Did your NC US Rep sell out the Internet?

After reading MediaGeek's blog post about how his US Representative voted on COPE (Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act) I was inspired to make a list. I'm happy to say that Rep. David Price and Rep. Brad Miller voted against it. It'll be interesting in the future to create a graph on how they voted on all the bills set to protect and destroy Network Neutrality. COPE is one of the bad ones. Incase you were wondering voting ‘Yea’ for COPE is bad.

District Representatives Party Vote
1 Frank Balance D ?
2 Bob Etheridge D Yea
3 Walter Jones R Yea
4 David Price D Nay
5 Virginia Foxx R Yea
6 Howard Coble R Yea
7 Mike McIntyre D Yea
8 Robin Hayes R Yea
9 Sue Myrick R Yea
10 Cass Ballenger R ?
11 Charles Taylor R Yea
12 Melvin Watt D Yea
13 Brad Miller D Nay

Source for data

Comments

Brian, why?

For those of us unfamiliar with the legislation, why is a vote for COPE bad? I didn't see an answer at the post you linked.

Does COPE ...

have anything to do with MultiProtocol Layer Switching?

I ask because when I left the optical switching world, MPLS was the latest greatest thing that was gonna allow telcos greater traffic control and greater "revenue opportunities".

But here's what I honestly don't get about COPE ... From what I know, telcos and ISPs already control access speeds -- T1, partial T1s, RR business class, layered user levels, right on down to 56k dial up -- and they already charge different prices for those different access speeds at the end user's box/server. My understanding is that COPE will allow telecoms and ISPs to effectively ALSO change the size of the pipe within the network ... in the big traffic switches that move your packets and my packets ... so that now my packets move more slowly from start to finish. AS things are now, and correct me if I'm wrong, once my IP packets and IP packets from Cisco System's campus hit the first switch/router ... they move at the same speed. What MPLS does is allow packet tagging so some packets have higher priority than others. This may not be an issue at 2am, but it will be an issue if you want to down load a video clip from Crooks and Liars at 7pm in the evening. See what I mean?

I'm not so sure trimming the pipes within the system and making everyone pony up more cash to get a better tag class for "intra-network" bandwidth is really all that kosher in a system that is supposed to be fair and square and even steven. Which is why I'm not so sure the COPE bill was such a good thing.

That said, I'd bet dollars to donuts most Congresspeople had not one dang clue what the heck they were actually voting on. The people who were most likely "educating" our non-technically inclined Congressmen (no negative judgement intended) on the technical aspects of the issue were, no doubt, the guys and gals who work for the telcos and ISPs.

Old List

Frank Balance is in Jail. G.K. Butterfield is the Rep in 1st CD and Pat McHenry is Rep in 10th CD.

That should help you figure out the way the votes went in those districts.

I will echo Lance, what made COPE bad?



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

My lay-person's understanding

is that passage of COPE without a net neutrality provision would give a huge advantage to media biggies like CNN and FOX while shoving little guys like this humble blog-site to the side. Imagine a virtual four-lane highway with 3 HOV lanes where it's always rush hour and Bill O'Reilly has Rush Limbaugh riding shotgun cruising past the Southern Dem who's sitting in gridlock trying to fish quarters out of her purse for the tollgate blocking her lane.

I know it's not techical...but I think that's the gist. Anyone who can explain it for real...please do!

Why is a vote for COPE bad?

For those of us unfamiliar with the legislation, why is a vote for COPE bad?

In part because it did not include previsions to preserve network neutrality.

Here is more from Consumers Union:

“By granting telephone companies a license to redline, the COPE Act offers only false promises of sorely needed cable competition,” said Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst for Consumers Union. “In reality, consumers who most need the benefits of competition, are the least likely to see it. Instead, their already bloated cable bills will get even bigger, their service quality will decline further, and their recourse against cable and telephone company abuse will disappear.”

It future posts I'll try my best to be more clear.