Net Neutrality Bill in Congress 254
hip2b2 writes "The US Congress is finally doing something to prevent large bandwidth providers and network operators from charging (or putting restrictions on) competing web and other Internet media content providers. According to this NetworkWorld article, the new bill sponsored by Democratic Representatives Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jay Inslee of Washington state, Anna Eshoo of California and Rick Boucher of Virginia in the House and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in the Senate. I am not a big fan of legislation, but, I hope this bill keeps the Internet a freer place." Here is our coverage of the first round.
Legislation != Free (Score:1, Insightful)
Won't make it out of committee (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:5, Insightful)
When someone advertises Internet access, people expect just that. "Net neutrality" is just a fancy term for the way the Internet is supposed to work. Fraudulent "internet service providers" should be sued, civilly and/or criminally, and shut down.
Don't miss the comparison... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is particularly often seen with the House bill being the publicity seeker - Reps need to run for office every 2 years...
Wont happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you seen noticed the oil companies raking it in ?
I expect more intrusive laws to divide and conquer the internet by corporate robber barons.
The system (Score:2, Insightful)
Should we all have a whip around, get some cash to lobby/bribe some of the body politic? I mean the free man doesn't really have an input into the political system these, days what with all the major corporations and their politcal representatives.
They should invent something to deal with that. I suggest something to do with "common people" and "rule, strength", leveraging something called voting. Maybe democracy? Worth a shot.
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:5, Insightful)
These companies were granted the rights to lay cable on public land via legislation in the first place.
absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, it is the primary purpose of our government to keep us free, and the primary instrument our government has for that is legislation: legislation that keeps people from harming each other, legislation that keeps companies from distorting a free market, and legislation that establishes institutions that protect us from external threats.
Government legislated control of Internet traffic management is exactly what it means for our government to keep us free.
Now, I'll give you this much: our government sometimes does the wrong thing, either because of misguided people (like you!) or because of outright corruption. But the solution is not to get rid of democratic government and legislation (we had that for a few millennia and it wasn't pretty and certainly not free), the solution is to fix government and make sure the legislation is good legislation.
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:2, Insightful)
Democrats again (Score:3, Insightful)
governmental interference (Score:5, Insightful)
I've read this a few times on Slashdot now. It's usually followed by some comment about a special case (or special interest?) where legislation is a Good Thing. This bugs me, because it's hypocritical.
As an example, the entire concept of laissez-faire (free-market) economics (thank you, Adam Smith!) is based upon assumptions that do not hold in the real world. If we want an economy that even approximates a 'free-market', then we need legislation.
Look at Microsoft, or AT&T. Were it not for legislation, there's be no check to their anti-competitive practices. In my opinion (FWIW) the natural end-consequence of a totally free market (in the absence of any control) are cartels - massive companies bribing (what remains of) the government, and helping their cronies and friends.
Re:The system (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask them if they know the stance your representitive is taking. Probably not, but if the do it can prepare you to tlak to your representitive.
Contact your congress critter, ask them where they stand. They may not even know about it yet. In your letter be sure to use the correct name of the legislation.
Depending on your state, you may be able to get a face to face with the senator. If you do , for the love of god, dress appropriatly, i.e. Suit.
Go to all the local User groups, even one you wouldn't normally be interested. Ask for 2 minutes in front of the group. Tell them you are orginizing people to get your congress to vote for the bill. Get names and cards of people willing to sign a petition.
Find our how much it cost to get a not for profit.
IF it is too expensive for you to shell out the cash,
Contact the people who signed the petition, tell what you are trying to do, ask for their help.
Once you have your organization set up, use it to get a meeting with your congress person. If you have any business owners that signed your petition, try damn hard to get them to go if you get a face to face. Politician like business.
Any businessman worth theis salt should jump at the opportunity to get a face to face with a politician.
