Network Neutrality Is Law In Chile

An anonymous reader writes "Chile is the first country of the world to guarantee by law the principle of network neutrality, according to the Teleccomunications Market Comission's Blog from Spain. The official newspaper of the Chilean Republic published yesterday a Law that guarantees that any Internet user will be able to use, send, receive or offer any content, applications or legal services over the Internet, without arbitrary or discriminatory blocking."

Comments

A Law That Guarantees

[WrongSizeGlass]

a Law that guarantees that any Internet user will be able to use, send, receive or offer any content, applications or legal services over the Internet, without arbitrary or discriminatory blocking

In Chile. If the servers are not in Chile then this law doesn't apply.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[WrongSizeGlass]

In Chile. If the servers are not in Chile then this law doesn't apply.

That was worded poorly. If the traffic doesn't originate in Chile then it is subject to arbitrary and/or discriminatory blocking or throttling before it gets to Chile.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

In Chile. If the servers are not in Chile then this law doesn't apply.

You expect Chile to enforce its will on foreign countries?

What do you think they are, AMERICA?

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[cappp]

Google and I have joined forces to provide the following description of what the law seems to cover:

1Prohibition for ISPs (those that provide Internet access) to interfere with, discriminate or interfere in any way the content, applications or services unless measures to ensure the privacy of users, virus protection and security the network;
2.It requires ISPs to provide parental control services;
3.Forces to provide clients with a series of written evidence for it to correctly identify the contracted service;
4.Forces to ensure the privacy of users, virus protection and network security, and
5.Forces to ensure access to all types of content, services or applications available on the network and offer a service that does not distinguish content, applications or services, based on the source of it or their property. Also prohibits activities that restrict users' freedom to use the content or services unless the specific request of users.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[LiquidPaper]

Well, yes. We are part of America. I believe you are thinking of USA.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[sjames]

Only because of less progressive jurisdictions. However, most of the non-neutral routing is on the client ISP side which IS in Chile.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

So it's basically totally different from "network neutrality" as proposed in the US ? In the US network neutrality is not about blocking, but about QOS applied on a "discriminatory" basis*.

Not that I usually expect more from slashdot articles.

* note that applying QOS in a non-discriminatory way will still cause an ISP's own destinations to be better handled, for obvious reasons.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

Viva la Interweb! Move to Chile!

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not part of America. You are in the Americas, but that is distinct from AMERICA.

Pay attention.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what poeple modded that one insightful.
I mean, if I told them that the sky is blue, would they consider that insightful or just odd that I was stating something obvious that everyone already know? Informative would be the correct tag.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[shoehornjob]

If the traffic doesn't originate in Chile then it is subject to arbitrary and/or discriminatory blocking or throttling before it gets to Chile.

You would pretty much expect that your packets are at the mercy of whomever is routing them anyway so this is no big deal. At least they are taking a step in the right direction. In this country (USA) that'll never happen because there's either too much consumer apathy or excessive control by those who have the most to lose. Sad but true.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

AMERICA is a continent, USA is a country located in the continent AMERICA. Seems USA schools teach poor geography...

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[wisnoskij]

Meaning people in Chile can throttle and/or block anyone/thing coming from outside their country?
Or just that Chile does not plan to (because it cannot) make other countries follow its examples and therefor cannot guarantee net neutrality from outside the country?

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[PsyciatricHelp]

"LEGAL SERVICES" This is fine and dandy until they start making content illegal.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

Your country's official name is: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Thus, United States Federal Reserve, the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Food & Drug Administration, etc.

Now if you mean AMERIKA, then that is someting else...

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

AMERICA is a continent, USA is a country located in the continent AMERICA. Seems USA schools teach poor geography...

Well, if they taught you, then yes, because there is no continent called America. There is a continent called North America, and one called South America, which are collectively known as the Americas.

But none of them are AMERICA. That's a popular term for the United States of America.

Sad you didn't know that till now.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

"America" is not a continent. North America (which the US is located on) is a continent, and South America is a continent. Look at a map.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Runaway1956]

With all this outsourcing and exporting of jobs, we can't afford rich schools or middle class schools. We are stuck with poor schools and poor geography and poor math and . . . .

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

At least some of them got the joke though.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Alexandra Erenhart]

They do teach poor geography. The rest of the world knows that there's ONE continent called America, that has 3 different sections: North America, Central America and South America. US people like to join together central and south america and call it Latin America, but that's only them. The rest of us know geography. If you look at wikipedia, the english section refers America as the US, while the spanish section shows you America as the ONE continent. Is a cultural difference, but it hurt us non US citizens in the way that we feel americans, but not in the way the US thinks about it. It feels like they robbed us of our continent's name.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[AmigaMMC]

I foresee a lot of servers being moved to Chile. Plus it's cheaper there.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Tacvek]

I believe the part that said "interfere with, discriminate or interfere in any way" forbids both blocking and discriminatory QOS.

Also see the phase "and offer a service that does not distinguish content, applications or services, based on the source of it or their property", which also implies discriminatory QOS is forbidden.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Tubal-Cain]

I dunno. The US is "The United States of (the continent of?) America", not "...of the Americas" or "...of North America"

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't feel bad. As you said, it is a cultural difference, and that is fine.

I used to agree with your POV for many years, until an insightful conversation with an American friend (this is before I became American myself).

The US were the first country to achieve independence from their corresponding European country. So, in 1776, there was no other independent country (or Confederation, to be more accurate). Calling oneself "American" was just natural and logical. Other independent countries appeared later on, but by then one could not expect to change the name of an institution to accommodate foreign powers and/or sentiment. The fact that most nations in the Americans speak another language make the cultural separation surrounding this point of contention more evident.

When I refer to my nationality, I use "American" in English and "Estadounidense" in Spanish. I believe the use of "Americano" for American in Spanish to be incorrect, but so I believe that it is completely unreasonable to expect Americans to call themselves something else in English.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the "Prohibits activities that restrict users' freedom to use the content or services unless the specific request of users".
I'd imagine that they would have clauses to allow QoS at the request of the user. Honestly though, you would really need to read (and understand) the native version to actually say that QoS was forbidden.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Draek]

Much like there's a continent called Western Europe and another called Eastern Europe, which are collectively known as the Europes.

Oh, wait.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[RightSaidFred99]

Good, then when assholes talk about "stupid Americans", you fall under the umbrella. I for one welcome this new rewriting of terms to define "America" and "American" as anyone in North or South America. Spread the hate a little, you know what I mean?

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you need to re-read the following over and over and over again until you "get it"

Forces to ensure access to all types of content, services or applications available on the network and offer a service that does not distinguish content, applications or services, based on the source of it or their property (ie. content). Also prohibits activities that restrict users' freedom to use the content or services unless the specific request of users.

Highlighted key areas in bold for the reading-deficient

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

Much like there's a continent called Western Europe and another called Eastern Europe, which are collectively known as the Europes.

Oh, wait.

