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.

Comments

Won't make it out of committee

[Thanatopsis]

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.

Re:Won't make it out of committee

[daeg]

I've made it clear to all of my federal representatives that this is my deciding factor in their vote. I do not like voting on one issue alone, but this is one that I would. I also made it very, very clear that I will make a very, very big deal out if this if they do not support it. Working in mass media has its perks.

And yes, we are biased. Our demographic likes our bias. So piss off about that.

This is what laws are _supposed_ to do.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Legislation != Free

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Don't miss the comparison...

[QuaintRealist]

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...

The system

[gerrysteele]

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.

Re:The system

[geekoid]

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.

Re:The system

[Xiroth]

Heh, interesting idea. Maybe you guys need metaparties - parties which don't actually run for anything, but are able to say "We represent an association of x voters, and if you want us to recommend they vote for you then you should do y."

Good god, could this be...a non-corrupt method of lobbying?

Re:The system

[Phanatic1a]

Call, Fax or write each of the sponser, tell them you like the bill.

Dear Lord, don't do that. Tell them you hate it. snuck the Broadcast Flag into it.

Screw that. Tell your Congressmen to support net neutrality and to fight against the broadcast flag.

Grammar nazi!

[xoran99]

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 would like to point out that every sentence should have a verb. Except maybe this one.

Re:Legislation != Free

[d34thm0nk3y]

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.

absurd

[penguin-collective]

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.

Re:absurd

[ScentCone]

Government legislated control of Internet traffic management is exactly what it means for our government to keep us free.

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:absurd

[penguin-collective]

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.

Quite to the contrary: many business practices (including various pricing, contractual, and distribution strategies) have the goal of establishing monopolies. In order to keep the market free and efficient, those practices need to be regulated.

Now, the term "free market" is used by some to refer to a market "free from government control", but that's a misleading use of the term, because the same people still incorrectly suggest (and often believe) that that's the kind of market people like Adam Smith were talking about. But for Adam Smith's invisible hand to function, markets need a specific structure; within that structure, there are certain freedoms, primarily the freedom to set prices, but not others, like the freedom to monopolize. A market that is supposed to operate efficiently needs government regulation, all that libertarian hot air notwithstanding.

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.

When you leave government out of those transactions, you get monopolies that are even worse. Leaving aside Microsoft for the moment, just look at what happened with monopolization in the railroad, oil, and telephone industries in the past--those were all excesses of unregulate markets involving new technologies, and consumer outrage finally brought them under government control.

Government sucks and makes many mistakes, but lack of government sucks even more.

Re:absurd

[Fred_A]

To add to your well argued reply, this "free market" our US friends are so fond of is a model.

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 :

• honesty of the parties involved (yeah, right)
  
• perfect information of all the parties (sure)
  
• no outside interference (hah ha)
  

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.

Re:absurd

[ScentCone]

If Private Company X can get an internet connection to someone's door without going through public space once, then they can do whatever they want. Unfortunately AFAIK they currently can't.

Nonsense. Using a public right of way as part of your business has nothing to do with your pricing. Do you drive on public roads while commuting to work? Should a company that uses public roads while delivering a mail-order shipment to you suddenly be subject to government-approved pricing models for every transaction, or not be allowed to offer discounts to customers that do more business with them?

Re:absurd

[TheJediGeek]

Here's a news flash for you. YOUR situation is the exception, not the rule. For millions of people, they're lucky to have a choice between the phone company and the cable company. Many people can only get one of those. I don't know where you live to have that many options for broadband, but it's really unusual.

Most people really have the phone company and/or the cable company to provide broadband access. Personally, I can only use Comcast for broadband. The phone company DSL service stops a block away. No one else can provide copper wire or coax to me for other options.

All this talk agains this kind of regulation is well and good if people had choices for broadband providers, but the reality is that most people have few to no choices.

Re:Legislation != Free

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a pretty childish view when you know that the major telecommunication carriers (that through collusion can completely control the Internet themselves, any customers be damned) are intent on charging different rates to different websites on the Internet to provide or not provide certain quality of service (bandwidth). In what way do you believe this fundamental change to the Internet will be beneficial, other than to allow those with more money the ability to get their message out on the Internet better than those with less money?

Democrats again

[unity100]

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.

Re:Democrats again

[stinerman]

While I'd like to agree with you, that statement is essentially bullshit. There are a few Democrats who have signed on as sponsors, but I'm reasonably sure that less than half of congressional Democrats would vote for the bill. Telcos, like Hollywood, give generously to both sides of the aisle.

Re:Great but...

[sexyrexy]

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?

