Slashdot Mirror
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."
If you think a law isn't necessary, and a bunch of other people do, then why wouldn't you just approve it? From your perspective, the law would have no effect, positive or negative. To the other people, you look like you agree with them. Win-Win.
Therefore I conclude, that large companies and congressional Republicans are lying. Of course, that was really my thought before I read this article.
I don't know about their dream world, but I live in a metropolitan area with 1.1 million people. When I got broadband 8 years ago, Road Runner was the only option.
There's DSL now, but it costs the same price for much lower speed. I'd like to have options, and I'm moving across the country to Tempe soon. Hopefully things are better there.
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/
So Jesus, Mohammed and Abraham walk into a Bar....
Competition is happened ...
What you say?
Somebody set us up the FIOS.
Even if this passes, it wont necessarily help. The lawyers for the big telcos/cable companies will spend the next decade in courtrooms coast to coast trying to argue for their interpretation of what "provide service in a non-discriminatory manner" actually means.
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.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Yes, the Carter era was a bonanza compared to the Reagan-Bush I years (things were pretty good under Clinton, but his economic policies were closer to Reagan than, say, Kennedy or Johnson).
It's a ridiculous simplification to attribute the presence or lack of economic success to the man in office at the time, because there are policies that take many years to take effect or unwind, but the idea that taxing wealthy people at 90% is smart is just silly. Wealthy people pay ~25% taxes on their income at the moment, that could easily go north of 35% without really hurting anything, but there is a good debate somewhere near 50%.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Competition is supposed to bring down the prices of products.. yet all I have seen in the last 6 months is 3 rate hikes (verizon fios)... and I have plenty of options..... oh wait, no I don't.. I have Cable (Comcast can go F themselves into oblivion so thats not an option), and Fios (if I was to include TV then I also have DTV or Dish as an option)..
A duopoly is not competitive, and I have no options for DSL or any other landline based solution other then dialup. Sat internet is not an option, too much latency
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
One would think that after a while it would get to be a chore to have to lie day after day to millions of people, but I guess the payback for "some Republicans" is great enough that their willing to step up to the challenge.
I think you are right about the majority of Republicans. They've just been bought. However, some actually do believe that stuff. It is typical Republican mantra to say "Government bad. Business good." "All regulation bad. All deregulation good." "The free market solves all ills." So I can see that there might actually be a few Republicans who honestly believe that the free market is solving this problem, but I do think that most of the Republican opposition is simply because the big providers paid them enough to oppose it.What does his race have to do with his position as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee?
From the TFA, which you apparantly didn't read:
'Conyers and Lofgren were cosponsors of a similar bill introduced in 2006, when Republicans held a majority in the House. With significant Republican opposition, the 2006 bill died, but Democrats were elected to the majority late that year.
"Americans have come to expect the Internet to be open to everyone," Conyers said in a statement. "The Internet was designed without centralized control, without gatekeepers for content and services. If we allow companies with monopoly or duopoly power to control how the Internet operates, network providers could have the power to choose what content is available."'
While Conyers has at times made efforts in Congress that reflect his consituency, he appears to be acting as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee should be acting. I am actually not a fan of his (I tend to be far more conservative than he), but your vaguely racist comment made me scratch my head and say 'Huh?'.
I'll reserve further judgement until I've had a chance to read the text of the bill.
For most markets, you have either cable or DSL. In large markets, you probably have both. In some VERY major markets (Bos-Wash metroplex, California, etc), you may have fiber-optic and cable.
Outside of that last group, you really don't have a choice of providers, so you're stuck with whatever crappy TOS they give you. Just look at the recent news about Comcast throttling P2P, and now talking about monthly traffic caps. Guess how long that would last if they actually *DID* have competition for customers?
Sadly, the prospects of this bill getting anywhere in the current whores-for-corporations Congress is about nil, but it probably looks good for Conyers' re-election campaign.
Wha? This law would actually PREVENT that, not encourage it. Selective blocking of trackers is treating some sites differently than others. That's a no-no under a net neutral mentality.
Worded less politely, net neutrality boils down to the customer saying to the ISP:
"I pay you for bandwidth. Nothing more. Shut the fuck up and let me spend that bandwidth how and where I please.".
I can't believe it's even an issue in people's minds. If Comcast built a huge toll road that lead to a dead end, nobody would drive on it and their stockholders would throw mad fits. It would be a blessing if the Google Sushi Bar opened next to the road serving up the best sushi in the state for low prices. People would actually pay to use their road now. You'd think they'd be happy, but no Comcast wants to charge the travelers AND charge the Google Sushi Bar every time someone wants to turn into their restaurant. Or, if they don't pay up, they'll still let people go there, but only 3 cars every hour. You're welcome to go to the brand new Comcast Sushi Bar across the street though.