All that isn't as much work as it seems. And yes, it can work. WIll it work? I don't know, depends on other factors because it is politics. I can tell you this: It wo't work if you don't try.
Re:Democrats again (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Network "neutrality" is bad (Score:2, Insightful)
So you've also seen no evidence of some ISP's throttling access to certain types of traffic, particularly someone else's VOIP (e.g. Vonage)? Talk to the Canadians who are getting screwed by Rogers.
The telephone systems work as seemlessly as they do because they are REQUIRED to do so. Yes, I can switch providers for long distance, etc. Why is that so easy, because everyone HAS to pass the traffic along equally. Imagine having a phone conversation where you speak, the other party has to wait a second or two and vice versa.
I already pay to consume bandwidth and data providers pay to send it. Enough of the greedy SOBs trying to extort every penny out of everyone because they were too stupid to develop their own Googles and Yahoos. This is no different then the scum "patent" holders who sit back with what are typically bogus patents waiting for a company to spend their time and money to create real products and then swoop in and extort money from them.
Re:The system (Score:3, Insightful)
Good god, could this be...a non-corrupt method of lobbying?
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:1, Insightful)
Why doesn't the ISP just limit upstream bandwidth, and sell it as an asymmetric connection? I think part of the answer is that they don't want to honestly sell what they advertise.
Keep Legislators Accountable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Network "neutrality" is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the end result would be a "diverse" array of options that were all worse than what we have now.
Your argument sounds like the one American health care companies pitch to their customers - "hey, wouldn't it be great if you could *choose* to pay a different rate because you live a healthy lifestyle according to this detailed information you supplied us with?" The implication is supposed to be that your health care costs will go down because you're healthy, when really they will stay the same (instead of increasing)... for now. As time passes, your rates will still increase as other "unhealthy" behaviours are added to the list.
No telecom corporation in the US is going to *improve* service in the name of competition for internet access customers. They will race to the bottom to see who can provide the shittiest service while still retaining the most subscribers, because it's more profitable in the short term (which is all they care about now, thanks to myopic shareholders and execs).
The internet works just fine the way it is. What *possible* benefit could competing networks provide, other than to the people with stock in the telecom companies involved?
Re:Wait until the bill reaches the floor (Score:5, Insightful)
Proposed legislation is just as important as legislation that reaches the floor, potentially more so -- once it reaches the floor, most legislators have already decided where they stand on the issue.
Now, in the formative stages of legislative thought, is when it is MOST important to make sure your legislators support your views on issues like this. Waiting until it hits the floor is like waiting to have your brakes fixed until you need to stop to keep from rear-ending someone while barreling down a hill at 80 miles per hour. Our legislature needs 'preventative maintenance' just as much as your car does.
Contact your legislators early. Contact them often.
Re:absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. If a private company providing a service in a market where many other companies are doing the same wants to offer special pricing or performance options to customers that want to pay for such, they are (or should be) free to do so. It's no "distortion" of the market to change your offering to suit your own business objectives. You, as a customer, can just "distort" it right back by taking your business to another provider that suits your tastes.
In fact, it is the primary purpose of our government to keep us free,
No. It is your primary purpose to do so, and mine. The government's obligation is to stay out of our way, and to be there in case someone decides to prevent you (or me) from doing so.
and the primary instrument our government has for that is legislation:
Yikes! No. It's the Constitution that does that. Legislation comes and goes, but the key structural pillars of the government are set forth in the Constitution.
legislation that keeps people from harming each other,
Legislation doesn't do any such thing. People either do, or do not, harm each other. Legislation may set forth such penalties as are trotted out after that happens. Otherwise, you're talking about prior restraint... to which our courts are thankfully generally allergic.
legislation that establishes institutions that protect us from external threats
No, that's the executive branch's job. They do that through the military and various other supporting agencies. Certainly the legislative bodies approve funding, etc., but from a Founding Fathers perspective, defense against "external threats" is something the C-in-C and his branch is supposed to take care of.
