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."

56 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. I love the wording in the above translation. by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by trancemission · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most major ISPs in the US block many outgoing ports to prevent you from running a server

      Unless you pay them [more]

    2. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by pecosdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you work for Verizon?

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    3. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by rmaureira · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a catch in the project tho', in one of the paragraphs says: "May not limit the right of a user to enter or use any class of instruments, devices or appliances on the network, provided they are legal and that they do not damage or harm the network or service quality." The last line can be used by ISPs saying that you're "damaging the network" with your computer. Now we need to wait for the government to pass the law, and then enforce it.

    4. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by pecosdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You work for Comcast don't you?

      I ran my own server off of SouthWestern Bell then later Time Warner for years with not a single spam message bounced off my server, nor issue from it. Seriously, hosting the occasional Fark photoshop pic and having a photo album hosted on my own equipment with passwords for my family along with a small vanity site, where's the problem with that? I did it for years and find it nearly impossible to do now because of people with your mindset.

      I know a lot of people abuse it and run porn sites and push malware, but I shouldn't have to pay the price for them.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    5. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, I don't work for Comcast. My work would be much less popular with the Slashdot community, but I can't really discuss it anyway. But, just to play devil's advocate, if, say, port 80 traffic were completely unfettered in a bi-directional manner and incomming connections were allowed without a previously established outgoing connection, chances are quite high that would be abused by malware authors for command-and-control and botnet node intercommunication. I don't think that's much of a stretch at all, and its not as if the typical end user is going to know or care to secure their node.

    6. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by Baseclass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why must I be a business to need a web server? I'm a hobbyist.
      I'm paying for bandwidth, it's really none of their business how I utilize said bandwidth.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    7. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Residential customers don't need a web server, though.

      You are not competent to decide that for me, and neither is my ISP.

    8. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>>legitimate service through the Internet

      I worry about this part of the law. The word legitimate will eventually be used by follow-up laws (or overzealous police) to exclude:

      - Peer-2-Peer
      - Nudist websites
      - Photos of your kids
      - Hate websites like KKK.org
      - So-called hate site like Teaparty.org
      -
      - Downloading software to emulate ancient Atari or Sega or NES games
      - Sites that don't adhere to the new Internet Fairness Doctrine (don't present both sides of a story)
      - Downloading nude women that APPEAR to be younger than 18 (see Australia where 20-something women can't post photos, because they have A-sized breasts)
      - Downloading women who actually are younger than 18, but not committing any crime (such as topless photos from Brazilian or European beaches)
      - And so on.

      Government regulation brings *chains* not freedom

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "if, say, port 80 traffic were completely unfettered in a bi-directional manner and incomming connections were allowed without a previously established outgoing connection, chances are quite high that would be abused by malware authors for command-and-control and botnet node intercommunication."

      Still *my* problem, neither yours nor the ISP's.

      "I don't think that's much of a stretch at all, and its not as if the typical end user is going to know or care to secure their node."

      Why he should? What are the consecuences of his malpractices? If you fuck it up you pay for the mop seems a sensible policy. But even then, still my f* problem, neither yours nor the ISP's.

    10. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The last line can be used by ISPs saying that you're "damaging the network""

      And they previous one can be used by any lobbying party to get off with whatever they want.

      ""May not limit the right of a user to enter or use any class of instruments, devices or appliances on the network, provided they are legal"

      So they just need to, say, declare illegal connecting more than one computer to a "single computer" connection and there you go.

      "and that they do not damage or harm the network or service quality"

      Oh, and by they way, trying to use 100% of bandwith as shown in the contract terms harms the service quality since we oversell it 100 to 1.

    11. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by Flyerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So Net Neutrality only extends as far as having an outside blacklist identify an IP and then you cut them off? In b4 ISP's secretly pay blacklists to hit their neediest customers.

