Senate Bill To Prohibit Extra Charges For Internet 393
xoip writes "A report in the The New York Times states that 'Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, will introduce new legislation today that would prohibit Internet network operators from charging companies for faster delivery of their content to consumers or favoring some content providers over others.'"
It's a shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a shame (Score:3, Insightful)
The shame is how often they get away with screwing over real people by having deep pockets to buy legislators and outlast plaintiffs in court. I haven't read the bill, but I'm glad somebody with some power is looking at this critically.
Re:It's a shame (Score:2, Insightful)
Pretty much the same are you're run of the mill Gen X'er, huh?
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Pretty much the same as your run of the mill Gen X'er, huh?
To which I reply: The difference is that your run of the mill Gen X'er is completely failing at it, where the corporations are succeeding.
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Re:It's a shame (Score:3, Informative)
eh? my wife has a corporation and i have a corporation so we can safely run our home businesses. the idea behind it, the sole reason in my eyes, is that should i get sued for some reason i dont lose my car, house, watch, cat, dog, retirement savings, etc. and people will sue for anything. ever heard of the 'shotgun approach'? if it wasnt for people suing for the smallest
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
True- and I'd say that somebody who creates a corporation merely to escape the consequences of their actions counts as a good example of being morally bankrupt.
Re:It's a shame (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, yeah, that's the very definition of being morally bankrupt. Taking something (working in the United States with a government-supported fiat currency, infrastructure, and economy) and not being willing to pay for it. But yes- from the point of view of greed being good, I completely agree.
For example, an "S" corporation, which I have formed, allows you to wr
Re:It's a shame (Score:5, Insightful)
It's when corporations are so big that they're not really controlled by a single individual that their true amorality becomes obvious. Everyone has a very slightly different idea of what is right and wrong, so unless you have one person who is in a position to pull the plug and say "no, that's wrong -- stop," it will basically do anything that's profitable. Unless the action is so grievously immoral that everyone involved in the company's operation can agree that it's wrong. But that rarely happens.
It's really just semantics whether it's the people or the legal construct that are amoral; the point is that the construct gives people the framework necessary to comfortably check their morality at the door.
That said, I don't have a problem with it -- I think that corporations are a useful barometer in society of our incentive structure. When you start to see corporations doing sick things, it's time to revisit your incentive and punishment systems and decide how to fix the basic problem: why is doing bad things more profitable than doing good things?
So while I'm not normally a fan of big government, I could support a piece of legislation like this, because it fixes the playing field to produce fewer undesirable outcomes. That's the right of a capitalist democracy; if you can't do that, what's the point in even having a government.
Used to agree with this thinking, don't anymore (Score:4, Interesting)
Consider the near-demise of the bond trading company Salomon Smith Barney in the nineties. When it was led by risk-loving, gambling ex-trader John Guttfreund, the employees gambled with the company by skirting (and crossing) the moral and legal limits imposed on it. It was caught and was nearly wiped out by the Justice Department. When Warren Buffett took over the reins it became an upstanding and moral company almost overnight, and remained so under the leadership of the man Buffett hand-picked to lead afterward.
Likewise there are numerous examples of companies that act very morally, for example Patagonia, Ben and Jerries, or Malden Mills. They enact the morals and ethics of their founders and leaders.
In this respect I do agree with you that companies make excellent barometers--they can be powerful mechanisms for amplifying the decisions and morals of those the people lead them, yet they are susceptible to public influence. They can therefore serve as mirrors of their customers and the public who are aware of them.
The problem is that they are not instantaneous mirrors. In fact there is a pretty significant delay in corrections. Stories like Enron IMO do not illustrate a failure of the system, but rather illustrate the system working properly--just slowly. After all, the executives did get caught and the company suffered (essentially) a death penalty. However there was a pretty significant delay between the immoral acts and the societal response.
One of the toughest things for humans to deal with cognitively is a delay between action and effect. In one psych study people were given the task of adjusting a thermostat to keep a steady temperature in a refrigerator as it was opened and closed. They did not have too much trouble with it until lag was secretly introducing into the system. This created chaotic oscillations as the participants continually over-compensated. More revealing, none were able to correctly deduce that there was a uniform delay at work. To them it simply seemed like the system was acting erratically and unpredictably. Thus so can the oscillations seem between morally right and immoral corporate behavior.
The solution to some is legislation, in part because it is thought to be a fast and sure way to solve a problem the market does not seem to be able to (at least not yet). However legislation is its own messy system of delays and is neither fast nor sure. No bill passes without extensive compromise and complexity, and no meaningful legislation is implemented effectively without first passing through many rounds of interpretation and litigation.
