Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senators Call For Hearing On Carrier Content Blocking

Posted by kdawson on from the net-neutrality-by-any-other-name dept.

HangingChad writes "Two Senators on Friday called for a congressional hearing to investigate reports that phone and cable companies are unfairly stifling communications over the Internet and on cell phones. Now that the Senate is getting into the act, Comcast will probably want to come up with some new talking points as their old ones were leaked."

4 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. It probably won't make any difference. by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The telco execs can lie to congress all day long and they won't get so much as a slap on the wrist for it.

    For the same reason, congress ultimately won't do anything about the telcos and cable companies blocking content -- they're paid (bribed, in various forms, most of which are almost certainly not on the record) not to.

    Not only are they paid not to by the telcos, they're paid not to by the RIAA, MPAA, and the media corporations. That latter is especially important because without the support of the media, you will not win an election campaign, period.

    Big corporations rule the U.S. these days, and there's no stopping it now. There's no way to, even including violent revolution. We're way past the point of no return. And it's not just the U.S., either, but most of the rest of the world as well.

    Historically, totalitarianism of one form or another has been by far the preferred form of government, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of the people who have ever lived have lived under it. The experiment with freedom in the world is tiny in comparison.

    Well, it was nice while it lasted. I'm going to miss it.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  2. unfair vs. illiegal by bwy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think it is import to distinguish between what we just don't like and what is actually illegal- i.e. unconstitutional.

    For example, I just posted something on Apple's support forums about distaste for the fact that they chose not to include Java 6 in Leopard. They deleted the entire thread. I don't like it and I think ti sucks. BUT- it isn't illegal. They own the support forum! They can delete whatever the hell they want. This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amedement doesn't grant you the right to speak freely in someone else's property. It doesn't even grant you the right to enter their property.

    I believe content blocking/filtering/etc is the same type thing. Some ISP will pop up who uses this as marketing material. They'll market themselves as the ones who "don't block anything."

    1. Re:unfair vs. illiegal by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      but telcos are granted those monopoly perks in exchange for being fair about traffic so the public can make money. The only reason anybody was able to GET internet at home in the first place was that telcos were prohibited from banning connections to local phone numbers we used for our dial up modems. Imagine in 1995 if telcos made a 30 minute limit on non-voice phone calls. Where would we be now?

      Or how about charging extra to dial a modem or fax than to DIAL a voice phone line.. the point is that they tried that ages ago, and the feds demanded they not do it. Internet connection is the "phone" service of the 21st century. How many phone companies block who you can CALL on your phone... hell you can call india or china if you got a number and there's a whole industry built around scamming people to call those places but they won't even challenge the calls unless you ask for your line to challenge that type... and there are 57 different types of long distance you have to ask to block individually.

      They want to change the rules for internet so they can offer services they previously not allowed to. They were always blocked from offering news, and other phone-call services back in the day but want to try to get away with not only offering services.. but blocking competition on their lines. Imagine if we had the yellow pages but say calling a number of a towing company that wasn't in the book or was low-ranked resulted in your call going to the company that paid more for ads. It's quickly becoming obvious that the telcos are trying to pull that stunt under the congress critter's noses and the critters might catch on soon enough.

  3. Re:Regardless of the outcome by churchcomposer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If Comcast is selling " x megabits down and y kilobits upload", I DO NOT agree that they can do what they are doing, which is deliberately and deceptively killing specific uploads. It ought to be illegal - it is interfering with interstate commerce, or it is deliberate interference and disruption to an existing business relationship, or with an existing contractual relationship, that exists between whoever is sitting at the two peers. Especially since there ARE commercial, LEGAL, file transfers that take place using bittorrent, and they purchased Comcast's service for that purpose (among others). I think the bittorrent folks need to come up with a revision to their software that includes, in the datastream, a peer-to-peer message, properly encrypted, that tells the other peer, in effect: "this stream IS continuing, it has NOT been terminated, regardless of what you may receive to the contrary - any status message you receive that is NOT properly authenticated through encryption is bogus, so continue the transfer".