    12. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by Burdell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You aren't paying for the bandwidth, you are paying for limited use of the bandwidth. You wouldn't like your bill if you had to pay the full cost of the bandwidth (yet most also complain at the mere mention of metered access). Also, I see many people demanding that ISPs block certain ports for abuse reasons (e.g. outbound SMTP to reduce spam, except of course, everybody wants all users but themselves blocked).

      Paying taxes doesn't guarantee you 100% utilization of the highways; there are many times you will be unable to drive 100% of the posted speed limit due to other users of the road. Usage is unlimited (you can drive as many miles on as many public roads as you like), but you might not get to drive the speed you like.

    13. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by pecosdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      LOL wut?

      I'm trying to translate what you've said and I've failed so I'm going to offer my own translation.

      You get net neutrality. If you fuck up and don't secure your machine and you get pwned the life guard makes you sit on the side of the pool for 15 minutes until you get your problem fixed. Then you get to jump back in the pool.

      It's neutrality, but if you're doing harm by attacking others (by being pwned yourself) you get cut off all together and they can call you and tell you why.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    14. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So... "Don't filter me bro... except you can filter him because he's not doing something I like"? Seems kind of stupid to want to have full and complete access to your 65536/tcp ports to do with as you wish, but if someone happens to be running a botnet (intentionally or not), you're ok with having them filtered.

      This is pretty much the entire reason these debates come up... one rule for you, one rule for the rest of us.

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    15. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Listen in many countries we have laws protecting our freedom to do as we please. Yes, it's debatable rather we really have those freedoms or not, but that's beside the point.

      One thing that we generally have laws about is our personal freedoms end at the point that we utilize them to restrict someone else's freedom.

      If you're botnet infested you are out there doing denial of service attacks and trying to hack other systems into joining your bot net. At this point your freedom is being used in an attempt to restrict someone else's freedom.

      That's what jails are for, or in this case being cut off until you fix it.

      I see no "one rule for you, one for the rest of us" as you say. I see "don't attack someone else". Don't attack someone else is a pretty good rule I think.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    16. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Downloading nude women

      You can download the women themselves?

      SCNR

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    17. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So do what my ISP does (Australian, not US). By default, ports 80 and 25 are blocked. If I want to open them, I log into my ISP, hit up my control panel, and turn off filtering. I've been running my own servers on my Internode connection for years.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    18. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by icebraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's the problem with open proxies? Tor is an open proxy, do you want to ban it too?

    19. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or what about an user-configurable firewall at the ISP? Have it block port 80 by default, but any user who wants to use it can simply go to the web site and enable the port.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    20. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by kabloom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But I use my personal web server as part of my network-centric cloud storage system -- I ssh into my machine and move files I need into public_html, then I can download them from my web browser. You got a problem with that?

    21. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by baileydau · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or what about an user-configurable firewall at the ISP? Have it block port 80 by default, but any user who wants to use it can simply go to the web site and enable the port.

      Exactly.

      That's what my ISP does (in Australia). You can run all the servers you want with them. It's your connection. But they do want you to explicitly turn it on. I think that is a Good Thing (TM), especially for port 25.

      --
      Ever stop to think ... and forget to start again?
    22. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by euphemistic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd just like to point out that the Australian regulation you describe is proposed legislation only and does NOT currently exist as law. I know the world at the moment wants to paint Australian internet law as an example of terribleness (and it is a terrible idea), but you should probably hold off until the regulation actually exists. I too wonder about the ambiguous word "legitimate" and worry about the potential it has for creative interpretation - but lets not get ahead of ourselves and decry the concept of regulation in its entirety - especially when it seems to be upholding the rights of its citizens for now.

    23. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Still *my* problem, neither yours nor the ISP's.

      Uh, no. Your individual computer getting infected might be your problem - 2 million other retards getting infected and becoming part of the same botnet is a much bigger, much different problem. Just like you personally not getting vaccinated for a highly contagious disease is mainly your problem, but if a significant portion of the population refuses vaccination it becomes a societal problem.

