Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Bill in Congress
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.
Government legislated control of Internet traffic management is the exact opposite of most any definition of "free".
My prediction is that this bill will never even make it out of committee. Far too many telco lobbyists on K Street to let that happen.
Thalasar
"I am not a big fan of legislation, but, I hope this bill keeps the Internet a freer place"
Is not the legislative branch of the US government the body that is supposed to be responsible for passing laws to protect our freedom and liberty?
The mere statement made gives me the impression that this type of thing is not the norm. And this makes me sad.
at the end - the Senate bill would only require that net neutrality be "studied", not enforced. This is a tactic employed by both parties - introduce a bill for publicity in one branch of the legislature, introduce a version which is watered down into oblivion in the other, and kill it in committee during the process of "reconciling" the House and Senate versions.
This is particularly often seen with the House bill being the publicity seeker - Reps need to run for office every 2 years...
Using plain ol' text since 1968
Have you seen who runs Congress ?
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.
As I recall there is a very long path before a law becomes a bill. It's a rough ride and poor old bill might get a bit hurt on the way.
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.
I would like to point out that every sentence should have a verb. Except maybe this one.
Karma: Bad (mostly due to all those "In Soviet Russia" jokes)
Great but, why wouldn't the republicans introduce a bill like this? Why does it always have to be the party not in power that has the good ideas?
Your statement is absolutely absurd, and it is an insult to centuries of struggle for democratic government.
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.
It was in Democrats' time that internet was spread all over the world, and it became the medium with the most freedom ever known, and it is democrats again who are trying to protect it.
Read radical news here
In your ideal world there would be no regulations of anything, period, right? Brilliant plan - it's the recipe for anarchy.
"I am not a big fan of legislation, but..."
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.
I really wish slashdot would wait until a bill reaches the floor of the House and/or Senate before posting its presence. Every year, thousands of bills are proposed. Only a few percent (I think its less than that) reach the floor of House and/or Senate. Most of the bills that do make it to the floor are voted down.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Wasn't there a senator who tried to slip the broadcast flag into this bill or something?
You're spot on. Without regulations, a market is impossible. Particularly in matters concerning infrastructure, information flow, etc. But I agree the majority of Congressfolks are pretty clueless about technology, so I always cringe when I see bills relating to technology, fearing the worst.
One reason to be hopeful, though: Rick Boucher, one of this bill's sponsors, strikes me as a person who "gets" tech and the "public-good" benefits of online culture more than most. I sat in on some of the DMCA subcommittee hearings, and he was the sole member of the House subcommittee at that time who actually understood the issues (and as a result opposed most of the DMCA, ultimately unsuccessfully). He's also one who has been behind several efforts to blunt the harshest provisions of the DMCA.
See, for example, http://news.com.com/2010-1071-825335.html.
So let's not write off his efforts and those of his cosponsors out of hand, just because we "don't like legislation." Let's take a look at the specifics.
It's astonishing how many people are just automatically assuming that network neutrality is good. Considering no such neutrality is imposed on wireless telephony, cable or DBS, why is it necessary here?
Christopher Yoo, a Vanderbilt Law professor (whom I met in his capacity visiting here at Penn Law this semester) has written repeatedly on the fact that what we actually want is network diversity.
Why would it be bad to have competition in the type of service provided? Why would it be bad to be able to prioritize types of network traffic? Why would it be bad to have competitive internets where different networks interconnected out of market pressure instead of FCC or Congressional regulation?
It seems that most people just respond automatically without considering the actual costs and benefits to so-called network neutrality.
"Stumble before you crawl"
Ted Stevens of Alaska introduced the Broadcast Flag into it. Check http://ipaction.org/blog/ for more info.
"I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."
-- Stephen Colbert
If you haven't had a chance to hear it, this is porbably worth it. (About an hour long)
http://www.educause.edu/elements/pol06feldgs.mp3
More can be read at: http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/
If this legislation was going anywhere at all, it would have:
...
1) republican sponsors
2) many more sponsors
Love them or hate them, Republicans currently control both the House and Senate. From a political perspective, and completely ignoring whether or nor net neutrality is good public policy, it makes no sense to pass either of these bills. If Sen. Wyden and Rep. Markey were serious about doing this, and doing it THIS congress, they would have shopped their legislation and worked to build consensus. 90% of legislation is passed by unanimous consent or on suspension in the middle of the night, and a bill which has NO cosponsorships from the majority caucus isn't going to proceed without objection.
