US Lawmakers Propose New Net Neutrality Bill

An anonymous reader brings news that Net Neutrality legislation is making another comeback. A new bill, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), would make ISPs who fail to provide service in a non-discriminatory manner subject to anti-trust violations. From the NYTimes: "'The bill squarely addresses the issue of the enormous market power of the telephone and cable companies as the providers of 98 percent of the broadband service in the country,' said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge. But broadband providers and some congressional Republicans have argued that net neutrality legislation isn't necessary. The broadband market is becoming more competitive and net neutrality regulations could hamper investment in broadband networks, some Republicans said during a hearing this week."

Comments

why do the bad guys always come up with such names

[CDMA_Demo]

Whats wrong with "Net Equality"? Oh, i know....

Comcast and Rogers....

[NoobHunter]

WEe're currently experiencing the same issues up here in Canada. You guys have Comcast, we have Rogers and Bell. Also, I have to argue that Net Neutrality would hamper ISPs....if anything, it would promote MORE freedom do to whatever it is you do on the Net without having to worry about how much money is needed to guarantee that people can actually reliably access your website. In the US, the Gov't is by the people, for the people and of the people....who the hell in the US from the people want to give Telecorps more power? We, in Canada, are dealing with the same shite... http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2463/125/

Re:Comcast and Rogers....

[porcupine8]

At least the argument that competition and free market will keep companies from abusing non-neutrality makes some kind of sense in Canada. I was checking out providers in Montreal recently, and it looks like you actually *gasp* get a choice of who to get broadband from! If one company is slowing things down, you might actually be able to get comparable service from another company! In the U.S. you are lucky if you have one cable provider AND one broadband provider in your area. I live in a neighborhood with TWO cable providers - but not even the entire city gets that, only a little sliver. I've never seen anywhere else with two cable choices.

Re:why do the bad guys always come up with such na

[ShieldW0lf]

They're trying to get it passed by a bunch of conservatives. "Net Equality" reminds them of communism and sharing, which they don't like. "Net Neutrality" on the other hand, reminds them of Swiss bankers, which every rich conservative likes. Neutrality is a much easier sell than equality.

A variant on "If you've done nothing wrong..."

[erroneus]

"If you aren't [planning on] doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear from this net neutrality law."

But ultimately the problem as I see it is that the telecoms don't think it's wrong to do what they have been doing and/or what they plan to do... especially since there is no law that identifies it as such.

Re:Not necessary?

[digitig]

Stricly, "detained" rather than "arrested" (it makes a difference -- he can still travel from the UK to USA under the visa waiver program, for instance, which I understand he couldn't had he been arrested). But your point stands -- unnecessary legislation does have a cost.

Re:Like those pesky Banking Regulations!

[SirGeek]

One, the subprime mess. That's the fault of people buying houses they knew they couldn't afford, and banks lending them money they couldn't pay back. But why were the banks lending them that money, then? Because politicians decided that it wasn't fair that people with bad credit couldn't get home loans, so they created laws authorizing subprime mortgages, and indeed pressed banks to give these loans to "disadvantaged" borrowers. That's right, your beloved government regulations helped create this mess. And now these same politicians are promising to spend taxpayer funds to bail out these irresponsible people and banks, while people that played by the rules... the ones that only bought houses they knew they could afford, or when they couldn't, rented instead... well, your beloved regulators are about to stab those people in the back. The ones that played by the rules? Suckers and chumps, apparently, because they could have gone hog wild and let Uncle Sugar bail them out. THATS the fruits of your nanny regulation, not true free market economics.

Go rent the movie Maxed Out and you'll get even MORE disgusted with the banks because the KNOW that these people can't pay the bills but they make most of their profits from them.

When they sue people Only $ 1 out of $ 3 is principle. The Other $ 2 are fees and charges.

It even mentions a new type of Credit Card that will go against your pension plan !

Re:Motivation not what people are thinking?

[morgan_greywolf]

racial discrimination may be more because it is so forefront in the minds of the black community?

Close. Try your same logic inversely and you'll get the real picture. Discrimination is mostly a lot less overt, but it's still there and much of it is because whites don't think about race much and so they discriminate without realizing they are discriminating.