    24. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by correnos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have a linux machine at home running an ssh server. I like this, it allows a lot of flexibility in what I do anywhere. This constitutes a web server. I would also like to get a personal website running soon as a place to host projects. Does any of this make me a small business? No? That's right, and I shouldn't have to pay the fees of a small business customer for home use.

    25. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by FutureDomain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah! Someone who actually gets the concept of "liberty" and successfully applies it to the Internet.
      Mod parent up!

      --
      Hydraulic pizza oven!! Guided missile! Herring sandwich! Styrofoam! Jayne Mansfield! Aluminum siding! Borax!
    26. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by Flyerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe you are missing the point. WHO does this identification of attackers? Is it ISPs? Is it the government? Is it a third-party blacklist? Regardless of who it is, once they have the power, it will be abused. And if you rely on user complaints to lead you to the cause, you're probably relying too much on the capabilities of civilians.

    27. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by oddTodd123 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And I love when someone nitpicks legislative language from an unofficial translation.

      Considering your feelings, it's a good thing they don't actually use the word "legitimate" in the law. They use the Spanish word "legal". Now, IANACL (I am not a Chilean Lawyer), but I'm pretty sure "legal" means something like "allowed by law", or, more accurately, "not explicitly disallowed elsewhere in our laws".

      Now, if you are concerned that they may, at a future date, make it illegal to use P2P (or, for you Spanish speakers out there "ilegal"), don't you think that would supersede the net neutrality law, whether it said "legitimate" or "legal"?!

    28. Re:I love the wording in the above translation. by wall0159 · · Score: 2

      "illegal" means "against the law", not "against the terms and service" set by the ISP. The law restricts the restrictions that can be imposed by ISPs. What you're saying is that the government could make a law saying that (eg) only a single PC can use an connection? So what?
      Or are you writing from a US perspective where the comms carriers own the government through lobbying?

  2. OK by koan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:OK by Barrinmw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I love how a second world nation is further ahead with ensuring the freedoms of its people then the United States. How about we just add an amendment to the constitution that replaces all references of "people" to "corporations".

    2. Re:OK by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the Nixon administration through the first half of Bush 41's term, Chile had Augusto Pinochet, a military dictator. They might tend to look at freedom with slightly less jaded eyes than Americans who have had it "too good for too long." Small things like that can tend to have major effects on perspective. Just saying.

    3. Re:OK by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What Chile does: (what looks like) Decent Net Neutrality

      I'm telling you, there's a real progressive wind blowing through South America. Brazil, Chile, Argentina and others are moving to the Left and having great success. There economies are growing and it's not just the rich that are doing better. Socially, they've got a long way to go, but at least they're moving in the right direction, using the European socialist model as a starting point, not an end in itself.

      We're going to read a lot in the coming few years about the success stories in the Southern Hemisphere. They're going to be a shining example for what free societies can look like in the 21st century: prosperous, fair and free.

      Even Hugo Chavez, who has gone off the rails as is common among very strong politicians who have great success, did a great deal of good for his country before he got drunk on power. But he'll be gone soon and there's a healthy crop of decent leaders waiting to take over.

      Don't think for a second that the financial and social successes in South America don't scare the hell out of the USA.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      i'm chilean, chile isn't in the way of a welfare state (european model) that you are saying, currently we are beeing driven by a right goverment with strong individualist values ( i am fine with that) , argentina has big BIG problem on their laws bu brazil you're right they seems to be doing OK

      also mother is from venezuela , i had lived there for 6 months and i can tell you, chavez is a monkey, and thes rest of the politicians ain't any better, they don't have electricity even for the hospital , not even talk about the current implementation of net neutralities there

      so next time if you want to JUSTIFY the goals of some country saying that is because the leftty politics that they have , better just STFU intead of looking like and idiot

      excuse my poor english

    5. Re:OK by vbraga · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm fully invested in Brazil - I'm Brazilian and my company - the single asset I have - is here :)

      South America is not threat for the US because it's been largely an irrelevant continent for the last two decades. This is first year of high GDP growth (for the last two decades) in Brazil - and the year with highest current account deficit. Also, the smallest federal government budget surplus - if you take in account investments and debt payments it's a deficit, actually.

