Slashdot Mirror
House Committee Approves 'Net Neutrality' Bill
An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the US House Judiciary Committee approved a bill yesterday that will prevent broadband providers from charging extra fees to websites for delivering their content to users." Ars's response is only guarded optimism, unfortunately. From the article: "The fate of the bill is not clear, as there are now two competing bills vying for the attention of the House floor. HR 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act, was overseen by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and is expected to be considered by full House. That bill is seen by some proponents of 'Net neutrality as being too weak, particularly after a Committee vote tossed aside an amendment put forth by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have enshrined the principle of network neutrality into US law. There is speculation that today's bill, HR 5417, could be proposed as an amendment to HR 5252."
I for one am pleased with this bill. Net Neutrality is a very sensitive matter and this is exactly what needed to be done. I offer my thanks to all those that wrote their congressmen and urged them to consider the ramifications of such a law. This indeed will help maintain the Internet as it was meant to be and prevent the Teleco's from making even more money with their sometimes highly expensive services.
on another link spilling this news over on Daily Tech that reads and i quote. [quote] Interestingly, the members of the committee that supported the bill said that they voted for the bill because existing competition to another bill that was already approved by a different committee. The decision to support the current bill they said, had nothing to do with actual concerns on the future of the Internet and what net neutrality is all about. [/quote]
existing competition? what competition? if they arent going to decided on these important issues then why the hell are they there in the first place? 3rd rate politics all the way will always reign until someone with some balls and backbone will let their common sense be heard and voted on, rather than dancing around the issue.
Do you mean that under USC 31337 (1)(a)(c)(e) subsection (a)(g) which was superceded by USC 1337 (a)(s)(s) following the guidelines of pork barrel contributors to the aforementioned parties in limine to carrying forth judgement on this matter that someone has to play fairly? Well that makes a lot of sense now doesn't it. However, how long till lobbyists grease up the right pockets and allow the big boys to do as they always do... Monopolize. Strangely I just thought about AT&T's semi new VoIP offering... Aren't they cutting their own throats by offering an all inclusive $49.99 service (local and long distance svce)? I mean after all, if they didn't they would have to charge an average of about $60.00 per month per customer for LD only... I guess its better for them to shoo away companies like Vonage and keep all the money for themselves. Blah to Skype and purveyors of things big companies can't cash in on (sarcasm ... you know ;O)
Infiltrated dot Net
If Telco's really need more money (as they claim) to pay for the infrastructure they are maintaining (and expanding), they can always use (non-discriminatory) a pay-per-byte billing scheme instead of pay-per-byte-value.
Countdown to random Internet Libertarian telling us all how this is a horrible infringement on private enterprise in five, four, three, two...
Seriously, though, this is great. The Internet doesn't need to be run on a Mafia-style extortion plan, and it works best, in fact, when it doesn't. This is one of those times when government can do something right.
How is Net Neutrality related to stopping a DDoS attack?
We all sit here and sigh with relief that the law is being used to ensure our beloved internet remains net-neutral, and yet - do we really understand the issues or just have a superfical knowledge from the media and fear based upon that?
And do we properly understand the consequences of State involement in this issue?
We applaud, from our fear, that the State will step in and ensure the net is kept neutral.
What we do we do if the State later steps in - as it will, now it has begun - and enacts bills which we detest and shudder at?
In both cases - those we applaude and those we detest - the choice has been taken out of our hands, the decision has been made by the State and will so be the same for everyone.
The solution to these matters lies properly in our own hands.
If you object, GET OUT THERE AND DO SOMETHING.
Make sure people know - convince them not to buy from a net-biased provider.
Those who care about it will have the choice to buy from someone else - they have what they want. Those who don't care can buy from who they like - they have what they want.
Don't use or applaud the use of the State to achieve your own ends and impose them upon everyone, because it will come back to bite you when the State is used to impose upon YOU.
Let people make their own individual choices with the money they pay.
it may be. IT/Net crowd should push the law people to see things the right way. Google, microsoft, ibm, and others should spend money to get support in the congress, just like the telcos do. This is the only way.
Read radical news here
The telecoms have resorted to blatantly socialist rhetoric lately. Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are "da Man" who is trying to keep the people down by "making them pay the whole bill."