Legislation also is inflexible in that it is a permanent solution. It can only be replaced or revised except through the same tortuous process that produced it in the first place.
Re:It's a shame (Score:3, Interesting)
Allow me to welcome you to humanity. You must be new here.
Guess what else we have laws to prevent? Theft! Fraud! Beating! Murder! Rape! Isn't it sad that we, as a species, actually need to have laws that enforce all these things. Man, what a horrible creature we are.
Re:It's a shame (Score:3, Insightful)
A case can be made that laws can have a deterrent effect, but it still doesn't change the fact that a law (words on paper) has zero physical power over anyone in real time.
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
That's where the market wants to go. So other than government regulation, what's your solution?
The free hand of the market?
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Re:It's a shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes they do. But they do not generally own the complete right-of-way where the fiber lies. That's the part the carriers want to gloss-over.
Proponents of network neutrality should remember that fiber (copper, cable, wireless packets, etc) are being run across right-of-way (poles, roadsides, or spectrum) which belong to the public. The public, therefore, should demand a right to a portion of the bandwidth that right-of-way makes available, or the public should exercise
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
So, if there's only one cable/phone/internet company, one water company, one gas company, and one water company, I guess that I won't be screwed on costs when all those nice guy competitors build their own parallel infrastructures to reach me.
Face it, free markets only work in certain situations. These situations are the ma
Re:It's a shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, for the audience, please explain how a free market can solve this problem now that it's been created if given a chance. We don't live in blank slate world where the free market could've somehow avoided the problem of physical exclusivity in the first pla
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Not to mention markets like broadband, where it's basically physically impossible to wire many places for more than one brand of access. "Yes
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
When the market is controlled by the demand side everything is peachy, but when the supply side starts to gain control it no longer is a free market; it is a monopoly (or oligopoly.) The top pla
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
They're way more fun than laws.
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Yes, god forbid people try to nip something in the bud before it gets out of control...
If you see a future problem, and simply let it happen, you deserve to have it happen to you. (Unfortunately, legislation is the only tool of strength available.)
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Yeah, like the time when workers weren't paid for their work... what was that called? Slavery? I don't remember...
(Sarcasm mode off)
Dude, we're in a country that abides by laws. This is the reason companies invest so much money in lobbying. Perhaps we should follow their example and try to get a voice there.
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
That's called 'charging per byte'. And I think it's a fine thing to do, and I hope this bill doesn't prohibit it. I also think that nobody in their right mind would buy a service that charged per byte. But hey, I don't think it's evil or wrong.
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
1)Perfect information of buyer and seller (both the buyer and seller know everything about the product and its competitors to make a totally informed choice)
2)A large number of producers of interchangable goods. Basicly enough suppliers that you can choose whom you want to buy from, and no difference between their products.
3)Certius paribus. That changing one variable in the economic equation does not effect any others.
4)Time doesn't matter. Notice that none
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
It's a bigger shame that they have to (Score:2)
No it isn't, it *is* the law (Score:2)
So, it is *required* that laws be enacted to keep them from being greedy assholes.
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
If you're only referring to internet as a resource, what are your thoughts on the sale of *gasp*... WATER!? Or land?
Re:It's a shame (Score:2)
RE (Score:4, Funny)
Re:RE (Score:2)
Re:RE (Score:2)
Ah, Somalia (Score:2)
That's completely wrong. Everybody knows that it's when governments aren't involved [globalpolicy.org] that things can't get screwed up.
Re:Ah, Somalia (Score:2)
Here's an excerpt from another article. [mises.org]
Re:Ah, Somalia (Score:3, Informative)
The money exchange system that you're talking of is hawala, the same system that has been under severe scrutiny for its use by terrorists
Re:This is BAD legislation (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll be equally blunt. Competitive with who?
Telecoms want to do this. Cable companies want to do this. Cell phone companies are mostly owned by the same telecom companies who all love the idea. That's pretty much the entire forseeable broadband market outside of municipal WiFi projects. Every middleman gatekeeper to the in
Pay For Play (Score:5, Insightful)
I really like Wyden's beliefs on fair competition in the internet. Back in 2004, he put a ban on unfair internet taxes [senate.gov]. IMO This legislation looks like it will help out a lot of smaller companies compete with the big corporations who would gladly try to team up with ISPs monopolize e-commerce.
I wonder how this legislation would apply to AOL's proposed email tax [slashdot.org] (I gotta watch out what I say, my comments on that were met harshly).
