Slashdot Mirror
Chile First To Approve Net Neutrality Law
Sir Mal Fet writes "Chile has become the first country in the world to approve, by 100 votes in favor and one abstention, a law guaranteeing net neutrality (Google translation; Spanish original). The law states [submitter's translation]: 'No [ISP] can block, interfere with, discriminate, hinder, nor restrict the right of any Internet user of using, send, receive or offer any content, application, or legitimate service through the Internet, as well as any activity or legitimate use conducted through the Internet.' The law also has articles that force ISPs to provide parental control tools, clarify contracts, guarantee users' privacy and safety when surfing, and forbids them to restrict any liberty whatsoever. This is a major advance in the legislation of the country regarding the Web, when until last year almost anything that was performed online was considered illegal."
The "send" part eludes most U.S. discussions. Most major ISPs in the US block many outgoing ports to prevent you from running a server. What I do with my bandwidth is my business thank you very much, including serving up HTML.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
What Chile does: (what looks like) Decent Net Neutrality
What America does: Massachusetts Bids To Restrict Internet Indecency
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
"No [ISP] can block... legitimate use conducted through the Internet."
Anybody else see the problem here?
So you are saying that the people in areas with 1-2 ISPs will be able to switch to a different ISP that doesn't restrict traffic? Have you ever noticed how when one gas station raises their prices, the one directly across the street raises theirs to the same? Its not collusion but its price fixing. ISPs will do the same exact thing. Comcast goes, hey Wave Broadband is filtering out Torrents, we are gonna do it too to save money, people can complain but where they gonna go?
Totally agreed. Any of you foolish libertarians who believe in "free markets" should recognize that Telecom/Cable has basically never been "free". It's been a (somewhat regulated) monopoly at local levels since pretty much day one. Those who would revoke those regulations without forcing open the market (ie, forcing resale of bandwidth/service etc) are basically allowing the telecoms to have their cake and eat it too. Net Neutrality is an attempt at strengthening regulations. In the absence of a free market, I'm all for it.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Net neutrality doesn't prevent charging based on usage (which is what they should be doing). Note that that is different than charging based on sites accessed or protocols used. ISPs should not be degrading P2P traffic, or restricting access to sites, what they should be doing is charging users based on their consumption.
If net neutrality was implemented it WILL WITH CERTAINTY increase internet costs for all users
Did it ever occur to you that some of us would be willing to pay more for untampered internet?
And it's not just about peer2peer tampering. It's about all traffic shaping - streaming videos, playing video games, etc. Some of us would like to have unrestricted access. We already put up with the bandwidth issues during high traffic times - but you'll still be shaped in low traffic times. (Which, we might add, there is more low and mid-low traffic times then there are high and mid-high traffic times).
You mention how Net Neutrality will offer more choices (those with tampering and those without). Currently, for most people, there are two options, Suck and suck harder.
How could more options be worse?
I agree:
The problem is not neutrality. The problem is the monopoly (or duopoly) that government granted these businesses. It's equivalent to if government suddenly announced, "You will no longer have a choice in grocery stores. Only Comcast Grocery will be allowed to operate within this city." Don't be surprised if the cost of food doubles or even triples as a result (no instantly but over a time).
I remember when Comcast was $30. That wasn't great but it was reasonable. Now it would cost me $80 ($85 with tax) to get equivalent service to what I had in 1997. They get away with it because they have a government-granted monopoly.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The term used to be associated with "impoverished." Now it is more like "laws not yet fully rewritten by and for corporations."
And good luck to your country! ;-) I like Chilean wines anyway, maybe I should look into moving there!
Paul B.
Key weasel word inserted: legitimate.
Laws (or even worse regulations) listing what content is "legitimate" soon to follow. This is not a victory, it's the first step to an erosion of freedom.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If you don't understand why more gas companies can't enter the market, then god help you. Most gas companies make money hand over fist, moreso then other markets, so you would think more gas companies would be sprouting up all the time until they were equal to what other markets make in profits.