WTF?! Google, Microsoft and Yahoo probably pay more per month than all broadband users in the US combined for their bandwidth. The telecoms are just trying to avoid an ugly truth: $15 DSL that is 50% the speed of a several hundred dollar T1 is not a viable business. What we need is metered bandwidth.
Metered bandwidth would be good for several reasons. First of all, it would in the long run reduce the cost of providing extremely fast service to most people because they don't use that much bandwidth. Most broadband users could easily get by on 5GB/month for $10-$15, then $0.25-$0.50/GB downstream after that. Second, it would provide a financial disincentive for people to use file sharing software for illegal reasons, thus providing the "social solution" to the "social problem" of how to handle mass copyright infringement without DRM or legislation. Third, it would distribute the costs of funding network development fairly.
If 1% of a broadband service's users are using up to 40% of the bandwidth (which Comcast has said is their problem), that's a lot of people paying to subsidize the costs of 1% enjoying the "full benefits" of the network. Why shouldn't that 1% pay for downloading 50GB,100GB (or in one guy's case, 600GB) of data?
I don't want to subsidize the infrastructure with my taxes anymore, and I don't want to pay the same rate for my ~5GB-10GB/month of bandwidth use as someone who uses 100GB+. I also don't want the government telling private businesses that they cannot reserve part of their networks for their own services. As long as they are providing you with the QoS that they advertise and contractually agree to provide you, why do you care if Verizon keeps 80% of the network for their IP TV service? If we get up to 10mbps as the standard rate, and they keep 40mbps for themselves, is that 10mbps any slower? Of course not. Your piece of the pie just keeps becoming more and more in real numbers as their network expands.
Check out Savetheinternet.com.
Grass roots campaign for the Net Neutrality bill. They have been helping out by giving information to people on how to contact their reps and so on.
Heck even Moby supports them.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Your pay per byte scheme will never fly. Would you be willing to pay for bytes transferred per say, Windows Updates? How about if you were running a small business with 100 machines? Let Machines = M Updates (in megabytes) = U T = Times a Month: 100M x 5U x 4T ... Would you like to pay for Microsoft's additional bandwidth use? What about companies sending java ads, etc. The pay per byte would definitely not fly. As for companies acting under the guise of needing infrastructure work, I say have them justify the expenditures before trying to pass it off to the consumer.
Infiltrated dot Net
I predict this leads to wider adoption of usage caps and bandwidth charges on broadband services. If they can't charge the site owners, they'll start charging the users.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
The next time you get surprised by Congress' tone deafness, remember that they can get all worked up about a colleage getting raided, but not about a 80 year old couple getting raided under obviously horrendously false pretenses. They don't care about serving the public. Their approval ratings, both parties, are starting to approach single digits. If there was ever a time that it should be obvious that we live under the rule of an unaccountable, bifactional ruling party it would be now.
http://www.handsoff.org/ is the website for the supporters of Net Neutrality.
Personally, I prefer SaveTheInternet. But you can't really understand your own position without knowing your opponent's.
But doesn't it interfere with the right of the telecoms to charge what they want, restrained by what the market will bear? It seems like enforced net neutrality is a restriction of private capital and therefore (in libertarian philosophy) of liberty.
...Wikipedia Link
Basically it says that the Telcos can write their own rules and the rest of us can eat shit.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
Think about it for a minute, using the last 5-10 years of computer related news as mental fuel.
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
It seems to work as follows: for your monthly fee you get a download limit of say 3 Gb. a month. If you exceed this limit occasionally and by a small amout, your ISP will feel that it costs them more to send you an extra invoice than they could charge you. Try to download 30 GB. in a month and you will find your connection suspended:
(a) for the time it takes for your average use to drop below 3 Gb. a month or
(b) until you agree to pay for an enhanced subscription or even to pay per Gb.
In this way customers can cheerfully download Windows updates, or even the occasional Linux distribution without extra charge. Try to turn your PC into a TV however by downloading streamed videos all day (which is what the Telco's seem to be worried about), and you'll be asked to pay. This sounds fair and reasonable to me. And besides, all of this can be implemented using today's technologies, and it's very (cost) efficient from the ISP's point of view.
Companies being profit maximisers they will always try to charge you the most, but that's what a market is all about. That doesn't worry me, as long as there is competition. For Verizon e.g. the subscription varies by your maximum upload and download speed. The only thing they need to to is to introduce this system of banded download limits. If the Telco's really do need the extra cash to build and maintain the net infrastructure then this is how they might do it.
