote an
interesting article put out as a press release on PRWeb.com. Titled "Pure VoIP Vs. Telecom VoIP: Guidance from VoIP.com", the article takes a position that pure VoIP players such as
Vonage,
Packet8,
SunRocket, etc. are a better value than telecom VoIP providers, such as cable companies and telephony carriers. First, a caveat,
VoIP.com is a provider of pure VoIP, so their opinion is going to obviously have a bias.
The articles accurately states, "VoIP services vary widely from provider to provider, however there is an undeniable line in the sand that divides pure VoIP from the digital voice plans rolled out by the telecos. The average phone bill for a traditional line is $54 per month, while VoIP from the cable companies runs about $42, the telephone company's VoIP is roughly $33 and dedicated VoIP providers are $20."
It is true that pure VoIP players are more cost-effective than their telecom/cable counterparts. The article questions why this is the case when it states, "Since VoIP is more cost effective for [telephone/cable] providers, why aren't the savings being passed on to consumers who choose a bundled option from their cable or telephone provider?"
It attempts to answer this question when it says, "The simple answer might be that it's easier to give consumers a break if you're not shoring up a century's worth of copper wire losses with new technology revenue. One way to do that is by squeezing premium prices out of VoIP consumers."
I whole-heartedly disagree that this is the reason. Telephone companies and cable companies have had their copper infrastructure for years and most have been profitable. While the telephone companies have been hurt in the last 10 years, it hasn't been due to infrastructure costs, nor is defection to VoIP to blame. You can however blame the decreasing profit margins on long-distance calling. In the 1990s, it wouldn't be uncommon for the average home to rack up a $200/month phone bill due to long-distance charges. Today, if you pay that much you're a fool. Many telephone carriers expanded their offerings by expanding into wireless. However, this was a Catch-22 since wireless plans came with bucket of included anywhere (long-distance) minutes that cannibalized their landline long-distance calling plans.
There is now more competition in offering telephone service than ever before. So why are the cable companies and the telephone companies offering a "premium" on VoIP services that is higher than the pure VoIP players?
The answer to that is four-fold.
First, non-tech savvy users not familiar with VoIP can be easily upsell-ed by their current cable or telecom provider to add VoIP service to replace their existing phone service. The new phone service will be much cheaper than their current plan, which is enough to get a customer to bite. The
second reason is the fact that you aren't changing providers, and you don't have any complications with porting your phone number makes it a simple switch that will immediately save the customer money. The
third reason is the customer can receive a single unified bill with their voice, video, and data services. You certainly can't discount the "convenience" factor.
I for one try to combine as many bills as I can since I notoriously forget to pay, or I'm travelling and end up paying multiple late fees. One bill lessens the odds of multiple late fees. The
fourth reason why cable and telephone companies can explain their VoIP "premium" is because they can claim - whether rightly or wrongly - that their voice quality is better than say Vonage, because they are running the IP packets on a managed network with QoS (quality of service).
The article then states that pure VoIP players are better positioned to pass along cost savings "because they don’t have to support the multi-million dollar advertising campaigns that their larger, more entrenched competitors do." It further explains this by stating pure VoIP players are more tech savvy in getting the word out using less costly forms of advertising like viral marketing, blogging, and internet search engine ranking. While there is certainly a lot of truth to this, especially in the recent past, the telephone companies and cable companies have been getting better. The pure play VoIP providers certainly have leveraged the power of affiliate marketing to help promote themselves on the Internet. Heck, it seems as though you can't visit 10 websites without seeing a
Vonage ad of some sort.
Cable companies and telephone companies haven't leverages the power of affiliates nearly as much, however they don't really have to. Since both of these have specific geographic regions wher their copper is laid, they don't need to blast the entire Internet with banner ads or leverage affiliates. They can simply use local inexpensive mailers advertising their VoIP service (including triple play) or if the customer is a current customer, they can use an insert/flyer within their bill to promote their VoIP service. Further, since they are a current customer, there is a loophole in the national DNC (do not call) list that lets companies call you if they have done business with you in the past 6 months. As I mentioned in my
2005 VoIP predictions, this gives cable and telephone companies a huge advantage over pure VoIP players which surely will be exploited.