Not quite. For one thing, note the different usage, with "Western" and "Eastern" as opposed to a simple "West" or "East" which can make for a distinction in English. If they were called Northern America or Southern America, you'd have a better case, but they aren't so you don't.

But let's leave that linguistic argument aside, because Europe isn't actually a separate continental landmass from Asia, more properly they are known as Eurasia, but lingering historical inertia dating back to Herodotus, who was himself citing some prior usage, has kept people thinking it is truly its own continent.

I think it's a matter of pride, and a fear of the Yellow Man. They should get over it.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

You're pretty fucking stupid.

The Americas (notice plural; that's how they are referred to) are TWO continents. Yes, that is TWO. Can I yell it a few more times?

TWO TWO TWO TWO == 2

Central America (a sub-continent) and North America are both part of the same continent. South America is separate. Latin America refers to the culturally and linguistically similar areas of Central and South America as opposed to the English/French speaking areas of the USA and Canada.

Americans usually refers to people from the US due to the fact that our country is call The United States of America. Just like Peruvians are named after their country of Peru. Crazy, yeah?

For referring to people of one area of The Americas, it is customary to use their specific region (North Americans, Central Americans, or South Americans) due to the fact that using American as a continental specifier would refer to the vast majority of the Western Hemisphere.

Don't be a tool.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[jgardia]

That's the problem of having a poorly named country (United States of America), then you have to invent things like "The Americas", to distinguish it from the continent. There are other United States also, like Brazil and Mexico.
And then you have the problem that they think that only them are "Americans", that's why in so many countries (including, for example, Spain) they are called Gringos or Yankees. USian defines the situation better, but somehow they don't like to be called that way.
And even though wikipedia is not the most reliable site, when you search for "America", the result you get is:
America usually refers to either:

        * The Americas
        * The United States of America

So even though there is no continent called America, there is also no country called that way either.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[ailnlv]

Well, we did talk about world domination for some time, but it was easier to just change the wording of the law.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[cgenman]

How is it going over in Eurasiafrica?

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the world knows that there's ONE continent called America

Holy Fucking Christ, get over yourself. The term "continent" is not defined by any strict criteria, and there are several different models in use. Here, I'll quote the Wiki page which you touted in your post:

The seven-continent model is usually taught in China and most English-speaking countries. The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is preferred by the geographic community, Russia, the former states of the USSR, and Japan. The six-continent combined-America model is taught in Latin America, and most parts of Europe

Notice the section I highlighted in bold. If you're going to bitch about proper geographic terms, then we'll go with the professional scientific community's definition which means North and South American are different continents, and Europe and Asia are all a single continent called Eurasia.
If you want to talk in terms of total planetary population, the vast majority of the planet goes by either the 7-continent model, or the combined Eurasia model, so the combined Americas model could be said to be "more wrong".

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[rtb61]

Does that really matter. A slow down of foreign content will simply drive the production of local content. Plus network neutrality is all about open politics, maintaining an equally accessible public discourse, about gutting the ability of mass media to dominate public consciousness. That needs to work on a national level before you push it on an international level.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

US people like to join together central and south america and call it Latin America, but that's only them.

Actually the term "Latin America" was invented by the French to make the point that Spain and Portugal weren't the only Southern European powers with territories in America. Nowadays it's used frequently in Spain, and I believe I've seen it in sections of the press in some South American countries. (Other sections deliberately use the term "Our America" to make the point that the US doesn't have a monopoly on the term). (And yes, as an American you probably know some of this, but the USians reading it might not).

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

You motherfuckers has stolen the name, just like Microsoft did steal Windows and SQL.

If you really were United States of America it would also include Chile, Peru, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Canada etc.
Go now and find a proper name for your country, instead of hijacking the name of the continent.

---

There just may be something in that claim about Absinth making people mad.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[guruevi]

It makes me feel sad that there are about 250M miseducated people roaming this world and they're not in a typical 3rd world country, they're what some people would called an advanced world power. That's a serious problem in education brought by socialized nationalism.

BTW: North America (what US-ians call America) also includes Canada and Alaska, Canada being a territory of the British and Alaska until the '50's being a territory of the US and in the 1800's being a part of Russia.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

You are misinformed. In the U.S., it is taught that there are two continents: North America and South America. North America reaches all the way down to Panama with Mexico clearly identified as a North American country. As is known to anybody who has ever played Risk, Greenland is also in North America. The two American continents a commonly known as "the Americas", "the New World" or "the Western Hemisphere".

Among English-speakers, "America" is a commonly used nickname for "the United States of America". "American" is a standard and only adjective for the U.S.A. in the English language, although it is occasionally used to refer to the Americas as well.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

Geography is not terribly important in the scheme of things. It's mostly just another subject to be quibbled over by pedants.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[aBaldrich]

What about the name "United States of Columbia"?
Is Columbia a continent? If it is, then you should consider that Cristopher Columbus traveled to places that you would not consider to be America, just like Amerigo Vespucci.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[AP31R0N]

Between English speakers, America refers to the United States of America. Chile is part of The Americas. Spanish speakers can call it whatever.

-1 Overated. Not insightful. This is being obtuse to whore karma from the boys trying to impress the girl at the campus bookstore. Grown-ups know better.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I've been talking to many people in the US, that agree that this is a non-sense. The rest of "America" or "The Americas" as you pleased to call them are composed by Brazilians and many Spanish speaking countries, which have lost their ethnicity to the racism from the US. There is no "mestizo" option on paperwork. You are not allowed to pick "caucasian" or "white", but the options like "afro-american", "pacific islander", "asian" or "native american" (Although we are ALSO natives", don't make sense to them. Reason why they added the "Latino" option which is always in a different numeral. If the US haven't managed to understand ethnicity, they shouldn't be asking such stupid questions. /rant

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Laxori666]

1Prohibition for ISPs (those that provide Internet access) to interfere with, discriminate or interfere in any way the content, applications or services unless measures to ensure the privacy of users, virus protection and security the network;

Am I the only one that thinks this, or isn't #1 a bit ominous sounding? On the face of it, it sounds great - ISPs are not allowed to discriminate between traffic, ensuring that all traffic will be "equal"/"free" etc. But isn't all an ISP does "interfere" with the traffic? Traffic goes along their wires, and they direct it and route it (ideally) according to what they think is most efficient. That might mean giving some packets precedence over others. But that's a violation of #1. Also, who decides what is a violation? It'll be whatever body established to take care of that. It seems in the absurd case you'd have that body dictating how to route traffic instead of the ISPs.

I agree w/ the idea that ISPs shouldn't block traffic to certain websites, and charge more money to have access to those.. but it seems like this goes beyond that.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

a Law that guarantees that any Internet user will be able to use, send, receive or offer any content, applications or legal services over the Internet, without arbitrary or discriminatory blocking

In Chile. If the servers are not in Chile then this law doesn't apply.

Looks like if I ever need to buy servers, I'll be strongly considering Chile for their physical location. Even if it's not going to affect their performance, it's important to show support for developments like this, in order to promote more widespread adoption.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the term "Latin America" was invented by the French to make the point that Spain and Portugal weren't the only Southern European powers with territories in America.

