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.
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 think the real problem is that some ISPs want to sell "Internet connections" while giving their customers old-style AOL gated network services. There's a word for taking someone's money for a service, and giving them something different in return: fraud.
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.
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
Government legislated control of Internet traffic management is the exact opposite of most any definition of "free".
These companies were granted the rights to lay cable on public land via legislation in the first place.
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
"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.
Call, Fax or write each of the sponser, tell them you like the bill.
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Good god, could this be...a non-corrupt method of lobbying?
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.
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?
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?
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Without pressure from constituents, it is even less likely that a bill will ever reach the floor.
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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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?
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.
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.
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!!
Hear hear, the same goes for people that want to sell you "Internet Service" which doesn't allow you to run servers or use port 25
.... but he'll pay.
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.