Pure play VoIP providers do have some advantages.
First, they are less expensive, but you have to be willing to sacrifice some quality for value. I have been a pure play Vonage user (over cable data) for many years, and
plan on switching in the next month (to Charter Voice) due to QoS issues - usually packet loss due to Charter's fault - not Vonage. Nevertheless whose fault it is, I can't have phone service issues on a near weekly basis. I will say that I have gone over 9 months with no problems with Vonage when I lived at my former address using Cablevision high-speed data. Thus, tech-savvy users who are willing to take the gamble on voice quality for value will find pure VoIP players attractive.
The
second reason to choose a pure play VoIP player is for purely geographical reasons. Many areas of the country have high-speed data, but the cable or telephone companies don't yet offer VoIP services of their own. This is however changing very quickly as even the smaller cable and telephone companies are quickly ramping up their VoIP offerings, thus negative pure VoIP players' advantage. The
third advantage of pure VoIP play providers is they do often offer more advanced features than the cable/telephone providers.
Recently I wrote about how
Verizon is deploying fiber in NYC in a race to offer voice, video, data, before customer defections. How will the pure VoIP players compete with high-speed fiber and bundled packages. Will fiber, bundled packages, and single provider/bill spell the
death knell for the pure play VoIP providers? Well, if Vonage's failed IPO is any indication, the money watchers are betting on the cable and telephone companies to eventually dominate the voice market. Of course, there will always be those looking to save a buck, so single play VoIP providers aren't going to go away anytime soon.
One thing that can drastically affect the single play VoIP providers is HR 5252 (Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006) proposed by Congress. Currently,
HR 5252 has passed the House, but has stalled in the Senate with a threatened filibuster since many Senators want net neutrality provisions added to the bill. If net neutrality provisions are not amended to this bill or another future bill, then it is not out of the realm of possibilities that the cable and phone companies can "throttle" VoIP traffic from competing pure VoIP providers. They could simply add
500ms of delay (unacceptable voice quality) without necessarily blocking the packets. Blocking packets would no doubt would spark lawsuits that could easily be won, however simply throttling packets is
currently legal without any sort of net neutrality protections. Lawsuits would also ensue for throttling, but would have little chance of succeeding (
unless an activist judge decides to make his own law instead of interpreting existing law).
Right now, the cable and telephone companies are in a great position. Even if HR5252 passes, the cable and telephone companies will no doubt still charge a slight premium for their VoIP service for the reasons I previously listed. With net neutrality guaranteed, the single play providers will continue to compete based on value and features. However, if net neutrality provisions are not guaranteed then pure VoIP players are in deep trouble. I for one support some form of net neutrality to at least guarantee that the pure play VoIP providers are not unfairly targetted. Further, I hope tech-savvy users continue to sign up for Vonage, Packet8, Lingo, and the like for the simple reason that it will keep cable and telephony companies honest with regards to pricing. If they charge a
premium now, just imagine how much they'd charge should Vonage and the like go under or even simply become a less attractive option.
TrackBack (0)
| Comments (0) | Tag with del.icio.us | VoIP & Gadget Blog | Permalink: Pure VoIP vs. Telephone and Cable VoIP
Tags:
congress,
hr5252,
lingo,
net neutrality,
packet8,
senate,
sunrocket,
voip,
vonage
Copyright
VoIP & Gadgets Blog
Written by VoIP & Gadgets Blog on August 16th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Vonage and VoIP and Packet8 and Lingo and net neutrality and congress.
Brix Networks, a company that develops monitoring tools for service providers, analyzed data it gathered from a Web site it created a couple of years ago called
TestYourVoIP.com. The site does a bandwidth test and allows consumers to test the quality of their VoIP services. In its study, published Monday, the company stated that call quality has declined by about 5 percent in the past 18 months. Further, nearly 20% (1 in 5) VoIP calls have unacceptable quality.
This seems overly inflated to me. Surely, 20% of calls can't be that bad or customers would switch from VoIP back to landlines. Me thinks this study is skewed to help build some publicity for Brix Networks. In fact, several bloggers and
newsites have covered this study already.