I'm not against paying for the bandwidth I consume, what I am against is having Telco's create a tiered Internet and charge according to the sender, the value and/or the content rather than the amount of information people are sending across their pipes.
The inability to "block impair, discriminate or interfere with anyone's services or applications or content," makes the following illegal:
- QoS
- NAT
- Virus Scanning
- Spam filtering
- Traffic Shaping
- Pop-up blocking
- Port Blocking
This means the traffic on the Internet will now be even more dominated by malware and scumbags then ever before. This is a good thing?
----- Refactoring is the reason why man does not mistake himself for a god.
Because when I think "things that are efficient and unbiased", I think "US government regulations".
I'd wager that of those 36%, a smaller number are actually reasonably informed about who they're voting for.
Hooray Apathy!
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
You are the one who doesn't understand Libertarianism. Here is the party platform on monopolies. You can't just go redefining Libertarianism to mean whatever you want it to mean. That is one of my big beefs with Libertarians, whenever you call them on an issue, they waffle and say, "Oh, but that's not what we believe!" Either you are a Libertarian according to what the Libertarian party says, or you are a roll-your-own Anarcho-capitalist, and I would have a lot more respect for you if you would just call yourself that instead of co-opting a word that already has a defined meaning counter to what you profess to believe.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Every time Congress passes a cable TV bill, the price goes up. The same will be true of the internet.
I agree. So maybe the government should concern itself with increasing choice for consumers instead of putting additional restrictions on broadband providers.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Only the super-user may use this option [-f] with zero interval.
Do libraries now allow bullies super-user access? Or does Windows permit ping -f with zero interval for regular users?
This guy is why many paleoconservatives will never jump on the Libertarian bandwagon.
The situation for home users is slightly different, but the same principles apply. If you live in any relatively urban part of the US you will have at least two if not more choices for Internet access. If some or both providers try to charge extra or degrade your service then the providers need to offer some compelling reason to stick with them or another competitor will take your business. If you happen live in a rural area that can only support one service provider, then you've made your choice by living there.
Where one lives is often not a matter of choice. Even then, the people out in the boonies paid for the copper infrastructure just like everyone else and deserve to have access to the same services that those that happen to live in urban areas do.
In very simple terms our friend basically is saying "Look, the market will work if you live in an area where there is competition. If you don't, well then, screw you because bowing before the almighty power of free markets is more important than you getting any help from Uncle Sam to enforce competition."
These people are what I like to call "BSD libertarians". They believe that markets should always be left to their own devices at any cost. If these people had run the government, most of the great plains region would still not have regular telephone service (POTS). By definition, there is no such thing as a market failure to them. The market never fails. Conversely, the "GPL libertarians" understand that to have a free market, government intervention is sometimes required. This may often come as monopoly busting or net neutrality legislation.
Using the copyright/copyleft analogy:
Assuming the goal is liberalized markets, the BSD libertarians don't seem to get that government power can be used as a way to make markets more open. The GPL libertarians do. Of course, the BSD libertarians will always give the GPL libertarians shit because GPL libertarianism isn't "truely free" because it uses state power to open up markets, but it ends up furthering the goal much better than no legislation at all.
*To avoid a BSD/GPL flamewar, I believe that GPL licensing and BSD licensing have their own niche for specific types of code and the goals of the author.
As of now, both bills have cleared committee and are now ready to be put to a floor vote. The Speaker of the House decides which bills go to a vote. When the bill is passed (or voted down, although this isn't likely because the Speaker usually only brings bills to the floor when he knows they will pass) it then goes to the Senate. If the Senate passes the exact same bill (doesn't attach any amendments) it is cleared for the President. If additional amendments are attached, the bill goes to conference and is worked on by representatives from both the House and the Senate. That new bill is then voted on again by each house and is then cleared for the President if it passes.
I have a feeling this bill won't be brought to the floor anytime soon, but there is a chance. I'm a pessimist by nature, though, so take my words with the requisite amount of salt.
H.R. 5252 actually does that.
It forbids states from outlawing publicly-run ISPs, cable TV services, or telecommunications services, which means that all those municipal wifi projects that states (read: cable and phone company lobbyists) keep trying to shut down will be able to live in peace. It also orders studies on broadband-over-power-line interference issues as well as the possibility of constructing a "seamlessly mobile" internet service.