Actually, the French just grabbed up a term that had been used by others first in order to make them seem more legitimate for interfering in Mexico. Making themselves out to be part of the "Latin family" instead of just more Yankee Imperialist Dogs!

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

It's consumer apathy combined with misguided libertarian thinking.

"Net neutrality means Big Mean Government interfering with innocent little corporations, and is therefore evil!"

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[GameboyRMH]

4.Forces to ensure the privacy of users, virus protection and network security, and

LMAO

Maybe they should force their equivalent of the DOT and any toll road operators to make sure every car on the road is in perfect shape, never speeds, never transports contraband and never gets into a crash.

Without violating the driver's privacy of course. XD

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the problem of having a poorly named country (United States of America), then you have to invent things like "The Americas", to distinguish it from the continent. There are other United States also, like Brazil and Mexico.

Maybe those countries are the ones who should change their names!

And then you have the problem that they think that only them are "Americans", that's why in so many countries (including, for example, Spain) they are called Gringos or Yankees.

Insulting diminutives for the win! Especially for persons from the American South in the case of Yankees, but really, Gringo doesn't work unless the person is in the other country. Somebody from the US in say, Columbia may indeed by a Gringo, but is it accurate to call them a Gringo when they're in Minnesota?

USian defines the situation better, but somehow they don't like to be called that way.

Especially when you just got done complaining that there are other countries with the "United States" as part of their name.

And even though wikipedia is not the most reliable site, when you search for "America", the result you get is:
America usually refers to either:

        * The Americas

        * The United States of America

So even though there is no continent called America, there is also no country called that way either.

Sure there is, the Wikipedia page you quoted even says it. Or do you not know what refers means?

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you mean the Euraficas?

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Shyfer]

This law looks like a great win, but "It requires ISPs to provide parental control services" and "Forces to ensure the privacy of users, virus protection and network security"

Having parental controls means that they are able to filter what you see, even if illegally. "Virus protection", that means that they will filter out viruses? That does not sound good.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Alexandra Erenhart]

Yeah, I know what you mean about ethnicity. I am mostly a white caucasian, because the majority of my ancestors came from Europe (I might have mixes in the blood too, who doesn't at this point?). I also come from Chile, which makes me a "latino". But when asked, they give me the option between caucasian OR latino. I don't believe latino is a race. But that's how things are in this country.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Alexandra Erenhart]

That's an interesting point of view. And yeah, there's no other word for the US citizens to call themselves but "americans", while we in spanish have, like you correctly stated, Estadounidense, which fits perfectly in my own opinion. I don't know about other languages, I'm just talking about the ones I know.

When asked about someone that comes from the US, I call him/her/them "US person/people". I still don't feel quite comfortable calling them "Americans". I do feel a little sorry about it, but between 28 years of south american culture versus 1 year or US culture, is hard for me to shake off the cultural difference.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[LiquidPaper]

I really, really, wish yours was a troll.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[smalltux]

Note that the post is a dupe from a number of weeks ago.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

I assumed yours was.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[cappp]

Damn, I apologize for that. When I was looking for the text of the legislation I noticed that there were stories from July and August and thought I'd been careful to only use the August sources. Tab hopping was probably a bad idea.

Hopefully what I posted provided a general idea of what Chile is trying to do, added something to the conversation despite being somewhat out of date, and wasn't misleading.

Again, my bad.

Re:A Law That Guarantees

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the name "United States of Columbia"?

Is Columbia a continent? If it is, then you should consider that Cristopher Columbus traveled to places that you would not consider to be America, just like Amerigo Vespucci.

? Are you high?

Chile

[MarkRose]

That makes sense. When I eat chile, I never have trouble with traffic flow or port blocking.

Re:Chile

[DarkKnightRadick]

I wish I would have saved my mod points. lol

Re:Chile

[ALeader71]

Yeah, my packets are always spicy!

Re:Chile

[zcold]

You just made my day....

If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[LinearBob]

In one word -- GREED!

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[MarkRose]

Greed and monopoly. If competitors were permitted in cities, I bet you'd see a return to unrestricted access. Where I have my hosting, I get transfer for under $0.01/GB. A TB of transfer is less than $10. Bandwidth is no longer a major cost of doing the ISP business. So why can't I get that at home? Lack of competition. Cities get fat checks for restricting competition, and we all pay for it.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it funny that people's solution is to then have the government get more involved, especially sense they ARE THE PROBLEM. Oh right I must be a conservative not job (I saved you the post :) )

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Harry Browne said it best about government:

Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk."

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[microbox]

ARE THE PROBLEM

How are they the problem again? Oh, that's right, it's because it's typed in all-caps.

Yet another vacuous statement on government regulation from a conservative "not" job.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[stinerman]

If there were "unrestricted access" in place in a major American city like, lets say, Columbus, OH, how many cable companies do you believe would be in operation?

Protip: We do have unrestricted access in Columbus, and there are 2.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[Urza9814]

Um...I agree with you that lack of competition probably has a lot to do with it...but they don't just throw a datacenter at some random place. One of the key things they would look for is cheap bandwidth. Plus, when you're moving huge quantities of data, it's easier to get a good deal. It's like anything else.

I once had a girlfriend whose mother was a regional manager for a restaurant chain. She got hundreds of dollars of free food every month. Does that mean that, if there was more competition in the restaurant industry, we could all get hundreds of dollars of free food? No. When you have certain locations and deals and jobs, you get things cheaper. So to say that bandwidth to your home should be cheap because bandwidth to a datacenter is cheap is a pretty poor argument.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[CAIMLAS]

It hasn't been proven one way or the other if "Chile" (or rather, the companies which operate within Chile) can "do it", whatever that means.

It's quite possible it will not be feasible to do so without raising costs, cutting service in areas, or otherwise going out of business.

Expect to see limited, "non-Internet" accounts pop up at lower (but inflated) prices, with the cost of standard Internet services going sky high.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[Attila Dimedici]

So, you have two cable companies and FIOS. That means you have three choices for High Speed Internet. If more cities had unrestricted access, there would be more players. Actually, I did a little research and Columbus does not have unrestricted access. Any company that wishes to provide cable video service in Columbus, OH, must get authorization from the Ohio Department of Commerce ( http://www.puco.ohio.gov/PUCO/Consumer/Information.cfm?id=8306 ). Additionally, since the elimination of local franchise in Ohio only occurred in 2007, it is a little early to reach a conclusion about what effect this change will have on competition throughout the state. Around 2015 we will be able to determine how this change is working out.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[whoever57]

It hasn't been proven one way or the other if "Chile" (or rather, the companies which operate within Chile) can "do it", whatever that means.

It's quite possible it will not be feasible to do so without raising costs, cutting service in areas, or otherwise going out of business.

Expect to see limited, "non-Internet" accounts pop up at lower (but inflated) prices, with the cost of standard Internet services going sky high.