Also, part of the About Brix Networks states, "to offer reliable and high-quality experiences in voice, video, data, and mobile services". So obviously, it behooves them to say that QoS monitoring is necessary - that's the service they sell.
Or perhaps Brix Networks in in cahoots with strong net neutrality proponents to try and prove that net neutrality is needed to prevent the cable MSOs, and broadband carriers from "squeezing" out VoIP players by throttling their bandwidth.
Or it could simply be all those
MySpace blogs and
YouTube videos clogging the damn Net! You make the call.
TrackBack (0)
| Comments (1) | Tag with del.icio.us | VoIP & Gadget Blog | Permalink: VoIP Quality from bad to worse
Tags:
cable,
call quality,
carrier,
myspace,
net neutrality,
qos,
video,
voip,
youtube
Copyright
VoIP & Gadgets Blog
Written by VoIP & Gadgets Blog on July 25th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on VoIP and MySpace and video and cable and qos and net neutrality and YouTube and call quality and carrier.
Internet Titans Amazon, Google, Yahoo, eBay, and IAX/InterActiveCorp joined together in writing a letter to Congressional Senators expressing their concerns about net neutrality. This is a clash of the titans for sure. Congress and the telecom/cable lobbyists on one side and large Internet behemoths on the other. Of course, a letter is a bit weak. The Internet titans need to pull out all the stops. Like cut the Senators access to Google.com,
Yahoo! and eBay.
When they can't get their fix of Googling, Yahoo Mail, or eBay auctions they'll change their minds. Yup, no doubt about it. If that doesn't work, just capture Pegasus in the swamp, fly to Washington, D.C. , put on your invisibility helmet, walk past security - no need to slap any officers (
ala Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney) - go straight into Congress's chambers, and using your impregnable sword given to you by Zeus, decapitate any net neutrality opponents. Ok, maybe not decapitate them, but give them a really good scare. Maybe wave the sword around making it appear to be floating by a supernatural force. Then pretend to be God and say "I am against blocking net neutrality. Do not anger me. Pass a net neutrality law..."
I'm just kidding.
Anyway, here's the letter:
Dear Senator,
We write to express our deep concern with the Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunity Reform Act, S. 2686. We ask you to insist that this legislation include meaningful and enforceable network neutrality provisions before it is considered by the full Senate.
The Internet has been an engine of economic growth and a vibrant platform for innovation and competition because of its open architecture. However, this open structure did not happen by accident; in fact, it is the product of non-discrimination rules that had long been in place to prevent network operators from limiting consumer choice.
Last summer, the Federal Communications Commission removed these protections. It is critical that Congress reinstate them in this bill and preserve consumer choice. The strong network neutrality amendment introduced by Senators Snowe and Dorgan would have done just that, but it was narrowly defeated in Committee on a bi-partisan 11 to 11 vote.
We fully support the goal of advancing competition in video services through franchise reform. But, as the telecommunications carriers increasingly use the broadband infrastructure to deliver their own video products, the only way to ensure that consumers will have real choice for video services is for Congress to re-establish meaningful network neutrality rules.
Without network neutrality, consumers will be restricted to online offerings limited by cable and telephone companies. For the first time, those companies - rather than consumers - will effectively become the gatekeepers to the Internet. Absent strong network neutrality provisions, consumers will no longer have the freedom to choose content from thousands of sources on an open Internet.Instead, the Internet will move backwards significantly with fewer options and limited choices.We ask that you protect their freedom.
We stand ready to work with you and your Senate colleagues to include meaningful network neutrality provisions in any national video franchising reform legislation considered in the 109th session.
Sincerely,
Amazon.com
eBay
Google
IAC/InterActiveCorp
Yahoo!
TrackBack (0)
| Comments (0) | Tag with del.icio.us | VoIP & Gadget Blog | Permalink: Amazon, Google, Yahoo, eBay fight net neutrality with letter to Congress
Tags:
amazon.com,
ebay,
google,
net neutrality,
yahoo,
zeus
Copyright
VoIP & Gadgets Blog
Written by VoIP & Gadgets Blog on July 13th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized and News and Google and yahoo and ebay and net neutrality and zeus.