That's pretty much the situation that we're looking at, and it needs to be stopped, by law if necessary (and I've heard enough rumblings from the telecoms to believe it is now necessary). Claiming it'll "hinder investment" is just asinine. Of course companies would build more networks if they could unfairly extort money from people. That doesn't make it right.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
You know, the ones repealed and/or not passed in the late 80's and 90's in order to help the economy grow...which then led to shady banking practices that begat our current 'credit crunch'.
Yeah, I've heard this story before. I like the regulations, they are necessary for capitalism to work in the real world.
Blar.
In the '90s, Clinton deregulated several industries. Among them: commercial power, media, and investment banking.
Current situation in commercial power: deregulated markets are seeing huge increases in rates; there is little-to-no new-plant build, the infrastructure is crumbling, and brown-outs all over the country are likely to be necessary within a decade unless something changes.
Current situation in media: there are 3 media companies, owned by even larger companies, that provide something like 85% of all media in the United States. They focus on profit and entertainment over truth and Real News. They peddle non-issues like Wright and Fake News like WomanWithHalfGallonSilliconBoob stories. Faux News is awful, but CNN and MSNBC aren't much better. ABC is owned by Disney. NBC is owned by GE. CBS is owned by Viacom. About 40% of Americans still think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with Al Quaeda. And some ridiculously high number believe God created the planet and the universe and everything on it 6000 years ago.
Current situation in investment banking: investment bankers invested in sub-prime high-risk mortgages. They used their investments as a way to boost their image to stockholders. The sudden drop in housing values had one firm almost going under, saved by the Fed, and others talking about the apocalypse coming. CEOs of these companies are walking away with millions while thousands of Americans that were sold a dream of low mortgage payments (they're to blame too, but they're the ignorant ones) are losing their homes, and it's dragging down the whole economy.
Tell me again, how is it that deregulation helps?
Show me one time in American history where conservatism (economic laissez-faire, in particular) has served us well.
We de-regulated banks and got the Great Depression - that is, that whole economic collapse thing from unstable banks long before your Smoot-Hawley boogeyman ever came along. Oh and how was that Soviet grain production going around the 1970s? Compared to socialist America, I mean.
Tell us, what ruin came of America from the New Deal? Oh noes, that preceded a nice long run of American prosperity. Which ironically ended with unregulated corporatism.
How's that de-regulation doing for the airlines and energy industries? Oh, my.
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/105023/Expect-a-Jolt-When-Opening-the-Electric-Bill
And what about those S&L's?
Oh yeah, we're doing great with de-regulation.
Okay now name me one successful first world country on the planet that uses laissez-faire economics. Show me one. Just one. I'm waiting.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
The proper function of government is not to pick market winners and losers, but to look out for the common interests of the people. Most can agree that an open, freely competitive environment has a better chance at meeting our common interests than a closed, noncompetitive environment. (The catastrophic history of communism, alone, should be evidence enough of the truth of this proposition.)
Do we have an open, freely competitive market for telecommunications services in the US? The answer is clearly, no. We have a marginally competitive market composed of government-granted monopolies.
The problem isn't that we have "too much" government regulation. Without a grant of monopoly -- a government regulation -- the network operators wouldn't have a network to operate in the first place. The problem is we have the wrong kind of regulations. The government shouldn't be granting monopolies in the first place. Rather, it should be setting interoperability standards and requirements that keep the market as open and freely competitive as possible.
Seen in this light, then, these bills are a welcome addition. They at least set a standard for openness and nondiscrimination, which is a good thing for a government to be doing.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
The rich depend on public-school-educated employees to make them money.
The rich depend on public-school-educated workers to build the products they buy with their money.
The rich depend on public-school-educated professionals to fill their prescriptions.
The rich depend on public-financed road networks to move their products.
The rich depend on public-financed communication networks (like the subsidized phone system and the government-funded internet) to enable their businesses.
The rich depend on public-financed military to protect their business interests overseas.
The rich depend on public-financed military to protect their country from invasion.
The rich depend on public-financed social, medical, and economic safety nets to prevent the type of discontent among the poor that create revolution.
The poor depend on many of the above to survive, but, in absence of those things, the poor who have nothing to lose would revolt and restructure their society to provide them. Eliminating the safety nets and social programs would make things very bad for the poor for a time, then make things better after the revolution. Eliminating the safety nets and social programs would make things better for the rich for a time, then make things much, much worse after the revolution.
The rich have gotten far more out of the system than the poor, and they have far more to lose if the system breaks down. It is only and truly fair that they pay their fair share to fund it. That fair share, proportionally, is much larger percentage of their income.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.