You appear to have difficulty distinguishing between bandwidth limits and network neutrality.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[stinerman]

Three! All you need is three and you've got a well-functioning free market! And do you know how difficult it is to get authorization? Very, very easy.

I used to be part of an advisory board that dealt with the local charters back when we did have local franchise agreements. In Fairborn, OH all you had to do was negotiate a deal with the city to use their rights-of-way and you could offer service. We still had one cable company. There simply weren't enough people in Fairborn (about 30,000) to keep two franchises profitable.

The problem is that the people selling infrastructure are the same people selling service. Imagine if UPS and FedEx had to build their own roads. We'd have the same problem.

We need publicly owned infrastructure and privately owned businesses selling service over that infrastructure. Remember the good old days of dial-up? You didn't have to buy service from your phone company. You could choose any ISP in the world if you really wanted to. Of course, you were generally limited by the ISPs that had a local number you could dial, but there were more than three. I grew up in a town of about 7,000 residents and we had 5 choices.

I agree that the state of Internet access is a problem, and I'd like nothing more than to see some real competition, but you're not going to get competition until you remove the inherent conflict of interest that occurs when a company owns the infrastructure in a market that lends itself to a natural monopoly.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[Klinky]

Bandwidth for the ISP should be even cheaper for the ISP than what the OP pays for it. Where do you think your home connection ends up going to? A large datacenter run by your ISP that is located strategically to allow for the ISP to reap cheap bandwidth. On top of that, they possibly don't even pay for much bandwidth at all & instead setup peering agreements with backbone providers. Yet broadband prices keep going up. The last mile is not cheap to maintain, but a lot of the intiail costs have already been recouped as far as setting up initial infrastructure & the ISPs are very slow at upgrading or even maintaining their network.

Prices keep going up because there is no reasonable competition. Usually it's either cable for $X or DSL, that after you are forced into getting a POTS line put in and then their addt'l fees is just as much yet half the speed.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[Urza9814]

The last mile is not cheap to maintain

Exactly the point I was thinking about. Yes, competition could drive down prices immensely, but that last mile isn't cheap, and if you aren't paying for your part of it, you're probably paying for somebody else's. Again, prices could go down a lot, but those last mile connections will cost a hell of a lot more to maintain than a single (well, a few) large pipe(s) to a datacenter, and that's really where the cost comes from. They don't really charge you for bandwidth, they charge you for the connection and bandwidth and service (well, some service) all in one price.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[Securityemo]

The government must restrict monopolies. Without a government, the monopoly holders would find some other way to stop upstarts besides putting pressure on the local offices. A truly free market will devolve into a pit of snakes very fast, taking in both those who have and those who have not.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Protip: Setting up a cable network costs a hell of a lot of $$$ and having 2 entrenched competitors who can afford to undercut you (without lose overall due to profits made elsewhere) makes it really hard to recoup the costs.

Just out of curiosity, how many major cable companies are there in the USA? I can think of Roadrunner (are they still around?), Timewarner, Verizon(are they cable?), and Comcast.

Hell, we had our major telecoms company (Telstra) privatised here in Australia over a decade ago and it's monopoly on the infrastructure is still skewing the market (even with laws which force it to lease it out on a fair and non-discriminatory basis). Every week or three I get phonecalls from them saying that I should switch back to Telstra because they can do it cheaper (which is a lie cause I pay less to a third party for 1.5mb adsl who lease the telstra lines for better service).

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[MarkRose]

You make a good point. I would argue that ISPs in most places can get similar deals, at least in major cities. Most run their own backbones and peer when possible, so bandwidth usage still shouldn't be expensive. Either way, I think it really comes down to a lack of competition.

That being said, I understand there is a cost to the last mile, so it's unlikely that at-home bandwidth will ever be as cheap as datacenter bandwidth. Still, the incidental cost of additional bandwidth should not be that much compared to the other infrastructure or corporate overhead costs.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[hairyfeet]

Well Mr Anon Coward, or AC for short, the problem we have seen again and again with the whole libertarian "let the market take care of it" philosophy is this- without regulation one or two players will simply use their wealth to crush everyone else and then destory any free market that once existed there. If you would like examples I suggest you look into how Intel was able to force the higher electric and heating bills of Netburst onto the public by bribes to OEMs and thus removing free choice, or for an oldie but a goodie how MSFT crushed competition by tying windows to computers sold and not computers installed with Windows.

When we are talking about things with huge startup costs as barriers to entry, such as CPU fabs or in this case millions of miles of cable or fiber, it really doesn't take much for the biggest player to simply wipe out any competition and lock the market up for themselves. Thanks to the massive deregulation that has happened in this country we have gone from the tons of little players we had under dialup to a few massive regional monopolies, that can simply use predatory pricing to crush anyone that dares to enter a market or simply refuse to allow them access to the backbones (which they own).

In my own area I have watched three different smaller ISPs be crushed by getting screwed out of backbone access, and talking to one shortly before it went under their lawyer made it clear that while there was a good chance they could win, it would cost them in excess of 10 million in lawyers fees and a decade of litigation to find out. THAT my dear AC is how come we need the government to open up broadband to competition. Because as it is now you will simply be destroyed by the local incumbents if you try to compete. Sadly instead we will most likely see guys like you demanded even more deregulation and we will fall farther and farther behind as ISP impose caps rather than upgrade infrastructure, because they know their "customers" simply have nowhere else to go.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bandwidth is no longer a major cost of doing the ISP business."

Nor is email or DNS. Like every other product, the 99.999% of the cost stems from regulation, taxes, and making political handouts. All part of the joy of living in a communist dictatorship.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[Laxori666]

I wasn't aware of this scenario, so I read about it here: http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/rhodesprp/01_02/divide/dereg.htm#conseq. It does indeed seem that in this case, the government deregulation led to a worse market outcome.

The only point I can make of the government deregulating "improperly" is that they put up long-term frequency rights for auction, leading to most of them being bought by 3 companies. That is definitely regulation - only these 3 companies are allowed to use these frequencies. On the other hand, it seems the earlier, stricter regulation they had of short-term rights was better. Furthermore, I don't know what would happen if government had no part in enforcing any frequency rights. Would probably be a shitshow at first, then maybe companies would get together to figure it out.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true if you think that "customers" are brainless automatons that can't make any choices, and just sit around and wait for cool services to be invented so that they can demand these services be provided cheaply (or free) like it's some natural resource.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[future assassin]

They have everything to gain as a nation and move forward and prosper kinda like the first world countries did before them. Now that corporations run the governments and the people work for the government its all about the bottom line and now they can funnel your money into their pocket while restricting your access to information so that you don't wake up and smell the coffee one day.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[Shotgun]

As a libertarian leaning conservative, I have to say, "You are correct, hairyfeet."

But the internet and the telephone systems are much like the roads in the 1700s. You have to give control of them to the central authority, or you end up with a mish-mash of toll roads that make commerce impossible. The government should build out the infrastructure, especially the backbone, in the same way that it builds out the public roads. Thankfully, this could still be done today by simply setting up a parallel system that would run alongside todays infrastructure (the way FedEx and the UPS run alongside the USPS).