It also enacts national cable franchising, which would potentially provide consumers with more choice in their cable TV and/or broadband service. The section governing that is pretty big, though, so I currently can't make a judgment as to whether that part of the bill is good or bad.
For the status and full text of the bills, and tracking via RSS and email updates:
H.R. 5417: Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006
H.R. 5252: Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006
This bill and bills like it are a horrible idea. The power and success of the Internet is that it's lightly regulated and robustly competitive, especially for hosting services
Hosting, yes, but not isps. Lets see what my choice for broadband is: Comcast or Satellite. Wow, that is extremely competitive.
I have to use Comcast, as satellite is throttled to the point of being useless. All the sattelite providers I've seen have a "fair access policy". With that you can't download more than 169megs in a four hour period, at which point your connection is throttled to dialup speed. Forget about streaming audio or video. Forget about downloading a Linux ISO. Forget about being able to update Fedora. If I have to bother with throttleing my downloads or scheduling them, then fuck it. I'll do it with dialup and save the extra $80/mo.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
and which bill has the broadcast flag tacked on it again?
does it matter?
if this passes both house and either of them have this amendment on it kiss TV neutrality goodbye.
all you net neutrality people need to take a step back and put things in perspective, exactly how much is it worth? is it worth drming the living bejesus out of every device capable of receiving tv(e.g. the computers you use to access said "neutral" internet)?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
In other words, QoS and the like is still allowed, it just has to be fair. You can't give one company (or one P2P network) higher QoS than another.
That statement in the article is, in-fact accurate, and further reading reveals that you're completely wrong about the rest of your assertions as well...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
HR 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act, was overseen by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and is expected to be considered by full House.
Forget writing your senators, direct those letters to Bob Saget and John Stamos instead.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Why not call yourselves Anarcho-Capitalists? Libertarian, to me anyway, means a supporter of the Libertarian Party. If I say Libertarian, how does one know what I'm refering to? It could mean almost anything, and that fuzziness lets Libertarians get away with a lot. Anytime you complain about some silly part of Libertarian philosophy, your average Libertarian just says, "Oh, I'm not that kind of Libertarian." The word as you propose to use it is meaningless.
Personally, I think every type you mention, including Libertarian, falls under the Anarcho-Capitalist banner, but people really don't want to call themselves that because it invokes the bomb throwing, mob rule sterotype of Anarchism and the hard-assed, "I have mine, screw the poor" image of capitalism. But it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Libertarian, on the other hand, sounds like Liberty, and who doesn't like that?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Ok,
I am against this bill to the very core since the internet takes up all my non-vital living functions but would this really mean there are no solutions. Could this bill encourage the large companies to provide a different solution. Let's look into the ways this bill could potentially help.
Imagine this! Microsoft and Google team together (GASP) to form a free internet service for anybody. It could be packaged into ie and firefox so that they can automatically establish a software dsl using your phone line or in the future (wifi/wimax) as the medium. Then they can call this great network or something ubiquitous like SkyNet. Also since they control the bandwith now they can also control what sites you go to and what kind of searches you can execute.
They can write off these expenses because these customers are much more valuable than a regular customer since their internet view is solely controlled by what the company wants them to see. I mean what if you could force a customer to only do online shopping through msn shopping(shudders).
Hmm this seems to be like it could be a very promising solution for both. It could be the start of a new era in computing. You could coin a term like access community and you could even trade people between access communities. Hey my dad surfs as part of the MicroGoo network and I am in the AmazEbay network. Can I trade my geeky linux friend to the MicroGoo community for my dad?
The capitalist business models are unlimited
Hmm can you see the possibilities
Software Defined RFID - The Rifidi Emulator
This bill and bills like it are a horrible idea. The power and success of the Internet is that it's lightly regulated and robustly competitive, especially for hosting services.
The internet's success comes from the fact that network operators are given special privileges to act like common carriers and with it are required to act as impartial carriers of data. They are now trying to form a cartel and bypass that requirement of impartiality.
If some ISP wants to charge extra or restrict access to some Internet application how do you think their customers will behave?
Given that their customers are other network carriers in this instance who want to do the same thing to gouge money from the successful, I suspect they'll agree to collude and form a cartel.
Either way the individual customers and overall market should decide prices and services NOT the Federal Government.