The U.S. House of Representative yesterday approved the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (H.R. 5252). H.R. 5252 reforms the current video franchising regulations that have stifled competition in the video services market and have enabled cable companies to become monopolies. Essentially, this bill would make it much easier and cheaper for the phone companies to offer video services across the country by superceding local municipal franchise regulations. Currently, telephone companies have had to fight an expensive town-by-town war with their cable rivals in order to offer video services.
H.R. 5252 replaces thousands of local franchicing authorities with a national system supervised by the Federal Communications Commission - essentially one-stop shopping for the telecom companies to get into the video business. The bill passed by a lopsided vote of 321 to 101. This bill will make it much easier for the telephone companies to offer "triple play" bundled packages of voice, video, and broadband data.
That's the good news.
The bad news is that several Representatives attempted to amend the legislation to prohibit "premium charges" on various Internet data services, i.e. tiered Internet access. This is the so called "Net neutrality" which is supported by major Internet companies such as Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. However, the net neutrality amendment failed by a vote of 269 to 152.
According to the
NY Times, the White House issued a statement on Thursday supporting the House legislation, saying it would "promote competition in both video and voice markets." However, House Democrats raised some objections to the legislation, including stating that the new national franchise rules would reduce the amount of money that cable companies give towns for public, educational and government programs.
Also, the legislation threatens to delay any effort by the Federal Communications Commission to require Internet telephone providers to make the investments needed to connect customers to 911 services. Essentially, Section 301 would clarify
FCC regulations relating to VOIP access to 911 and E911 infrastructure. The language in section 301 would impose a new mandate on all private entities that own 911 components necessary to transmit VOIP emergency 911 services over their networks. Section 301 would require such entities to allow VOIP providers to have full access to the necessary 911 components. Owners of 911 components would be able to charge VOIP providers a fee for using their network components, but would be mandated to enter into such agreements with those providers. Large private entities that own 911 components have most of the infrastructure in place to comply with the mandate. Some smaller owners of 911 components may not have such capacity and would incur costs to comply with the mandate.
The HR 5252 section pertinent to
e911 reads as follows - I bolded or made RED important text. I will post a follow-up blog post analyzing what this means. Essentially, it looks as though this legislation
TRUMPS the existing
FCC e911 requirements and it gives VoIP providers up to 180 days after first acquiring a VoIP customer in a specific geographic region.
HR 5252: Section 301(1) IN GENERAL- Each VOIP service provider has a duty to ensure that 911 and E-911 services are provided to subscribers of VOIP services.
(2) USE OF EXISTING REGULATIONS- A VOIP service provider that complies with the Commission's regulations requiring providers of VOIP service to supply 911 and E911 capabilities to their customers (Report and Order in WC Docket Nos. 04-36 and 05-196) and that are in effect on the date of enactment of this section shall be considered to be in compliance with the requirements of this section, other than subsection (c), until such regulations are modified or superseded by subsequent regulations.
(b) Non-Discriminatory Access to Capabilities-(1) ACCESS-
Each incumbent local exchange carrier (as such term is defined in section 251(h)) or government entity with ownership or control of the necessary E-911 infrastructure shall provide any requesting VOIP service provider with nondiscriminatory access to such infrastructure. Such carrier or entity shall provide access to the infrastructure at just and reasonable, nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions. Such access shall be consistent with industry standards established by the National Emergency Number Association or other applicable industry standards organizations.
(2) ENFORCEMENT-
The Commission or a State commission may enforce the requirements of this subsection and the Commission's regulations thereunder. A VOIP service provider may obtain access to such infrastructure pursuant to section 717 by asserting the rights described in such section.(c) New Customers- A VOIP service provider shall make 911 service available to new customers
within a reasonable time in accordance with the following requirements:(1) CONNECTION TO SELECTIVE ROUTER- For all new customers
not within the geographic areas where a VOIP service provider can immediately provide 911 service to the geographically appropriate PSAP, a VOIP service provider, or its third party vendor,
shall have no more than 30 days from the date the VOIP provider has acquired a customer to order service providing connectivity to the selective router so that 911 service, or E911 service where the PSAP is capable of receiving and processing such information, can be provided through the selective router.