My simplistic solution is a requirement that the government must maintain control of any land that it has used the power of imminent domain to acquire. No more of condemning someones property to hand it over to a telco or mall developer. If it is important enough to use the power of government to steal someone's property, it is to important to turn over to the likes of Comcast and TimeWarner.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[geminidomino]

Without a government, the monopoly holders would find some other way to stop upstarts besides putting pressure on the local offices

A couple of gallons of premium unleaded, a whiskey bottle, and a bic lighter, probably.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[Roman Coder]

This is true if you think that "customers" are brainless automatons that can't make any choices, and just sit around and wait for cool services to be invented so that they can demand these services be provided cheaply (or free) like it's some natural resource.

I don't see how your reply has to do with the central point of what you were replying to...

the problem we have seen again and again with the whole libertarian "let the market take care of it" philosophy is this- without regulation one or two players will simply use their wealth to crush everyone else and then destory any free market that once existed there.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it?

[Klinky]

It certainly doesn't help when a new company or a town wants to build new infrastructure, but the old communications company either has an exclusivity contract in place with the city or threatens to sue the city which would result in a protracted legal battle costing the citizens millions of dollars.

You might even find this on a smaller scale where your apartment complex is locked into only one provider due to the contract they signed.

The market is such that even if competition wants to come in and foot the bill, it's not lucrative due to the way the communications companies have muddied the market. While that's going on they're busy merging with each other to amass even more power to snuff out competition.

Re:Turn Off Your TV

[WrongSizeGlass]

Slashdot: Stop being slaves and turn off your TV!
Homer: Never! The answer to life's problems aren't at the bottom of a bottle, they're on TV!

Safe Haven?

[kachakaach]

So servers for spammers, hackers, torrents, porn, & gambling sites all have safe haven in Chile now?

Re:Safe Haven?

[MarkRose]

Obviously not. I'm certain the Chilean ISPs are still permitted to have acceptable use policies.

Re:Safe Haven?

[Jedi Alec]

Glad to see the FUD campaign wrt Net Neutrality has achieved its goals. The meaning of the concept has been distorted beyond all recognition in certain countries.

Re:Safe Haven?

[vux984]

So servers for spammers, hackers, torrents, porn, & gambling sites all have safe haven in Chile now?

I see you failed to read even the summary. The traffic still has to be legal.

Re:Safe Haven?

[purpleraison]

So servers for spammers, hackers, torrents, porn, & gambling sites all have safe haven in Chile now?

At least THEY have rights! ---- you fucking douche.

Re:Safe Haven?

[cbiltcliffe]

able to use, send, receive or offer any content, applications or legal services over the Internet

"legal services" does not mean "things that lawyers provide".

It means "services that are legal to provide".

Spamming and hacking are not legal, therefore will not have safe haven.
Porn and gambling depend on the jurisdiction, but I don't see an issue with either of these, really.

"applications or legal services over the Internet"

[SuperKendall]

So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked?

And how long is it before that changes to "must be blocked" due to being a signatory on an international copyright treaty...

Or does it mean companies can no longer filter websites they find inappropriate? They after all a form of ISP in a way.

Any time you let the government decide what is permissible on your network you will be sorry in the end.

All this to solve a problem that doesn't even exist. The only time we saw torrent throttling (not even blocking!!) in the U.S. was Comcast, and they got smacked down for it. The market worked, why do we need regulation when there is no problem?

"Network Neutrality" sounds so happy and awesome at first, but it hides a greater problem than you'll ever see from throttling.

From Specifics Upwards

[DynaSoar]

"Chile is the first country of the world to guarantee by law the principle of network neutrality,"

Isn't passing a law that makes something originally outside the law to remain outside the law rather oxymoronic? It's like the US requiring members of sovereign nations that exist within its own borders prove to the US that they are valid members of said nation before the US will recognize them as such; such is the requirement for tribal membership for Native Americans. To pass such a law Chile only proves that it an make laws regarding net neutrality. If it can make them, it can remake them. If net neutrality were an objective fact, no country's laws would matter. Since they obviously do, even a 100% granting of neutrality by all concerned is no more than lip service. And being international, such a law would require a treaty. Check out for yourself how many treaties get signed by all involved, and how few of those actually get honored. TFA is the appropriate first step, but unless it's followed with some far more powerful and reaching reforms, say, putting worldwide network administration under a UN component with the power to actually act, it's strictly superficial regardless of intentions.

Re:From Specifics Upwards

[Jedi Alec]

Isn't passing a law that makes something originally outside the law to remain outside the law rather oxymoronic?

Hmm, is it? I vaguely recall a set of laws that certain things shall remain outside the law to be rather highly thought of somewhere...

"Congress shall make no law" sound familiar?

Re:From Specifics Upwards

[Maxhrk]

Isn't passing a law that makes something originally outside the law to remain outside the law rather oxymoronic?

Hmm, is it? I vaguely recall a set of laws that certain things shall remain outside the law to be rather highly thought of somewhere...

"Congress shall make no law" sound familiar?

"Congress shall make no law" is too vague. explain more what you mean by that..?

Re:From Specifics Upwards

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a quote from the constitution, specifically the first amendment. LMGTFY http://lmgtfy.com/?q=congress+shall+make+no+law

Re:From Specifics Upwards

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a quote from the constitution, specifically the first amendment. LMGTFY http://lmgtfy.com/?q=congress+shall+make+no+law

LMAHREFTFY

Congress shall make now law...

Re:From Specifics Upwards

[wisnoskij]

countries can make laws about anything they want to.
and their are lots of laws that exist to make other laws illegal.

Re:From Specifics Upwards

[Attila Dimedici]

Yeah that's a great idea, put enforcing network administration of the Internet under the UN, then they can set up a commission to oversee it. I figure the Chairperson of that committee will be from Iran or China, countries known far and wide for their dedication to open and free exchange of knowledge.

Re:From Specifics Upwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Involving the UN is a terrible idea, and I don't care if it's regulating internet traffic, fighting a war, or making hotdogs, the UN is the path to failure.

Re:From Specifics Upwards

[Anonymous Coward]

I have six letters for you:

• ITU
• UPU

Both the Universal Postal Union and the International Telecommunication Union are specialised agencies of the UN. And yet, it appears that the mail still gets through, and I can phone someone virtually anywhere in the world.

I suggest that you need to learn a little bit more about "the UN" before you pass judgment on such a huge organisation and all its parts.Of course it isn't perfect. But the ITU and UPU both do their jobs, and they do them without political interference. I would rather the DNS system be looked after by the ITU than the US government (who does interfere with the working of the relevant organisation).

(Of course, I'm not the first to suggest ITU. I suggest you do a web search for other opinions.)

Re:From Specifics Upwards

[DynaSoar]

The topic is neutrality, not administration.

Better to have committee members from problem child countries trying and failing to make everyone go along with them in public than each of them going their own way in private.