Same reason your girlfriend looks great when she's trying to get you but then she gets fat when you're "committed".

Wait, slashdot... ok, bad analogy. TCP/IP, Something about a linux distro... ha ha!

governmental interference

[wall0159]

"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.

Re:governmental interference

[jmorris42]

> 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.

No we don't. We need a government to do the job it was tasked with. That means a Federal Givernment about 10-20% of it's present size.

> Look at Microsoft, or AT&T.

Yes, look at them. Both are monopolies which were mostly CREATED by the government. AT&T was explicitly given a government monopoy grant because it was believed (perhaps with some merit) that only a single monopoly could solve the problem of the chaos that existed at the time with dozens of phone companies none of which could interoperate with the others.

The whole present problem has a very simple solution, which is why no politician will consider it. (solve the problem permanently and you lose the 'campaign contributions' from both sides every couple of years as you pass band-aid fixes, much like what would happen to Microsoft if they ever published a version of Windows that 'just worked'.)

The problem is the government. Specifically their grants of monopoly to the telcos and cable companies. Even if we could say it was a bad idea to do it it is now done, they have billions of plant & equipment which was subsidized by the power of the State so a level playing field can't exist. But there is a solution. The AT&T breakup was stupid, as all should now realize, because it didn't attack the problem; the government subsidized monopolies on the local loops. So force the phone company into one more government mandated reorg. Company A gets the local loops and the monopoly that goes with them. They (and the Public service commissions in each state) set a rate for a loop but can't so much as run a current through one other than for testing. They don't charge the subscriber, they charge carriers. Company B is that part of their current business. So long as they buy at the same rate as any other carrier they (and the other carriers) would be 100% free of ALL government interferrence. Not subject to public service commissions, the FCC or Congress.

As for your example of Microsoft, notice that the Government couldn't fix that problem. And no it wasn't Bush's fault. The case had pretty much collapsed by election day 2000. David Bois (of SCO fame) had already managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory months before Bush & Ashcroft were in office. And if Microsoft is going to be dislodged it will be by the Free Software movement, not some farcical court case. And anyway, Microsoft derives most of their power from the government. Office is the government standard, which pretty much forces anyone doing business (and nowadays that is almost everyone, the government's tentacles are everywhere) with the government to run Office which pretty much means Windows. And it is the government Copyright monopoly, DMCA and other crap that makes anyone afraid of cloning Windows.

This farce of a network neutrality bill will solve nothing and almost certainly make matters worse. Watch how many evil things slither in with it even if it passes. And if we allow the government to start regulating how ISPs run their network I can promise you it won't stop where you guys supporting this idea would like it to.

Just wait. No, you can't throttle VoIP traffic..... so long as it is unencrypted and the long distance tariffs are being paid. No you can't throttle traffic.... unless it is P2P and the RIAA doesn't like it.. oh wait they don't like ANY of it so block it. No you can't block VPN traffic..... well ok you can require 'business grade service'. And once the regulation genie is out of the bottle just wait until the state public service commissions get into it. If you think Congress is clueless just wait until the REAL idiots start micromanaging the infrastructure.

Re:governmental interference

[jimhill]

"As for your example of Microsoft, notice that the Government couldn't fix that problem. And no it wasn't Bush's fault. The case had pretty much collapsed by election day 2000. David Bois (of SCO fame) had already managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory months before Bush & Ashcroft were in office. "

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.

Wait until the bill reaches the floor

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wait until the bill reaches the floor

[Red Flayer]

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.

Indeed. BTW Boucher's got some integrity

[chub_mackerel]

If we want an economy that even approximates a 'free-market', then we need legislation.

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.

You're an "it" getter

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

Re:Network "neutrality" is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

So you've seen no evidence of any wireless provider disallowing SMS messages to another, right?

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.

Not just content provider neutrality is at stake

[WatchTheTramCarPleas]

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

Net Neutrality Bill Includes Broadcast Flag...

[GreenPlastikMan]

Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska (R), tries to sneak in the Broadcast Flag again.

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)

Keep Legislators Accountable

[ncfoster]

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.

Re:Network "neutrality" is bad

[blincoln]

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?

Re:Not just content provider neutrality is at stak

[RickPartin]

I remember dying from laughter when commercials were proclaiming Intel processors made the internet faster. Now they could actually pull it off.

Re:True Net Neutrality - Wireless

[frosty_tsm]

If not the ethernet into your home or office, they will control the wireless access points.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Legislation != Free

[iminplaya]

Fraudulent "internet service providers" should be sued, civilly and/or criminally, and shut down.