The federal government should not decide prices, but if network operators want all of the privileges afforded to common carriers, they should have to impartially carry data like common carriers, not charge extra for not intentionally slowing things down for people who aren't even their direct customers.
An analogy might be, what if the law said only one package shipping companies could operate in a given geographic region, to avoid confusion (only one phone and one cable company is given access to the last mile public right of ways in most places). So one company took over for each state. All fine and good. They agree to impartially carry the packages in return for immunity to prosecution for accidentally transporting drugs or guns or child porn, since they just move anything without looking. They all agree to carry one another's packages, some paying the other a small fee, but basically it all working out. Then the company in California decides, hey, why don't we make sure packages coming from Ford motors are delayed in our shipping room an extra week unless they pay us an additional fee. Its not like they can stop using us, we're 18 customers away from them. The market can't respond effectively through so many intermediaries. They are no longer behaving impartially, so why shouldn't they be held accountable for what they are shipping? And what about the other shippers? Will they cancel their relationships with this one, or will they make a deal and all start doing the same as a way to get more money? My bet is the latter.
I'm all for the free market working things out, but this is nowhere near a free market situation at this point. When anyone can string up lines on the telephone poles and run wires to all the houses, then we'll be getting close. Most end users have no choice, or very little choice. They can go with the monopoly cable company or the monopoly phone company, both of whom only bundle their service with their other service. Hell, it is cheaper for me to buy cable TV + cable internet than it is to just buy cable internet. That doesn't exactly sound like something the free market would produce?
If you want the Feds to give everyone the same access everywhere and for the same price (such as was done with phone, mail, and electrical service) then you penalize the rational consumers and promote things like urban sprawl and government sponsored (universal access) monopolies.
The government is already enforcing monopolies on cable and telephone lines, which are the only "last mile" connection available to most users. Claiming then, that you should not regulate the behaviors of those monopolies is just plain foolish.
"Science fiction author Doc Searls" ?!?!!?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
because if the law is worded that -all- traffic is given equal priority, then providers would be required to let -all- traffic through, including all the spam we love and the ddos attacks by all the zomdows botnets...
Huzzah! Huzzah!
That's all I got.
Unlike the rest of the cowardly replies talking about something other than getting involved...
What is this 10th grade? Do we all have to stand around and "be cool"?
Oh, wait... It is.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Just because there's no market in the current (static) situation, doesn't mean there's no (dynamic) market!
Look, I think maybe your enthusiasm maybe getting a little ahead of what has been observed in Economics for quite a while.
1. Markets strongly tend to monopolies/duopolies.
2. A monopolist blocks all competition by controlling price. If a competitor arises, the monopolist prices the competitor out of the market, then resumes over-charging and under-performing. There are other ways to block your competitors, but that's an easy one.
Please review basic economic theory.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
> Free trade means if I am a telecom provider and I risk my hard earned capital to provide Internet access services then I should be free to set my own prices and service terms.
:-) Even so, you forget what I already told you: it's bad for business to ignore angry mobs, or to engage in anti-customer activities. They don't soon forgive you for them. Your best hope is that everyone forgets about your support of it.
:-)
... Not very appropriate, though. Even if you get some telecom dollars, I doubt you'll get voted in, and how could they recall you then?
Your argument fails *right* there. The telecoms did ***NOT*** risk their own capital, hard-earned or otherwise. They built the infrastructure on huge government grants, rights-of-way, etc. We're still waiting to see most of the improvement.
> If you live in any relatively urban part of the US you will have at least two if not more choices for Internet access. If some or both providers try to charge extra or degrade your service then the providers need to offer some compelling reason to stick with them or another competitor will take your business.
Hah! Nope. I'm too far away for DSL, and I'm smack in the middle of one of the largest urban areas in the country. That leaves me with... cable. And the cable company screwed with us. They're blacklisted. I wouldn't have any connection at all without the government sponsoring city-wide wifi. Screw the libertarians, I like it.
> If you happen live in a rural area that can only support one service provider, then you've made your choice by living there.
Ummm, yeah. Here in this place I call "the real world" moving is a total pain in the ass and besides, we don't run from fights. Company wants to screw with me? I screw back. Legally. People come to me for technical advice. Want a laptop? Hell no, you don't want a Vaio, get a ThinkPad instead. And anything else I happen to think of to let customers know how badly certain companies like Sony suck ass.