Re:From Specifics Upwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the Right to Life, and the Right to Food needs to be fought for first as law then as amendment to the constitution, and then as a universal fundamental right.

This cycle happens in every "democratic" country which usually begins by a formal step of "liberation" from a monarchy, good or bad.
This step includes a lot of mass murder.
Then the Rights progress slowly first incubated as strikes and rebellions, then as laws, then as Rights, then as Fundamental Rights.
By the time the last step of the cycle is reached, most of the population is "democratised" meaning "free" for the official record, but otherwise doing whatever they were before, with elected tyrants instead of monarchs.
Same old story for basic right.
This cycle will happen with each "new technology".

Re:From Specifics Upwards

[Attila Dimedici]

Do you really believe that a UN commission tasked with oversight of the Internet would limit itself to enforcing net neutrality? Even if that was its mandate?

Furthermore, VOIP is screwed

[SuperKendall]

He explained that suppliers must provide a service "which makes no distinction arbitrary content, applications or services based on the source of their origin or ownership."

In other words - no VOIP traffic prioritizing or in fact traffic shaping of any kind. Sorry Skype users, you'll have to stick with the big business telcos!

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed

[Sigma 7]

He explained that suppliers must provide a service "which makes no distinction arbitrary content, applications or services based on the source of their origin or ownership."

In other words - no VOIP traffic prioritizing or in fact traffic shaping of any kind. Sorry Skype users, you'll have to stick with the big business telcos!

There's a set of bits in IP meant to adjust QoS, which is a non-arbitrary way of handling things. Thus, Bittorrent can claim itself to a minimal QoS, which is announcing to nearby routers that they're the first ones to go if there's a problem. Likewise, an RSS feed may declare it to be a low QoS, and defer to a normal QoS (such as from an HTTP browser), or a high QoS (such as real-time video conferencing or telephony.)

In this case, it's the applications themselves that volunteer to be dropped as issues arise from QoS, rather than being arbitrary.

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed

[Anonymous Coward]

He explained that suppliers must provide a service "which makes no distinction arbitrary content, applications or services based on the source of their origin or ownership."

In other words - no VOIP traffic prioritizing or in fact traffic shaping of any kind. Sorry Skype users, you'll have to stick with the big business telcos!

What is the matter with you? Read the text you quoted yourself. VOIP is a traffic type. It is not a "source of origin or ownership". So yes, they can prioritize VOIP. They just can't prioritize Company A's VOIP while not prioritizing Company B's VOIP.

Reading comprehension is important. Not important to you, apparently, but it is important. Really man, the text you quoted yourself answered the question you are asking. You deserve to be called out on that.

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed

[Burdell]

The standard QoS bits are basically useless across any administrative boundary (such as the connection between you and your ISP, or your ISP and their upstreams/peers). Otherwise, you very quickly get people realizing they can just set all of their traffic to the "high priority" class. The only way an ISP could reasonably do QoS is by port or packet inspection.

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed

[timeOday]

I use an ooma device for VOIP; as far as I know, Comcast doesn't prioritize that, and it works OK.

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed

[Anonymous Coward]

Setting ToS is arbitrary... routers have to be configured to foremost trust such markings and then schedule based upon those markings... and sorry to break the news to you, but service providers don't schedule based upon those markings. And if they chose to, they surely wouldn't trust from customers without doing a policed remarker.

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed

[Anonymous Coward]

simply say you get a maximum of 10 kbps of critical priority, and 100 kbps of high priority, and Z mbps of best effort low priority.

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed

[Anonymous Coward]

derp.

QoS isn't "I want to go faster" or "I want to go slower". It's "I care about bandwidth" and "I care about latency".

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone please mod parent up:
People really don't seem to understand how QOS works (Hint, that QOS tab on your DLINK router is actually traffic shaping).
QOS is simply a flag that can be set on packets, that all ISPs ignore and is only useful on private networks, and point to point/MPLS networks.
This is why you have to pay a 30% to 60% premium on an MPLS circuit is that they guarantee low latency, and let you prioritize your traffic between sites.
  People who want to ban ISPs from allowing this are idiots, as this level of control is required or else high end video conferencing over the WAN would never work.

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed

[WolfWithoutAClause]

As the Anonymous above you pointed out, the ISP just needs to agree budgets with the customer, and drop anything outside the agreed budgets down to best effort; and to agree with their suppliers not to *ever* drop prioritised traffic. Networks *can* be designed to not drop priority traffic.

If they need high bandwidth, high priority video conferencing, then presumably that needs high priority traffic, and the customer pays for the option that allows that.

The point is though that the customer ISN'T paying to connect with any particular service, protocol or server, he's paying for priority traffic, and the ISP promises not to drop his traffic for any reason.

To *some* extent this already happens. Some ISPs provide an explicitly contended service, they basically guarantee that 1/N of your maximum bandwidth will get through, and they use deep packet inspection to decide which services need high priority to work.

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed

[cbiltcliffe]

Funny. The way I read that wording - mangled translation though it is - is that ISPs cannot make distinction based on source of origin. There's nothing there that will stop them from prioritizing _all_ VOIP traffic. They just can't prioritize their own VOIP service, but leave Skype at the bottom of the heap.

The argument for net neutrality

[WarJolt]

If this works out and their internet access appears to have been improved as a result, then I will support the concept of net neutrality. However, I doubt I will support and US implementation of it. I don't like the FCC. Anyone know anything about the regulatory commission that enforces net neutrality in Chile? Hopefully they are less political than our FCC.

Re:The argument for net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

It will probably get more expensive.. whenever governments regulates and forces companies to do things, they push the cost to the consumer.
And it usually raises the barrier of entry too, stalling competition. But I don't know how is it in Chile, so these are just generalities

Re:The argument for net neutrality

[Alexandra Erenhart]

The entity in charge of regulating this is probably the SUBTEL,(Subsecretaría de Telecomunicaciones, subsecretary of telecommunications perhaps is the translation?). I don't know if you have any idea about politics in Chile, but we have several political parties over there, not only two. Yeah, there are like 3 or 4 that are bigger and with more power than the others, but they don't get to bend government entities the same way political parties in the US do. So in a way, by being more political (more parties), they are less political (the power is more spread). I don't know if that makes sense, but it sounds pretty haha.

Chile doesn't have states like the US. The main divisions are regions. They have their own governmental entities but they're all controlled by the central ones in Santiago, the capital. So regions don't get to do whatever they want either, meaning that if the government creates a law, all the rest of the regions have to follow, and individual regions can't make their own laws.

I hope that helped somewhat to understand a bit how Chile works. Of course, the real question is if the SUBTEL is going to care enough to reinforce the law in all its extent. That's a completely different deal.

Re:The argument for net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how many countries work. Actually, I had a really hard time at the beginning to understand how the US system worked, so I wouldn't expect many people here to easily grasp the concept.

My first issue with US, was the concept of democracy, where each person's vote weights different (in a country claiming equality) depending on the state where you vote. That's craaaazyyy!