I personally hope this makes it through congress. The internet is a free service, as is the radio, and I believe it should have some sense of neutrality. I'm very interested to hear how this bill will hold up. I'm sure if we keep a close eye on it, we'll be finding out a lot about where some of our senators are getting their "funding" from.
Re:Pay For Play (Score:2)
Who is your ISP? I want an account!
The Wall Street Journal today has an article about business models based on bandwidth use by the consumer. Those who download more would pay more. Users currently pay more for higher download speeds from their ISP. Businesses pay a different price.
If your ISP can charge different prices for different levels of service, why should other providers of bandwidth not be allowed to do the same? What is wrong with differentiated services at di
Re:Pay For Play (Score:2)
I think your language is starting to affect your thinking too much!
Re:Pay For Play (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that you understand that, I'll explain what's going on here with Bellsouth et al.: They're trying to (effectively) end the peering agreement by charging both ends of the connection, instead of just their own subscribers. The net result is that everyone gets charged twice for the same service. If you can't see how that's unfair, and more importantly, harmful to the design of the Internet itself, you must not be paying attention.
Makes me glad I voted for him (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Makes me glad I voted for him (Score:2)
I agree though, he's one Democrat I'll be happy to reelect. I've met him a few times here in Portland, (like at the airport), and he's always been interested in hearing what's going on around Oregon and what I think about it. how things affect me.
Re:Makes me glad I voted for him (Score:2)
And are you really that thick that you don't see that the two are fundamentally the same?
/ Liberal, but a sane one.
Re:Makes me glad I voted for him (Score:2)
Its a question of free-market versus regulation. It has nothing to do with businesses or consumers. That's simplistic.
Both Democrats and Republicans agree that in industries with sufficient competition, regulation is both "anti-business" and "anti-consumer". Regulation is needed when the free-market is insufficient... It is not entirely clear whether the free-market would be able to sufficiently punish those
Re:Makes me glad I voted for him (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:Makes me glad I voted for him (Score:2)
Re:Makes me glad I voted for him (Score:2)
The word 'consumer' is a dirty epithet used to marginalize everybody who doesn't have over 100000 to contribute to someone's campaign fund.
Exemptions (Score:2)
That is of course assuming this bill ever makes it to a vote.
faster delivery? (Score:2)
Re:faster delivery? (Score:2)
Re:faster delivery? (Score:2)
Re:faster delivery? (Score:2)
Fantastic! (Score:4, Insightful)
Please, please, if you're an American citizen and care about this issue, call, email, write, or telegram your senators in support of this bill. We need them to know they have constituents who care about keeping the Internet a powerful communications tool for all.
Certainly such an important issue is worth the effort?
Re:Fantastic! (Score:5, Informative)
mod parent up please!!!!! (Score:4, Informative)
In the upper right hand corner is a "Senator search". Click the state you live in and your two senators websites will be listed. Most (if not all) of the senators are available via email. Voice your opinion in a calm professional manner.
Too many people sit back and watch democracy happen around them. If every single person who read this story voiced their opinion about it to their senator (whether they agree or disagree), there would be tens of thousands of emails (as oppossed to maybe a couple hundred).
It's just to easy to voice your opinion to your senator these days. You would be throwing away a huge opportunity if you didn't.
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, I don't see a good reason for the telcos to be doing this. It just seems to me that they are trying to find ways to profit while they lose business (internet being a more prevalent communication medium than your standard telephone). If you're late to the party, that's your problem.
Telco companies seem to be trying to undermine the very principles of the internet lately. With having the FCC ruling last year that allowed them to not share their lines, and now seeing this, I've become very wary of anything the telecommunications industry is trying to do lately.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
This is all because the telcos are on a sinking ship. Wired communications (for anything other than long-haul, high-bandwidth) are on their way out. The simple fact is that some bigass high-gain omni antennas (which can be built cheaply if you're on a small budget) are a fuck of a lot cheaper than a bunch of poles
Bribed? (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess is that the TelCos either didn't have time to write up 'model' legislation for some Senator to introduce, or they realized that the country isn't ready yet... and this Democrat from Oregon just fuxxored their long term plans.
Listen to see what your Senator says about this Bill. Then you'll know whose interests he's looking out for.
Is anybody verifying... (Score:2)
I wonder (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe tiered service isn't so bad... (Score:2)
I do two demanding things on my network connection: online gaming and bulk downloads. For the former I want rock-solid QoS. I'm using only about 5 KiB/s of traffic, but it's imperative that that traffic get where it's going as fast as possible.