(2) INTERIM SERVICE- For all new customers
not within the geographic areas where the VOIP service provider can immediately provide 911 service to the geographically appropriate PSAP, a VOIP service provider shall provide 911 service through--
(A) an arrangement mutually agreed to by the VOIP service provider and the PSAP or PSAP governing authority; or
(B) an emergency response center with national call routing capabilities.
Such service shall be provided 24 hours a day from the date a VOIP service provider has acquired a customer until the VOIP service provider can provide 911 service to the geographically appropriate PSAP.
(3) NOTICE- Before providing service to any new customer not within the geographic areas where the VOIP service provider can immediately provide 911 service to the geographically appropriate PSAP, a VOIP service provider shall provide such customer with clear notice that 911 service will be available only as described in paragraph (2).
(4) RESTRICTION ON ACQUISITION OF NEW CUSTOMERS-
A VOIP service provider may not acquire new customers within a geographic area served by a selective router if, within 180 days of first acquiring a new customer in the area served by the selective router, the VOIP service provider does not provide 911 service, or E911 service where the PSAP is capable of receiving and processing such information, to the geographically appropriate PSAP for all existing customers served by the selective router.(5) ENFORCEMENT: NO FIRST WARNINGS- Paragraph (5) of section 503(b) shall not apply to the assessment of forfeiture penalties for violations of this subsection or the regulations thereunder.
(d) State Authority- Nothing in this Act or any Commission regulation or order shall prevent the imposition on or collection from a VOIP service provider, of any fee or charge specifically designated or presented as dedicated by a State, political subdivision thereof, or Indian tribe on an equitable, and non-discriminatory basis for the support of 911 and E-911 services if no portion of the revenue derived from such fee or charge is obligated or expended for any purpose other than support of 911 and E-911 services or enhancements of such services.
(e) Feasibility- In establishing requirements or obligations under subsections (a) and (b), the Commission shall ensure that such standards impose requirements or obligations on VOIP service providers and entities with ownership or control of necessary E-911 infrastructure that the Commission determines are technologically and operationally feasible. In determining the requirements and obligations that are technologically and operationally feasible, the Commission shall take into consideration available industry technological and operational standards.
(f) Progress Reports- To the extent that the Commission concludes that it is not technologically or operationally feasible for VOIP service providers to comply with E-911 requirements or obligations, then the Commission shall submit reports to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on the progress in attaining and deploying E-911 service. Such reports shall be submitted semiannually until the Commission concludes that it is technologically and operationally feasible for all VOIP service providers to comply with E-911 requirements and obligations. Such reports may include any recommendations the Commission considers appropriate to encourage the migration of emergency services to TCP/IP protocol or other advanced services.
(g) Access to Information- The Commission shall have the authority to compile a list of PSAP contact information, testing procedures, and classes and types of services supported by PSAPs, or other information concerning the necessary E-911 infrastructure, for the purpose of assisting providers in complying with the requirements of this section.
(h) Emergency Routing Number Administrator- Within 30 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Federal Communications Commission shall establish an emergency routing number administrator to enable VOIP service providers to acquire non-dialable pseudo-automatic number identification numbers for 9-1-1 routing purposes on a national scale. The Commission may adopt such rules and practices as are necessary to guide such administrator in the fair and expeditious assignment of these numbers.
(i) Emergency Response Systems-
(1) NOTICE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OR NUMBER ACTIVATION OF VOIP SERVICE- Prior to installation or number activation of VOIP service for a customer, a VOIP service provider shall provide clear and conspicuous notice to the customer that--
(A) such customer should arrange with his or her emergency response system provider, if any, to test such system after installation;
(B) such customer should notify his or her emergency response system provider after VOIP service is installed; and
(C) a battery backup is required for customer premises equipment installed in connection with the VOIP service in order for the signaling of such system to function in the event of a power outage.