Allowing data-discrimination is an anti-competetive act. If you know anything at all about real world economics, you will understand why customers are hostile to business practices like these. Such things cannot simply be written off or offset with larger marketing budgets. In the real world, people hold grudges, like the really big one I have against Sony for their business practices.
Judges also understand something about sanctions. In theory (if not always practice), sanctions are meant to act as deterrants, such that anyone aware of the sanctions would find it an unacceptable risk to run afoul of them. In other words, those who are sanctioned are meant to serve as examples--a metaphorical "head on a pike" that lets others know that you mean business.
If the telecoms have ANY sense whatsoever, they will realize that the huge public outcry over such things as Net Neutrality, the Sony rootkit, the Do Not Call list, etc. are BRIGHT RED FLAGS for any intelligent business. In theory, if there are in fact any intelligent businesses out there, they should realize that consumer-hostile actions (or plans) are going to get met with this level of resistance. If it takes an angry mob to wake them up, that is what they will get.
On a related note, if you saw who all supported Net Neutrality: the Christian Coalition, the ACLU, the Gun Owners of America, MoveOn.org, etc., etc., etc. you might realize that you are doing your political campaign far more harm than good by posting that. Of course, you might be hoping for campaign funding from the telecoms
As it is now, everytime I hear libertarian banter, I can't help but picture them as real world (and I use that term loosely) Ferengi. Profit is not a right. I want to see an end to exploitation, not to become the one exploiting others. Following the Rules of Acquisition is a good way to get people pissed at you, especially women
Heh. My captcha is "recall"
However, the reason I spoke up about pay-per-byte schemes is because I would like to counter the argument propounded by several Telco's that in order to finance the necessary infrastructure under currently projected growth scenarios, they must be allowed to introduce the Tiered Interenet. If the Telco's were right, then it would be unreasonable and counter-productive to insist on net-neutrality. Fortunately their argument doesn't hold water because a simple metering scheme allows net-neutrality and charge-for-use to be combined.
There is a lot to be said for your proposal to meter by download rates (and it happens a lot). I agree that low enough download rates would make it impossible to stream video (but I don't know what the minimum is). Unfortunately it will not preclude people from downloading multiple gigabytes a month through their "always on" connection, even at quite moderate download rates (think bit-torrent).
If everyone were to do that (as the Telco's suggest by pointing to a projected sharp increase in video material) the base load on the Internet would increase a lot, and it would require a lot of additional capacity to guarantee reasonable transmission speeds during peak times. Which would mean that the Telco's had a legitimate point. As I see it however, this (hypothetical) increased low-bandwidth/high-volume use can easily be charged to end-users through metering, removing a potentially reasonable argument in favour of Tiered Internet.
That may well be the silliest, stupidest thing I've ever heard on /.
Congratulations. It's a big field you've beat out.
I am a libertarian absolutely.
However, this specific issue is very complicated and cannot be drawn in simple black and white. First off, telcos and providers are usually either subsidised, or heavily protected by the government. Either way, this is not a free market we are dealing with. Let's also remember that the Net itself is part of a governmental development.
So to say "let the free market take over, no government interference at all" would be irresponsible to blanket at this point. Now, if the government was never involved in this in the first place, then it wouldn't be an issue at all, and one, even someone as libertarian as myself, could sit back and EASILY say that the government should stay the hell out.
And I haven't read the legislation nor do I fully pretend to understand all of the issues involved. But, because the government is involved, it is complicated, overly complex, and probably unfairly stacked in favor of the biggest campaign contributors. If the gov had stayed out of the "communications business" in the first place, then none of this would be a problem that couldn't be solved within the confines of the free market.
Libertas in infinitum
By going this route, you solve the problems in-kind.
They'll make a fortune; now the world can really improve. Next, they might as well tax hockey, beer and Santa Claus...
The market is not, cannot, and will not be fixing this problem for us, and not one thing any libertarian says anymore can possibly convince me otherwise. I've watched for five years as the libertarian neo-con wing of the Republican party has had its way: reducing taxes (but actually just shifting them around -- notably to people who currently can't vote), slashing regulations, giving away public property to big businesses. I've had enough. Libertarianism is bullshit. It's wrong, and it's no way to run a civilized society. End of story. Pull the plug.
My book, podcast