      Although I believe there's more room for growth in Brazil there are structural problems that I suspect will not be surpassed. Infrastructure is shit: roads are in a terrible state, railways are a joke, airports are from the 70s and, well, seaports are going fine, overall. Right now there's a truck tire shortage - almost no new trucks are going out the factories due to lack of tires. In a country where over 90% of goods are transported through trucks. It's almost scary.

      The country is theoretically a welfare state but both public health and education are a a very poor state and used only by the most poor. So, you end paying taxes like if you lived in Sweden but receive government services like if you lived in Botswana. And if you think the US government spends too much in pork projects, you never seen a Brazilian budget.

      Maybe the grass is always greener on the neighbor side of the fence but if I had enough surplus money to take it outside the country I'd put it in the US. Even with a crises, the United States is here to stay.

      Back in the 18th century the colonial Portuguese government closed all the textiles factories in Brazil - the country would only have factories again almost two centuries later. Brazilians did nothing. Meanwhile in the North, for unfair taxes, the Americans fought their independence and changed the world.

      There's much more to America than economy or contemporary politics.

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    6. Re:OK by mqduck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can agree or disagree with Chavez, but he's not "drunk on power". He's been pushing for years now to create a system and culture of direct democracy. Indeed, the greatest threat to his socialist program is how much it is still "his" program, rather than a popular ("grass-roots") one, and Chavez knows it.

      --
      Property is theft.
    7. Re:OK by andita · · Score: 4, Informative

      ^.^Nice you point this topic. It is funny how this convo has turned up in a US's self talking..as usual. Please, i do not mean any offense with this, but it is just this thinking which kind of confuse me. I`m chilean. I have been in the states and i should say in many southamerican countries and it is so not like you imagine the rest of the world, specially southamerican countries. Why? because you live in fear. It is true that we had Pinochet 40 years ago, painful period of our lives, but eventhough we do not forget we can still forgive and start over. I`m not saying that everything is good, just saying that we move on. ... I as going to say many things, but i think you wont read them... While in US i was in a really nice place, there werent even afroamerican people, just native americans, still the way of comunicating with others was really different. I was treated like a princess, really good, and like if anything could happen to me at any moment (i should say overprotected since i was without my family there but i wasnt underage ) "Do not get out alone because someone can kidnap you" "Do not greet someone you dont know coz they can be a pervert or u wont be greeted back" "do not conect to internet in the pool of the place because someone can get into ur files through internet and get dome personal info from your computer" etc... i couldnt eve go to the club alone coz someone coul "put sth on my drinks" and do anything. It is a general fear in people that you cant see in any southamerican countries [excepting when u are a tourist in Favelas/brasil or amazonas /venezuela-colombia]. But in the rest of countries like Chile, argentina, peru, etc,you normally see children late at night playing, or in summer time people jst go to the beach at nigth and children, teenagers and people in general can walk at any time in the cities, go to dowtown alone, travel by public transportation from one city to another, or from home to the inner city or to anywhere without any problems... ["Never take a bus in the US" is what Americans told me] So, if we talk about freedom, i think that you should start thinking what "real" freedom is. I went backpacking last february with my best friend down to the south, 20 days in which we walked in the road, meet people, hitchhike from truck drivers to horse carts... and we finish our trip without even falling into the ground once. THAT isFREEDOM and safety. What we are getting with this new law is stating the bases to also give more security to people as well. After this law is completely updated and applied there will be improvements to it, such as grooming hunting, etc. Perhaps we are not as advance as US and not as fast developed since both US and Chile are 200 indepent countries, (We r kind of slow) but still we are trying to do our best. (Thanks Daemon) Sorry my poor english..it`s been a while since i dont practice writing or speaking.