These are "marker" pieces. They more or less just say to other members, and interested groups, that the authors are interested in an issue and may offer similar language as an amendment on some other piece of legislation, later.
As others have noted, this is just hype. When you see a Stevens-Wyden bill, then you'll be talking
And if it were not for that accursed law that robs us of our liberty, I would murder you on the spot. (Kudos to Eric Blair - George Orwell to the rest of you. He DID write more than 1984 and Animal Farm.)
Evcer think about the possibility that not just content providers would have an advantage/disadvantage, but also the consumer's general access? Would it not be possible for Internet providers to give machines running a particular operating system (cough Windows), have a particular processor(ahem Intel), or come from a particular vendor (acch Dell) because these systems are "More capable of network operation" or some other lie like that. Something similar to the Skype/Intel thing a few weeks back (Slashdot) http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/04/143024 3
For those of you who don't know what this is, please review: Broadcast Flag Article at Wikipedia
Someone stop this man. The bridge to nowhere apparently keeps leading to the stupid &#$@* Broadcast Flag. DO NOT WANT...!!!! (Contact your Reps and Senators)As noted elsewhere in this thread, be very careful about getting too excited about this bill. I'm all for network neutrality, but if the re-introduction of the broadcast flag is the price we pay for it, I'm not sure what to think. We need to stand up to our legislators and get them to pass an honest bill. We're not talking about a little pork project added onto an otherwise good bill. Rather, this bill now is now a complete mess, giving corporations less control over the internet, but more control over digital media. The only difference is which big corporate entities stand to benefit most on the backs of consumers. Do not stand for this kind of garbage, and contact your representative and senator today, because no informed American would want the broadcast flag, even if it is wrapped up in a pretty little bow that says "network neutrality" on it.
I remember dying from laughter when commercials were proclaiming Intel processors made the internet faster. Now they could actually pull it off.
AT&T Introduces Privacy+ Tier for Consumers and an NSA Turbo-Speed Tier for the government, at Market-Leading Prices
Wednesday April 26, 6:00 am ET
For $24.95 a month extra, the new Privacy+ Tier offers consumers the ability to feed all data to the NSA at the slowest speeds available. However, for an extra $28.95 per month, per customer, the NSA can override the Privacy+ Tier and spy on Americans at Speeds of up to 6.0 Megabits per Second
SAN ANTONIO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 26, 2006--AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T - News) today announced a new, higher-privacy tier for its AT&T Yahoo!® High Speed Internet service that meets consumers' growing outrage for allowing the NSA full availability to its backbone. At the same time, it announced a new NSA Turbo-Speed Tier that, for a fee, allows the government to override the newly introduced Privacy+ Tier.
Beginning Monday, May 1, new residential customers who order AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet service online through www.att.com can purchase the Privacy+ Tier -- offering data to the NSA at speeds sometimes as slow as 56k. (other monthly charges and a 12-month term commitment apply). Effective today, the new Privacy+ Tier is available for $24.99, when it is ordered with a qualifying service bundle. Existing AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet customers can upgrade to the Privacy+ service through the company's Web site and take advantage of the current pricing promotion beginning Monday.
"Consumers are craving greater privacy, and now with the AT&T Privacy+ service, they can at least get the satisfaction that the government is going to get their private data at the slowest speeds possible; "Consumers could easily get more privacy from a company that doesn't offer the NSA a fat pipe right onto its backbone, but with the incredible amount of money that the government paid us for that pipe, we just couldn't pass it up. The new Privacy+ Tier, tips the scales back just a little bit in favor of the consumer," said Scott Helbing, chief marketing officer-AT&T Consumer.
Also effective Monday, May 1, the NSA can sign up for the new NSA Turbo-Speed Tier, which for an extra $28.95 per month, per customer, allows the government to override the newly created Privacy+ Tier. "The NSA is craving greater speed to American's private communications, and now with the NSA Turbo-Speed Tier, they can at least get the satisfaction that they can resume domestic spying at the highest speeds possible; "The NSA will be hard-pressed to find this speed at a better price, for a full 12 months, from one of our leading competitors," said Scott Helbing, chief marketing officer-AT&T Consumer.
AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet also announced that with the NSA paying an undisclosed, but very large amount of money for access to its backbone data, and with a higher than expected demand from consumers, that it has decided to ask popular web sites, such as Google and eBay to also pay a monthly fee to insure a speedy deliver of all consumer data to these web sites. In that regard, AT&T Yahoo introduced the new Extortion-racket Tier.
Also, in a move that is sure to stun Wall Street, AT&T has announced that they will soon enter the "garbage collection" business.