Now, I'll give you this much: our government sometimes does the wrong thing
And the more you stick the government in the middle of transactions between private parties, especially where evolving technology is concerned, the more mistakes happen.
Re:Wont happen (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple is raking in the profit and probably making many times the profit margin on each device than an oil company does on a barrel of oil.
Also, people seem to forget that the oil business is a very risky business, but no one seems to notice when hurricanes take out oil rigs or a company drills dry wells, and loses billions of dollars, they only notice when the company is profitable.
It is a product just like any other, and you are more than welcome to stop purchasing it. Natural Gas powered vehicles can be purchased just as cheaply as gasoline vehicles in many cases, go get one of them. Or buy an electric car.
You and everyone else keep using oil becuase it is abundant and cheaper than almost any alternative... Sounds like a pretty good product to me, so why be angry with the people providing it to us?
Also keep in mind that these oil companies are not setting the prices, oil is traded as a commodity, it is being bought and sold on speculation just like a stock... If someone is afraid they won't be able to get their hands on any more of it they will of course charge more for what they do have. Wouldn't you?
In response to your implication about congress, I of course agree entirely. They are a bunch of scumbags and are not serving their constituents at all. But that surely isn't their fault, the great people of this country are the ones that keep electing them. The fact that 50% of the public probably could not name a single congressmen gives a little insight into the root of the problem.
Re:True Net Neutrality - Wireless (Score:2, Insightful)
If it's a free service in one of the many coffee shops that offer it, then you can't really expect them not to try to find some way to make a profit off of the free bandwidth they are giving you.
Re:Network "neutrality" is bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it's not politcally acceptable to charge some businesses extra money in order to avoid having static on their phone lines, or certain entertainment companies not have snow or ridiculously high MPG compression on their channels. It is, however, for some reason politically acceptable to do this with when the very same data is transmitted by TCP/IP.
Imagine if Verizon Wireless told Fox that they had to pay Verizon money if they wanted callers from Verizon Wireless calling in votes for American Idol to avoid static and dropped calls. What if Rupert Murdoch (DirecTV) told HBO that unless they paid, HBO's video stream would be set on very high MPG compression so it looked like crap. It is technically possible, but customers wouldn't accept it. With the Internet, customers are largely ignorant of how it works. They won't know they're getting fucked until after it's over. That's why.
Re:Wont happen (Score:3, Insightful)
I love capitalism. Is the oil industry a free market ? NO.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/gas-prices.htm [thememoryhole.org]
Re:Knee, meet jerk. (Score:3, Insightful)
The internet, despite being funded by the government, is a creature born relatively free of arbitrary strictures, conceived, in fact, with the intention of circumventing them.
First time I've rooted for the banking lobbyists (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:governmental interference (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure whether you're engaging in revisionist history or whether you just have no idea what you're talking about. Boies and the other attorneys beat Microsoft like a drum, up one side and down the other. Two factors combined to kill any chance at a governmental remedy (this time):
1) Judge Jackson couldn't keep his damn mouth shut during the trial, so the Appellate Court threw out his order to break up the company. In their ruling they stated that there was absolutely no evidence he'd been anything but impartial, but someone might complain so out went the order and the case was sent (with the finding of Sherman violations intact) to a new judge for a new disposition order. Unfortunately, that turned out to be Judge Kollar-Kotelly, who has less antitrust experience in her whole body than Judge Jackson had in his lovesack. Her over-the-head-ness led to a desperate, frantic plea for a settlement. Here's Factor 2.
2) While Factor 1 was going down, we had a change of Administration and the DOJ's antitrust bunch were replaced by Republican douches whose entire antitrust experience was based on the assertion that antitrust was nonsense and probably an affront to God Almighty. When presented with Judge K-K's desperate, frantic plea for a settlement, they all sprouted wood and absolutely, utterly, shamefully threw in the towel and offered up a settlement that wasn't so much a slap on the wrist as it was a long, slow, deep, wet tongue-kiss.