Re:The argument for net neutrality

[tibman]

Why would it get more expensive? The regulation is literally to LEAVE DATA ALONE. Which is what most ISPs are currently doing.

Re:The argument for net neutrality

[Shotgun]

Not if you consider that the US is a very large and diverse nation with a history that got us to where we are. We are first of all, a conglomeration of separate STATES...basically, separate countries united together for common defense. Of the original 13 states that comprised the United States, the smaller and more rural states feared being overrun by the larger, more populous states. So a compromise was reached. The branch of the government that made the laws would be split in two. One half would be composed of a democratically elected body that was based purely on population. The other half would be composed of officials representing the states themselves, and each state would have equal standing. Nothing would become law without being approved by both bodies.

At one point in our history, the Senate was appointed by each states legislature and represented the interest of the states in Washington. Many of the unfunded mandate* idiocies committed by the Federal government are a direct result of the individual states losing their representation.

*unfunded mandate - The Congress passes a law, telling the states that they must spend money on a project. The Washington politicians take credit for being generous and benevolent, without having to take the blame for raising taxes to pay for the project. The states are powerless to oppose it, and may have to give up on a local project that actually makes more sense for their region/population density/etc.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[sjames]

All this to solve a problem that doesn't even exist. The only time we saw torrent throttling (not even blocking!!) in the U.S. was Comcast, and they got smacked down for it. The market worked, why do we need regulation when there is no problem?

REALLY?

You seem to forgotten that there was a lot of complaining and a lot of people finding no competition to turn to and then the FCC smacked Comcast for throttling torrents.

In other words, exactly the opposite of what you said.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree, strongly. As one of the unlucky comcast customers who was caught up by their throttling for months, its very much a big deal to me. Especially when they kept insisting they weren't doing any of the kind of shit they eventually got caught doing, and to this day they still lie about the crap they were pulling. "Reasonable network management", my ass! Comcast claimed they weren't blocking anything, but when I had a torrent going (of ANYTHING) my downloads (on ANYTHING) dropped to almost nothing within 5 minutes, even at 3am! They throttled all traffic going to my computer because they saw one piece was something they didn't like (torrent traffic). The whole point of network neutrality is to keep them from pulling this kind of shit. They are welcome to throttle when I hit a certain amount of traffic for the month. They are NOT welcome to start throttling my fucking connection 5 minutes into a LEGAL BSD ISO download and turn the torrent, as well as the rest of my connection to crap to save themselves a few pennies on data transit costs. That is bullshit. Pure bullshit.

I can not wait for the US to implement mandatory network neutrality. And I'm not talking about Google+Verizon's underhanded back door deals that let them only do it where its favorable to them. It's either that, or force comcast, the bells, and any other company that's ever been given tax breaks and subsidized land from the city for their equipment and for their lines to force them to provide wholesale access to their wires to other isps. That way, consumers really do have a choice on who they can get internet from and whether they are going to put up with this kind of crap or not.

key word: "blocking"

[Michael D Kristopeit]

without arbitrary or discriminatory blocking.

delaying a packet in a queue is not blocking the packet... so the law is pointless. deciding now much delay is effectively a block would itself be arbitrary. packet prioritization with some level of latency is still inevitable.

stop using the phrase "network neutrality"... it no longer means anything.

Re:key word: "blocking"

[Anonymous Coward]

you "sound" bitter just beacuse Chile passed a law that restricts the -evil- actions of the ISPs before the US

PS: the law also includes "delaying", so your post is pointless

Re:key word: "blocking"

[Michael D Kristopeit]

so it's illegal for chilean ISP's to not replace perfectly functional routers and switches with exorbitantly over-priced newer models with lower latency? i doubt it... so it's already arbitrary which locations and which packets will end up going through which routers. so suddenly the routes to some specific server include 10 hops on naturally high latency routers. what are you going to argue? de facto delay?

you "should be" bitter beacuse you're an idiot.

Re:key word: "blocking"

[Anonymous Coward]

delaying a packet in a queue is not blocking the packet...

Um, perhaps you should brush up on your computing terminology. When a process blocks, it delays. When it delays, it blocks. Blocking and delaying are the same thing. How long it is blocked or delayed is the question, and why.

deciding now much delay is effectively a block would itself be arbitrary.

>0 is really that hard to understand?

packet prioritization with some level of latency is still inevitable.

Sounds to me like they outlawed it. Net neutrality means net neutrality... packets come in, packets go out. You don't inspect them, you don't block some of them to wait for higher priority packets to be processed, you just process them in the order you receive them. Almost like if you were being neutral.

stop using the phrase "network neutrality"... it no longer means anything.

and you are NOTHING.

Link to the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a link to the law (in Spanish) and some comments from IT people living and working in Chile.

Chile Net Neutrality Law

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[wonkavader]

"It's either that, or force comcast, the bells, and any other company that's ever been given tax breaks and subsidized land from the city for their equipment and for their lines to force them to provide wholesale access to their wires to other isps. That way, consumers really do have a choice on who they can get internet from and whether they are going to put up with this kind of crap or not."

A. The ILECs (monopoly phone companies) generally do have to sell wholesale and ISPs use this. They just price their low-end DSL so low it forces all the competition out of business. You need a DSLAM in every POP to serve the whole city, and that means the cost of the hardware and rent to the ILEC. It also means rent for wires to cross-connect -- the ILECs milk you for whatever they can. It's expensive, and the ILEC has a huge advantage on it. So it's not just the leasing of wires that's the problem here. If you want real DSL competition, you need to allow a lot more cheap stuff to competitors, and see that it's not just the wires the ILEC has a monopoly on.

B. Little ISPs buy transit from bigger ISPs. DSL providers buy transit from backbone companies. If you don't have neutrality laws, the shit you're describing will still happen on a larger scale at the backbone level. I remember a case in Canada where precisely this happened, so the little ISP had to give up on promising no throttling.

C. "Pennies on data transit costs"? What are you smoking? They saved NOTHING on transit costs. They were trying to delay modernizing their network to handle the real traffic load. They were trying to make money on having extra cash to play with today, rather than invest for the future. This is done by giving dividends on the stocks (which your top executives own a lot of, isn't that interesting), profiting from investments, and not getting loans. Comcast was just behaving naturally: they were being colossal dicks.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[Anonymous Coward]

I read it as meaning that if the operation of spam clients/servers in Chile were considered illegal then an ISP would be within its rights to downgrade the internet connectivity of those hosts without breaching their contract.

And so on.

For your question about torrent sites on a blacklist to have meaning, Chile would first need such a thing.

In this instance, the government isn't deciding what's permissible on *your* network. You don't own the network beyond your "modem".

This law is sensible, problem is too many of us aren't used to sensible laws!

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[Anonymous Coward]

MORON ALERT:

Faking RST packets is not throttling. That is an active denial of service. This is what Comcast was alleged to be doing.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[Kjella]

So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked?