    8. Re:OK by pjt33 · · Score: 2, Informative

      To the person who moderated PP troll: Chilean isn't closely linked to NATO (First World) or the Warsaw Pact (Second World), and is by definition a Third World country. The designation is political, not economic.

  3. Almost there by pjt33 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's not actually law yet. The last sentence of TFA states (my translation)

    The Chamber of Deputies sent the present bill to the Executive so that it might comment or proceed to promulgating it as a Law of the Republic.

    However, the Executive are quoted earlier as approving of it, so this should be a formality.

  4. Key Fickle Phrase by Aldanga · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "No [ISP] can block... legitimate use conducted through the Internet."

    Anybody else see the problem here?

  5. One Page bill by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I looked at the translation of the bill and it appears to be a one page bill. I only skimmed it, but I can support such a bill. There's no place to hide things in it. Unlike the "net neutrality" bills that have been introduced in the U.S. Congress.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    1. Re:One Page bill by pjt33 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's more like 2.5 pages (official text in Spanish - the document is 4 pages, but there's a lot of padding and some formalities at either end) but your point stands. The U.S. legislative system is insane.

  6. Re:Why net neutrality is bad... by Barrinmw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  7. Re:Why net neutrality is bad... by rsborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its not collusion but its price fixing.

    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
  8. Re:Why net neutrality is bad... by tofubeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Why net neutrality is bad... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  10. there are actually are limits in this world by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Funny

    on everything, including you freedom

    when someone tries to block child pornography, for example, you are not witnessing some horrible slippery slope to fascism. no, really. to believe so is to be a hysterical twit and absolutely no credit whatsoever to an authentic fight for freedom

    "Anybody else see the problem here?"

    no, not at all. are you a paranoid schizophrenic?

    the fight for freedom must be patient, shrewd, and wise. not a bunch of halfcocked lightweights spazzing out at every wisp of smoke

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:there are actually are limits in this world by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>>when someone tries to block child pornography, for example, you are not witnessing some horrible slippery slope to fascism

      (1) Possession of children having sex should be no more illegal than possession of murdered people. You did not commit the crime. The molester or murderer is the one who committed the crime and should be arrested, not you for mere possession of an image.

      (2) Neither should parents be arrested for posting photos of their family trip to the nudist or topless beach. But it has happened.

      (3) Neither should artists be arrested for creating DRAWINGS of children in sex act. There's no victim; hence no crime.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  11. Re:Why net neutrality is bad... by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  12. Redefines "Third World Country" by aaandre · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The term used to be associated with "impoverished." Now it is more like "laws not yet fully rewritten by and for corporations."

    1. Re:Redefines "Third World Country" by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Funny

      The term used to be associated with "impoverished." Now it is more like "laws not yet fully rewritten by and for corporations."

      That's still impoverished. See, the corporations there don't even have enough money to buy laws!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Redefines "Third World Country" by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thrid world came from the cold war era, and it was attributed to Russia and Russia sympathizers.

      No, that was the second world. The third world was all those who didn't belong to either the first (i.e. Western) or the second (i.e. Soviet) world.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  13. Mod parent up! :) by PaulBu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And good luck to your country! ;-) I like Chilean wines anyway, maybe I should look into moving there!

    Paul B.

  14. Re:Safety and liberty? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Informative

    Your packets arrive at the same time as any other service, not "belling" p2p at set times.
    No slowing, hidden caps on some ports ect.
    Privacy would protect your usage logs, name, maybe data in transit from a Google like collection and storage when exposed.
    You have the liberty to not use the net, use a consumer account, server quality account or any other isp offering at any price you like with any fine print.
    Just your details are safe from 3rd parties, your packets will not be slowed.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  15. Before you celebrate by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  16. Re:Why net neutrality is bad... by Barrinmw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.