History isn't always written by the victors.
Freedom for Citizens != Freedom for Corporations (Score:2, Insightful)
In my view, it's important for the government to regulate corporations, when corporations take a prominent role in determining how basic services will be provided to citizens.
Individual citizens do not have much of a voice in determining what the options are...unless our government is that voice.
I find it baffling why you would value a corporation's "freedom" over that of the masses. But that's just a difference of opinion. Neither side in this argument can legitimately claim to represent "freedom for all."
Re:absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
It has nothing whatsoever to do with real life, reality, markets as they currently are. The "free market" does not exist. What's more the free market cannot exist.
The free market relies on several things :
No free market can function. In order for the consumer to not get completely screwed, legislation is absolutely imperative. And there should actually be much more of it.
In addition, the broadcast flag on the senate one (Score:4, Insightful)
Um... Contract Law? (Score:2, Insightful)
The market is based on legislation. It cannot exist without it. Laws govern contracts, fraud, trademark violations, false advertising, property, theft, violence, and so on. The government is already involved in every "private" transaction.
The claim that legislation is inherently bad implicitly redefines the market as some sort of natural state of affairs. The modern economic system is very much a product of human choice and action. It is no more natural than any other economic or social regime. The blanket criticism of legislation is an ideological attempt to obscure the ability for human beings to choose their government and their laws. If you believe democratic government is the problem, by all means criticize that. Don't try to redefine "legislation" to exclude democratic change (or what passes for it anyway) from a fundamental sphere of human activity.
how does a non-neutral 'net work in practice? (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the real problems driving this is that being an ISP or being a backbone provider is nowhere near as profitable as having cool content. The ISPs in various forms have been either trying to buy content or produce their own. Neither approach has been very successful. In my opinion that failure is due to the business models between pumping packets and producing content are pretty incompatible.
Now let's assume that the net isn't neutral. So every ISP will contact, say, Yahoo! and offer some kind of "enhanced services package" that will guarantee that packets to or from Yahoo! will get there faster.
My first question -- how does Yahoo! or any other customer measure whether they are getting any benefit from getting their packets faster? Given the service quality history that most ISPs have, I'd be pretty damned skeptical that they could get something running that could be specific enough to an actual entity they could bill, and keep it running. I'd also wonder how Yahoo! or any other business could justify paying such a tariff if they couldn't measure the benefit.
My second question -- how many "enhanced serice" deals can a company like Yahoo! manage? There are still quite literally thousands of ISPs in the world. There aren't that many backbone providers, but there are still quite a few. That is still a lot of contracts to manage. Note that having even dozens of such deals is going to make the measurement problem described in the first question even tougher.
It seems to me that this is going to be a very tough sell. The threat that they could favor content they produce themselves kind of begs the question -- they really haven't been able to produce persuasive content of their own, and even some of the spectacular mergers (e.g. AOL/Time Warner) haven't been what I'd call spectacular successes.
One place where this non-neutral net idea could "work" well is with foreign service providers, especially in poorer countries with fewer network access points. There it could be done by demanding a "tariff" from Yahoo! or Google or all access to those services could be effectively blocked in such a country. This could be a killer revenue source for poor, corrupt, and dysfunctional third-world countries, much like long-distance tarrifs are now.
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:4, Insightful)
That is just bull on soooooo many levels.
Cable TV has a number of packages, all geared to specific type of viewers, at different prices.
The sports nuts can watch every baseball, hocky, & basketball game played
I pay less, because I'm less of a "nut".
Want to run a mail server? Get a commercial account - don't expect to be able to do everything IBM can do for $9.95/month.
And if you think that blocking port 25 makes you not an ISP, then you've never had to administer a mail server *before* the ISP's started blocking port 25, and the wannabe spammers and botnets that generated the majority of that crap.