Look. If they don't lie, how do you expect them to get any customers? Do you expect a politician who doesn't lie to actually win an election? Of course not. You might hope for that, but you know it won't happen. We are definitely a masochistic society. We like being hurt and lied to. We crave it. And then we come back and ask for more. Metaphorically, we are very kinky(or maybe not so metaphorically). And we'll react very negatively to anybody who would try to tell us that the whore stole our wallets. Another good example of an industry that lives on lies is the cell phone business. They promised secure, private connections. How? By providing secure encryption? Nope. They had the feds instigate a prohibition on full band scanners. And we liked it! "Please sir, can I have another?"

AT&T on Net neutrality & it's new Tier opt

[usurper_ii]

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

And in related news

[usurper_ii]

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

Re:Wont happen

[zymano]

It's not a free market. They intentionally created bottlenecks.

I love capitalism. Is the oil industry a free market ? NO.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/gas-prices.htm

Re:Knee, meet jerk.

[I(rispee_I(reme]

I think it's actually the definition of anarchy, which means you're arguing in circles.

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.

Re:Network "neutrality" is bad

[pavera]

You are obviously an idiot. SBC/ATT, Verizon, and Qwest control the internet pipes.. I don't care if you use MaPa DSL, or have a Covad T1, try doing a traceroute to some sites sometime (ibm.com, microsoft.com, google.com, yahoo.com, myspace.com, vonage.com) I have comcast cable (only because its the only high speed option I have), from home accessing any one of those sites crosses one of those ILEC networks somewhere. If they are allowed to do "whatever" they want, each of those sites will have to go negotiate independent contracts with each of the telco providers just so that you can access them. At my office I have a local DSL ISP. Same thing, you cannot access sites on the internet without crossing the ILEC networks. It is not possible. Therefore anything that allows them to do anything like what they are proposing breaks the entire internet.

Re:Broadcast Flag?

[Dachannien]

This is a different bill than the 130+ page monstrosity that Ted Stevens introduced. In fact, TFA notes that this bill is an alternative being introduced a day after Stevens and Inouye brought their telecom bill to the committee.

I'm pretty sure Boucher would never sponsor a bill that included the broadcast flag.

First time I've rooted for the banking lobbyists

[svunt]

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.

Re:First time I've rooted for the banking lobbyist

[svunt]

Found that link! Here it is

Re:Legislation != Free

[eric76]

That may work in the big cities where you have multiple companies with independent network connections.

But in small towns and rural areas, there may be multiple ISPs, but their internet connections all run through the same connection, usually owned by the telephone company. There is no route around the telephone company in such cases.

Freedom for Citizens != Freedom for Corporations

[peteforsyth]

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."

In addition, the broadcast flag on the senate one

[plasmacutter]

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 -.-

Um... Contract Law?

[Geof]

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.

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?

[david_bonn]

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.

Re:Legislation != Free

[Gorshkov]

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

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 .... but he'll pay.

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.

Re:Legislation != Free

[Gorshkov]

But Cable TV content is produced at great expense by companies that expect recompense. The internet is composed largely of user contributions. Blocking off ports is just a way of producing an artificial scarcity.

No, actually, it's not, and on a couple of points.

First, there's the old saw that says "Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose"

That is exactly what the ISP is doing - stopping you from hitting MY nose, just because somebody wants to play with an email server. If you want to play, you can always set it up on an alternative port and play till you're heart's content. But in the meantime, the 3,000 viruses/rootkits/zombie loads that your roommate/wife/son managed to infect your computer with won't be sending me any more offers for breast enlargement cream.

The *other* point is that it's simply a matter of differentiating between product offerings. Your cable TV is capable of delivering 200 stations. But do you bitch at the difference between basic cable, the "movie" pack, the "sports" pack, and the "adult" packs that you have to pay extra for? Of course not - it's an extra service, and to get it, you cough up more coin. That's the way markets work.

So just because port 25 happens to be there, why is it any different if your ISP charges you extra (requiring you to pay business rates, for a business account) for something that NO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL NEEDS, and actually increases the expences for the ISP in question? (monitoring, getitng themselves removed form blacklists becase of some jerk who really *can't* figure out sendmail.cf, and dealing with the increased supports costs from OTHER users, bitching because all their mail gets bounced)?

There is no freedom without responsibility - I'm pretty sure that you guys fought a little war about that a few hundred years ago.

Since individual users ("the great unwashed") can't/won't/aren't capable of being responsible for their own systems - keeping them clean, etc - the ISP has to do it.

So deal with it. Not everything in the world comes down to a bad interpretation of Adam Smith's writings.