Slashdot Mirror


Bill Ready To Ban ISP Caps In the US

xclr8r writes "Eric Massa, a congressman representing a district in western New York, has a bill ready that would start treating Internet providers like a utility and stop the use of caps. Nearby locales have been used as test beds for the new caps, so this may have made the constituents raise the issue with their representative."

10 of 439 comments (clear)

  1. Unfortunately... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately, it'll never happen. It'd be nice if it did but, so long as ISPs have lobbying power, which they do, it'll never come to pass.

  2. Has it occured to anyone else. . . by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA? Maybe it's not such a great idea to extend the process to ISPs.

    1. Re:Has it occured to anyone else. . . by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Until you see what time Warner wants to do with caps. The modification to their terms of service allowed their VOIP service unlimited bandwidth while charging the customer for some else's VOIP. ISP's want a deal where BING.com users don't get charged bandwidth but if you use google.com you have to pay extra. Breaking metering will prevent the value of such arrangements.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  3. Re:sounds like an by blahplusplus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Until you realize they will just lower their speeds. But...

    I'd really ike an investigation into how much bandwidth these ISP's and the top telco's really have and what their utilization is. What needs to be done is to make this information public on a permanent basis so these companies can't claim that the small percent of users are eating up allthe bandwidth and use it as an excuse to lower speeds.

    Quite frankly these companies should have not be able to withhold this information in these matters because the internet is so important to society.

  4. They can justify it. by Drakin020 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    FTB

    13(a) PROHIBITION.--It shall be unlawful for major

    14 broadband Internet service providers to offer volume usage

    15 service plans imposing rates, terms and conditions that

    16 are unjust, unreasonable, or unreasonably discriminatory.

    I'm sure they can somehow find a way to "Justify" the caps.

    --
    The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
  5. ISP's like Utilities? Be careful what you ask for by clintp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trying to get a new water, sewer, or electric hookup can be an exercise in frustration because of the bureaucracy and safeguards in the system.

    Phone and cable have gotten better in the past 30 years. Landline phone and cable companies are so desperate for business that they're oftentimes pretty damned quick about getting a line out to you. (Unless you want something fancy like a business line or a T3, then welcome back to the Bad Old Days.)

    I invoke the ghost of Lilly Tomlin: "We don't care, we don't have to. We're the phone company."

    And if you think that usage on Utilities isn't capped, you're naive. If you didn't have those teeny-tiny water pipes and electric lines to your house you'd find out real quick there are all kinds of regulations and arbitrary rules about water and electric usage. For industry -- which have much larger access to electric and water -- there are often "monthy maximums" for water use, and obscenely high electric rates for peak usage.

    --
    Get off my lawn.
  6. Re:Sounds like an idiotic idea by whiledo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You dont pay your water bill by your pipe-diameter, or your electricity bill by your wire-gauge.
    So why should you pay your internet becaue of the maximum throughput possible?

    Only going to say one thing here - remember that trying to analogize the internet to make it the same as things that are not-the-internet has led us to some rather unfortunate conclusions.

    With that said, what I'd prefer is simply regulation that you can't call a service "unlimited" if it's not unlimited. That's my biggest beef. They should have to clearly advertise it as X gigs/month. "Unlimited" should mean "unlimited."

    --
    Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
  7. Re:sounds like an by Krneki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Until you realize they will just lower their speeds. But...

    Maybe it will happen, but then it will be easier to pick your ISP, right now there are so many hidden details it's very hard for a regular Joe to pick up the best package.

    I'd go even further, 50ms is the maximum latency, packet lost should be under 1% and the upload and download should never go below 80%. Ofc, this would only apply inside their network. Plus some public monitoring of their routers / bandwidth so they can't blame someone else for their problems.

    The speed of the connection is their decision, but we have to stop this sill over-selling capacity, bringing down the whole net.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  8. Re:Makes sense by sorak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure there will be a loophole somewhere.

    There always will be. The difference is that, with regulation, there is a loophole somewhere. With deregulation, there are loopholes everywhere.

  9. Re:Makes sense by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Consider that ALL other forms of communications (radio, television, telephone) are regulated by federal entities. ISPs have been getting a free pass up to this point.