About the New AT&T
AT&T Inc. is one of the world's largest telecommunications holding companies and is the largest in the United States. Operating globally under the AT&T brand, AT&T companies are recognized as the leading worldwide providers of IP-based communications services to business and as leading U.S. providers of high-speed DSL Internet, local and long distance voice, and directory publishing and advertising services. AT&T Inc. holds a 60 percent ownership interest in Cingular Wireless, which is the No. 1 U.S. wireless services provider with 55.8 million wireless customers. Additional information about AT&T Inc. and AT&T products and services is available at www.att.com.
You will also be charged a monthly FUSF (Federal Un
Ron Paul
Large gorillas have filed civil suits for violations stemming from the use of the slang "800-pound gorilla" when referring to large businesses which dominate an industry. A spokesperson for the gorillas said, while this has been an issue for gorillas for a long time, that since AT&T provided the NSA with a backdoor to its backbone, that it is just too offensive to have the word gorilla and AT&T used in the same sentence. As the suit winds its way through the judicial system, the gorillas prefer people use the more appropriate metaphor for large corporations who violate American citizen's privacy rights on a grand scale, by referring to them as "800-pound penises."
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
Once that is done they pass additional laws (to shoot the other foot for equality).
Name a private Ponzi scheam that lasted for 70 years and is about to pop to the tune of billions? I can name a US government one. Can you? Other western governments have exactly the same problem, so it's clearly a problem with government in general.
How about the smaller handgun marketing act (they said it was about the number of rounds in the clip).
Or the poor folks family breakup act (called the great society when it was passed).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Not the same bill. RTFA.
Without regulations, a market is impossible.
Bullshit.
In most countries, states, cities, etc, there is not regulation on "black/grey market" goods. I'm talking about "taboo" things like good drugs, sex, you know, the things people want, and there is a market, no regulation and better than average quality control.
Cocaine in the US has not gone up in price in about 20 years. Marijuana has gone up in price, but so has the quality. Sex is always at market value.
What is the difference between a $1,000 hooker and a $50 hooker?
Well, depending on how you look at it, about $950.
I've been ripped off more times by "legitimate" sources than otherwise. The Sony rootkit is a perfect example.
The same is true for ISPs. It would take a while. Politially acceptable does'nt enter into it. It's a simple consumer choice.
Consumers don't know anything about MPEG compression. But would drop DirecTV for DishNetwork in a heartbeat if DirecTV was stupid enough to give the consumer an obvious reason. The same is true for Comcast/Bell/TW cable/Local wireless.
The telcos see a chance to make some money. They will have to have their hands burned in the market to learn this is a bad plan.
This law will be expensive to comply with. Protecting the incumbant players markets. In the end it will cost us all because the costs of compliance will prevent new players from entering the market.
This is a common way for incumbant players to setup new barriers to entry in their industry. Big corporations naturally become fat and bloated. Without the government protecting them up most would be taken apart by lean and mean small business every 100 years or so.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I read an article yesterday about the financial services lobby finally getting involved, as they've suddenly realised that tiered service could have an adverse effect on their customer service reputations. If customers are suddenly forced to pay extra to get a bank statement, or make an online payment, or have to accept slow service with their current internet service, this is going to impact on them in a horrible fashion. It's a shame, but the reality is that this will likely end up as a behemoth industry vs behemoth industry fight over our rights to reasonable service at a reasonable price. Sorry about the lack of a link, I'm having to look over my shoulder and risk a dressing down just to type this out - searching for the story would be too damn risky.
Found that link! Here it is
Anna Eshoo (one of the cosponsors of this bill) is the Representative for Google and Yahoo's district. I wouldn't underestimate their ability to fight for Network Neutrality and push this bill through. After all, I have heard that they have both made a decent amount of money recently...
Freedom -- particularly property freedom -- is a distinctly northern European concept that has very little to do with anything going on in the modern world.
Access, information, transactions, business ... those are things of value.
We all know we're not free in the absolutist or even libertarian sense of the word.
Our government exists to enable a standard of living. Thus why we build interstate highways, tax cigarettes, raise armies, build levees, etc.
Net Neutrality is no different.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
I've been ripped off more times by "legitimate" sources than otherwise.
Look for an Adam's apple if you're not sure.
I managed to find the bill number for those interested: H.R. 5273 (A bill to promote open broadband networks and innovation, foster electronic commerce, and safeguard consumer access to online content and services). I was also going to include the text here, but neither Thomas, nor LexisNexis has it yet.