(2) DEFINITION- In this subsection:
(A) The term emergency response system' means an alarm or security system, or personal security or medical monitoring system, that is connected to an emergency response center by means of a telecommunications carrier or VOIP service provider.
(B) The term emergency response center' means an entity that monitors transmissions from an emergency response system.
(j) Migration to IP-Enabled Emergency Network-
(1) NATIONAL REPORT- No more than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this section, the National 911 Implementation and Coordination Office shall develop a report to Congress on migrating to a national IP-enabled emergency network capable of receiving and responding to all citizen activated emergency communications.
TrackBack (0)
| Comments (0) | Tag with del.icio.us
Tags:
cable,
e911,
hr 5252,
net neutrality,
triple play,
video
Copyright
VoIP & Gadgets Blog
Written by VoIP & Gadgets Blog on June 9th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on E911 and Triple Play and triple play and video and cable and net neutrality and hr 5252.
Legislation was introduced today by Senator McCain to push forward a la carte TV programming. Personally, I'd like to have a la carte satellite TV programming,
naked DSL or naked broadband cable, and a reliable VoIP service provider.
Alas, I am still overpaying for cable TV and only get like 4 HDTV channels. I'd love to switch to satellite TV, but would still need to keep at least basic cable in order to keep my high-speed broadband cable connection. It is not very cost effective to switch to basic cable
plus pay for satellite channels. Satellite Internet access is a joke, and I'd be in the same bundling boat if I switched to DSL broadband, since very few offer naked DSL - where you don't need to
also pay for basic phone service. In addition to a la carte programming, Senator McCain, or someone in the Senate, needs to push forward a bill that allows consumers to purchase Internet access
not bundled with phone service (DSL) and not bundled with cable TV service.
It's a damn racket, I tell ya! They need to make all services a la carte - channels you want, broadband access service you want, and which TV provider you want. This bundling crap is actually more expensive and forces consumers to stay with specific providers to try and get the best value - even if the service is inferior to competitors. For instance, with satellite TV I can get over 185 digital channels (many HDTV with surround sound), versus 120 channels for cable, most of which are not digital, not HDTV and not surround sound.
On a related note, RCN Corporation (NASDAQ: RCNI), a leading provider of triple play cable, high-speed Internet and phone services, today issued the following statement on draft legislation introduced by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona):
"We are pleased to see that this bill pushes forward the concept of themed a la carte family programming," said RCN Senior Vice President of Strategic and External Affairs Richard Ramlall. "Since August 2004, our company has expressed a willingness to test consumer reaction to themed program tiers on our digital systems. Most recently we met with Federal Communications Chairman Kevin Martin and indicated we would be willing to conduct a trial in Boston.
"We believe that themed a la carte tiers would greatly enhance consumer choice by allowing them to choose from an array of smaller programming tiers, limited to the kind of categories of programming they most want and value. At the same time it would support development of new and diverse programming in those categories," explained Ramlall.
"However, we've been frustrated in our effort to develop such offerings by the impediments imposed by programmers. Many of them are owned or controlled by the largest incumbent cable operators, who require tying arrangements and other contractual restrictions that preclude RCN and other competitive providers from offering consumer-driven programming options."
Amen to that! Maybe we can amend the Net Neutrality bill being proposed? What say you all?
TrackBack (0)
| Comments (0) | Tag with del.icio.us
Tags:
a la carte programming,
cable tv,
hdtv,
john mccain,
net neutrality
Copyright
VoIP & Gadgets Blog
Written by VoIP & Gadgets Blog on June 7th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized and Triple Play and triple play and hdtv and net neutrality and cable tv and john mccain.
BREAKING! - Net Neutrality Bill Passes House Judiciary: 20-13.
I'd be interested to know if this split along party lines or if one party was more in favor or the consumer over the big broadband carriers and Internet backbone providers.
Or it could simply be that the 13 who voted against it, also have $90,000 worth of bribes sitting in their freezers. (See:
corrupt Democrat William Jefferson for context.)
TrackBack (0)
| Comments (0) | Tag with del.icio.us
Tags:
net neutrality,
william jefferson
Written by VoIP & Gadgets Blog on May 25th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized and net neutrality and william jefferson.