For bulk downloads, latency and reliability is less important to me than throughput. I don't care if I'm at 10% packet loss and 1000msec latency, really, as long as a whole pile of data gets sent and received. However, right
Re:Maybe tiered service isn't so bad... (Score:2)
The problem with this is that TCP doesn't deal at all well with high-latency high-loss connections.
Consider your example. If you lose a packet, then it takes 2 seconds to resend that information.
Your TCP windows need to be sized based on the bandwidth-delay product. If you want to download at 5Mbit/sec, and you've got 1000msec latency, then you need a 10Mbit buffer to store the dat
Re:Maybe tiered service isn't so bad... (Score:2)
We welcome you.
Now go play dodgecar in traffic...
Five minutes after it passes (Score:2)
And before you pipe up and say they also give money to Democrats, take a look and their reports. Bellsouth's lobbying is overwhelmingly favorable to Republicans. The best party money can buy.
Dear Senator (Score:2)
We can punish anyone who messes with it just fine, and reward those who play nice. We don't need your help with this one, honest.
So please, keep your paws off our network. We were here first. You're new. You don't know what you're doing, and what effect you'll have.
Now, about this terrorism thing -- maybe you can think of a way to deal with it. Or maybe find a nice treaty you can advise
How do you verify they dont? (Score:2)
Re:How do you verify they dont? (Score:2)
They can't officially charge for it, meaning they can't report it in their taxes, nor ADVERTISE OR THREATEN about it. Without being able to threaten companies into paying them for bandwidth, they have no power.
Re:How do you verify they dont? (Score:2)
Say goodbye to QoS on the Internet (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, the Quality of Service flags are generally ignored on the public Internet. The reason why isn't particularly hard to discern: there's no way to agree on what should have priority and what shouldn't. If everybody used it in the current environment, then every content provider would flag its own traffic as being high-priority. And, as a result, nothing would be high priority since it's a relative concept.
Money is the way to separate the wheat from the chaff: if your content actually depends on a high QoS, then you should pay for that. If your content doesn't, then there's no reason to.
Re:Say goodbye to QoS on the Internet (Score:2)
Well, why not treat QoS flags as being relative to the other packets the sender is sending instead of as being relative to everything?
Diffserv and Intserv (Score:3, Interesting)
Almost as bad... (Score:2)
Theres no reason to have a generic law saying that this is always prohibited. If you own your network, it's yours, do whatever you want with it.
The issue was that the Telco's trying to do this do not in fact own their networks. They were subsidized by tax payer dollars, hence they have no right to enforce these fines. This is a very specific problem, and doesn't call for an arbitrary law restricting what you can do with your own network
who do i pay? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stupid. (Score:2)
Just 2 or 3 articles lower down is one about Comcast blocking Vonage VOIP in favor of their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter (Score:2)
The bill will never pass.
Does this make IPv6 illegal? (Score:2)
Re:Does this make IPv6 illegal? (Score:3)
So if an internet provider... (Score:2)
Gee that was fast!! I guess he read my post (Score:2)
Dear congress, please stay out of it. Thanks. (Score:2)
Our congress critters don't know the first thing about how this cyberweb thing works and I have zero confidence that whatever bill they settle on won't do more harm tha
It's All Relative (Score:3, Insightful)
Play it out. The first person to pay for this will get a substantial speed increase, and no-one else will notice any different. Great so far. But what happens when a substantial number of others join in? It all has to come from the same pipes, so they'll see a smaller increase -- and it'll be at the expense of others. Not only from the remainder who aren't paying the premium, but also from the existing premium payers.
By that point, people will be paying the premium not so much for extra speed, but to avoid the rapidly-declining non-premium service. Ultimately, everyone will be forced to pay the premium, just to get exactly the same service they have now.
In other words, the only people to benefit from this are the ISPs. Ka-ching! Everyone else is paying more and getting nothing for it. Not quite a 'tragedy of the commons' scenario, but with the same sort of inevitability.
I don't like the idea of legislating around problems, but maybe this one deserves it. (Telecoms generally seems to benefit from the odd bit of red tape -- look at the state of the mobile phone markets in the unregulated US and the regulated UK, for example.) I think we need some way to nip this one in the bud, and unless anyone has any better ideas...?
Re:Capitalism.. Yeah right... (Score:2)
On the other hand, once you invite the government into your internet to regulate it, they are there to stay.
Re:Capitalism.. Yeah right... (Score:2)
Because it takes control from the market (which you are a part of) to an entity that does not always do the right thing. Like wiretapping.
Re:Wait...legislation that's not designed to inhib (Score:2)
Although technically it is designed to inhibit. Just in this case, not the consumers (or, as they were once called, citizens).