So if the rule or principle is "this good is illegal to seek or posses" then regulating it is fairly straight forward.
A lot of states regulate marijuana sales. If you don't have a tax stamp for your weed, it's another charge added to the list. Selling it is still illegal, but your punishment isn't as harsh if you follow the regulations.
I hope you aren't going to talk about the lack of regulation in the stolen goods market.
P.S. The Supreme Court has heard a few precendent settings cases on whether or not Congress can ban trafficking in goods as part of their ability to regulate interstate commerce.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
What would happen if Congress tried to pass some Net Neutrality Law? Since there isn't any kind of ACTUAL problem now, I'm sure the bill would undoubtedly screw stuff up through the law of unintended consequences.
Congress would insert all kinds of special provisions that would benefit some group at the expense of others, all kinds of new technology would become illegal, and lawsuits would proliferate. Who knows what would happen, the point is that when congress acts on technology (eg. the DMCA) they are likely to create a huge mess and things better be PRETTY DAMN bad before Congress can do more good than harm.
Freedom for Citizens != Freedom for Corporations
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."
Pete Forsyth
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Attack on Web Neutrality
NEUTRAL OFFICIAL: "Your neutralness, it's a beige alert."
NEUTRAL LEADER: "If I don't survive, tell my wife: Hello."
don't forget the senate one has the broadcast flag attached to it.. which, knowing our hollywood puppets--- i mean congressional representatives--- would be the only thing to survive.. campaign against this bill in the senate.. say nothing in the house lest they tack the flag onto this one too -.-
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
seriously.. it's too much... i mean the DMCA, the refusal to audit the oil companies for their rediculous 50% profit margins, halliburton, the no bid contracts which were not honored properly in the face of katrina... the list goes on.. and somehow we manage to spend 500 billion dollars a year over budget for all this inaction and corporate welfare, which comes at serious civl or economic (or both) cost to us citizens.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
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.
I'm probably not as worried as I should be about this.
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.
Quit being lazy and read the fine print. In any case, ISPs do not advertise anything to the contrary of what they provide. It is your false assumption that your ISP is an all-you-can-eat buffet that is flawed. It is not, and they do not pretend otherwise. Actually, most buffets will push people out the door after a while. Heck, here in Japan it is formal, usually with a 90-minute limit.
Just like a buffet, ISPs reserve the right to nuke the 1% of abusers that screw the system for everyone else. They have every right to do this, thank God.
I do not worry about "net neutrality". If my ISP does things I do not like, I will find alternatives. In reality, the people that will get screwed in such a situation are those same 1% of abusers, whose shadowy websites will not / cannot pay for the fast lane. "Legit" sites used by normal people largely will, if they need them. Ultimately, prices for the consumer will come down due to this added source of revenue for the provider (although they will likely go up at the content end!).
"A market that is supposed to operate efficiently needs government regulation."
I don't have mod points so I will offer a supporting rant.
It could be argued that "regulating the market" is the main reason we have modern democracy. The Magna Carta took absolute power from the king and handed it to a group of merchants and bankers calling themselves "parliment", they claimed to be representative of "freemen" since members of parliment would be selected by a vote. They were able to take this power because together they financed the kingdom, without parliment the king would go broke and a more plyable king would be installed by force. The king did not dare take their money by force, the cream of merchants and bankers spread their risk by operating in competing kingdoms as they do to this day. Any king that took them on as a group was doomed to have waves of well financed invasions launced against him.
Not everybody got a vote, it was only for "freemen" (basically white-male landowners), but it was an improvement over an omnipotent king since power devolved from one weathy family to many wealthy individuals. Parliment made up rules that kept it's members reasonably peacefull with each other, everyone else was fair game and many rules were made by parliment to maintain the power/social divide between freemen and "others" who worked their land for food and and a place to sleep (ie:"others" = economic and traditional style slaves).
Other documents since the Magna Carta have attempted to devolve power to "the people", the US constitution is the best known example. Over the years power has devolved so that most of the population now gets an opportunity to vote. Problem is, we are still voting for "merchants and bankers" and (mostly) they still make rules that benifit themselves at the expense of everyone else.
I think it is admirable to be skeptical of government regulations, but to reject any and all regulation as "interference" is so stupid it has a name, anarchy. This particular rule appears to be an example of "the people" setting a rule that can be shown to benifit all. In this case the "benifit to all" is the attempt to maintain the status-quo of a global infrastruture against an artificial toll that benifits members of a key cartel at the expense of all other parties. If that is not "what government is about", then now is a good time to grab a pitchfork and change it.
The only exceptions I can think of for not making "rules that benifit all" are: rules that create "victims" where none existed (eg: adult drug use) and rules that are inherently uneforcable (eg: adult drug use).
Having said all that, anyone who belives a non-trivial set of rules can be made consistent must first answer to Godel.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I'm registered as a Democrat, but have you already forgotten who signed the DMCA into law? I don't think we can rely on either major party to keep our internet free.
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
He's the most tech savvy and consumer friendly representative in Congress today.
I'm in favor of net neutrality, but I wonder if the bill will prevent ISP's from using firewall rules to block the worm-du-jour.
What can and can't be blocked? exploit attempts? worms? botnets? seti-at-home? yahoo searches?
Would we have a more worm-laden internet if ISP's couldn't block any traffic?
Some things need to be regulated, particularly resources which are vitally important to everyone. The Internet has had a profound impact on the entire World and has quickly become integral to the World economy. The U.S. economy is the one most deeply connected to the Internet, but changes to the way the Internet works will affect hundreds of millions, if not billions of people.
The reason this regulation is necessary is that a small handful of telecommunication companies have decided to take advantage of the near monopoly they have over the Internet. They plan to charge different rates depending on the content you wish to access. This is like charging you a different toll on the highway depending on whether you are going to McDonald's or Macy's.
Packets are packets. What services you use on the Internet in no way change the cost for providing access from the point of view of the telecom. The only business reason to make this change is to squeeze more money out of either the consumers or sites like Google. (Ultimately we'll pay, regardless.)
This isn't a case where the "free market" will work things out. These companies have already made the decision not to compete against each other on this issue, even if they haven't all announced it. Why should they? If they all work together, it's free money for all of them.
If these telecoms are successful, they'll be able to set the prices on content all across the Internet. You'll pay more for any content that isn't provided by the telecoms, meaning that it might cost more to use Google than to use Yahoo! (This is just an example.) It will put enormous power in the hands of just a few people.
Imagine what happens to politics. It might suddenly become more expensive to access sites that criticize the telecoms or their favorite political party.
There will be pressure to make it more expensive to access porn sites. Then it will be any art site that has any nudity.
I'm sure you can think of other examples.
The only way to deal with this is with government regulation. Since our government seems to have given up on enforcing monopoly laws, some of our law makers are doing what they can to try to keep the Internet as free as possible. I commend them.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
I am not a big fan of legislation
Isn't this like saying "I'm not a fan of stuff?" I mean, nobody is going to throw a party for some Senate rules bill, but who can criticize the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956? There's good legislation and there's bad legislation. Let's not attack abstract categories, hey? The Feds already do enough of that (e.g. terrorism, drugs).// This is not a sig.
Let's think about what Verizon did when Harrisburg wanted to put up a muni-WiFi. They ran straight to the state congress and got new regulations passed to protect their monopoly.
These guys spend so much lobbying for regulation to protect their business and now you want to hold them up as being the protectors of free markets?
You've got to be kidding.
One of two entities can control what the government does, but regardless the government will determine what is done on the Internet. If you as the individual do nothing and ask your government to do nothing (in the service of "freedom" or whatever it is you think you're supporting) you will cede control to the other power center of our system, money and its associated interests. They will then determine what the government will do, and it will definitely not be in your interests. Regardless, this power will be wielded through government. You can either choose to voice your concerns through that government or cynically pretend that it can't or shouldn't be done and let someone else have control.
My book, podcast
Phone and cable systems are natural monoplies. There would be monopolies in that market without government interference due to the very high cost of entry into that market. We need government legislation to protect us from market failures. This is simple and well understood mainstream economic theory.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'm not making an argument for the other side. It's actually an example to demonstrate that free markets DO NOT WORK WITHOUT PERFECT INFORMATION. When the consumer is ignorant about something the free market doesn't work. The fundamentals of network topology and traffic shaping are beyond most of the public. That's why the legislation is necessary. You are letting one group of people who do understand protect those who do not. That's why you have an FDA to regulate what is safe in food and drugs. You don't suggest that pharmaceutical companies release whatever drug they wish and rely on people to stay away from it after others are dropping dead do you? You don't advocate dismantling the FAA and letting planes fly wherever they want whenever they want so that the market can decide which airline is best at not running into other planes, do you? Why would you suggest such a thing when it comes to something equally technical?
every post on slashdot, that is for sure. The poster does not back up their claims with facts anyway.