Perhaps, but before it could be any arbitrary block. Now there's a law that specifically says you can not unless it meets some exception, so I don't see how it could possibly be worse than before.

And how long is it before that changes to "must be blocked" due to being a signatory on an international copyright treaty...

The day YouTube has to shut down because *one* pirated clip is found on their service is the day all sanity has left the Internet anyway.

Or does it mean companies can no longer filter websites they find inappropriate? They after all a form of ISP in a way.

Only if they resell access to individuals or other companies, I would think. An employee is more like a child in your household, I doubt your teenage son can demand you give him unfiltered internet access by this law. I guess there's some ambiguity at college campuses and the like, but that is not a new discussion. Also I'm quite sure ISPs can continue to offer voluntary filtering services, I know at least some ISPs here do.

Any time you let the government decide what is permissible on your network you will be sorry in the end.

And the first amendment means the government decides what you can say in the US? Which is by the way a pretty good response to your first statement, even though there is freedom of speech there are certain forms of speech that are illegal and forbidden. It would be very strange for "speech" over the Internet to be any other way.

All this to solve a problem that doesn't even exist. The only time we saw torrent throttling (not even blocking!!) in the U.S. was Comcast, and they got smacked down for it. The market worked, why do we need regulation when there is no problem?

The market? Comcast has most their customers trapped or in a duopoly with an equally unfriendly ISP. The only reason they got smacked down was because they were being covert and dishonest about it, if they had been above board then people would be screwed.

"Network Neutrality" sounds so happy and awesome at first, but it hides a greater problem than you'll ever see from throttling.

I think you need better arguments, you sound like Chicken Little who has become convinced the sky is falling. So far I've hardly seen anyone against network neutrality that I would say act with the customer's best interests at heart. Predominantly it's either companies who will lose their ability to double dip and become Internet gatekeepers or MAFIAA-like organizations that have as their stated goal to reach agreements with intermediaries to block unregulated services and offer only a cripple-net of "approved" services. Then there's some shills and quite possibly the most legitimate are the libertarians who claims the government can't do anything right, even though rights like this is a huge counterexample.

Great News Everyone

[Strange Ranger]

Zoidberg aside, this IS great news. Despite the "free from government" leanings here on slashdot, because of the way the market and the legal system works (despite our ideals), this is great news.

It's regulations like this that keep free markets free.

Re:Great News Everyone

[SplashMyBandit]

Yes, the legal aspect is important. The judiciary in Chile now have a solid guideline on how they should interpret the law (which is, in the interests of Net Neutrality).

Re:Great News Everyone

[TubeSteak]

Zoidberg aside, this IS great news.

/Zoidberg voice
Why is everyone always pushing Zoidberg aside!
/sobs and scuttles away

Re:Great News Everyone

[RightSaidFred99]

Despite the "free from government" leanings here on slashdot

We must be on two different SlashDots. Maybe you've been gone from slashdot for 10 years and are just coming back? There is definitely no "free from government" leaning here. The latest boogieman is..da da daaaaa (sinister music).. The Corporation.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked

Yes. Just like they were before.

And how long is it before that changes to "must be blocked" due to being a signatory on an international copyright treaty...

No shorter (if ever) than before the law.

Or does it mean companies can no longer filter websites they find inappropriate? They after all a form of ISP in a way.

Certainly not by any sane legal definition.

Any time you let the government decide what is permissible on your network you will be sorry in the end.

...which has what to do with Net Neutrality?

All this to solve a problem that doesn't even exist. The only time we saw torrent throttling (not even blocking!!) in the U.S. was Comcast, and they got smacked down for it. The market worked, why do we need regulation when there is no problem?

What if an ISP started throttling/blocking something a little less beloved than torrents? How much support would you get if they blocked, say, terrorist propaganda? Every one of the slippery slope arguments applied to government (not that I've heard a convincing one yet) can be applied to companies.

"Network Neutrality" sounds so happy and awesome at first, but it hides a greater problem than you'll ever see from throttling.

Again, no more than without Net Neutrality.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[ScrewMaster]

They are NOT welcome to start throttling my fucking connection 5 minutes into a LEGAL BSD ISO download and turn the torrent

I agree, but I ask: why should it matter if it's a "legal" download ... or otherwise? I don't expect my telephone company to censor my speech if I say things that someone else doesn't like (although that would certainly be possible from a technical perspective.) Likewise, I don't expect a company that I pay to transmit packetized data from here to there and back again to be in any way involved in determining the legality of said communications.

Such seriousness

[Anonymous Coward]

Your country's official name is: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Thus, United States Federal Reserve, the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Food & Drug Administration, etc.

Now if you mean AMERIKA, then that is someting else...

AMERIKA is indeed something else. But AMERICA? It also has its meaning, and it's as clear as say...BRITAIN, for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

BTW, there's no such thing as the United States Federal Reserve. Federal Reserve System is the actual title they use.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[beakerMeep]

So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked?

Well, what do you think? Were illegal services all fine and dandy beforehand? Use your brain.

And how long is it before that changes to "must be blocked" due to being a signatory on an international copyright treaty...

OK, so throw out the baby with the bathwater. Also, that's pretty off-topic.

Or does it mean companies can no longer filter websites they find inappropriate? They after all a form of ISP in a way.

Huh? Are employees consumers?

Any time you let the government decide what is permissible on your network you will be sorry in the end.

This isn't the great firewall of China, in fact it's quite the opposite but "government bad! government will make you sorry!" is not a compelling argument.

All this to solve a problem that doesn't even exist. The only time we saw torrent throttling (not even blocking!!) in the U.S. was Comcast, and they got smacked down for it. The market worked, why do we need regulation when there is no problem?

Comcast won in the end in case you forgot here's a link, and they were resetting traffic with RST packets. If you dont think that was a test of what they could get away with, you're crazy. It was precedent setting.

"Network Neutrality" sounds so happy and awesome at first, but it hides a greater problem than you'll ever see from throttling.

I'm sorry this is going to sound rude but.... your post was either a complete troll or one of the stupidest things I have read on Slashdot in a long time. You warn of fixing a problem that doesn't exist and try proving your point with a bunch of unrelated "what-if" scenarios peppered with existential "you'll be sorry" fear mongering.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[cheekyjohnson]

"Yes. Just like they were before."

They were? ThePirateBay isn't blocked for me, or any other torrent website for that matter. There's no way they can block the torrents either, considering the fact that there's no way to tell what's illegal and what's not from a technical standpoint.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[butlerm]

Comcast won in the end in case you forgot

The only reason why Comcast won is that the FCC was trying to regulate the Internet under a section of the law that gave them absolutely no power to do so. The FCC is in a position to fix that problem, by regulating Internet access providers under Title II.

Avoiding Title II was criminally irresponsible on the part of the FCC in the first place, they got smacked down for it and now we all suffer the consequences of the FCC's previous decision to operate under a purely fictional legal regime. Wishful thinking doesn't usually carry you very far in the legal system. The FCC has the proper tools, now they just have to use them.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[butlerm]

The telephone company doesn't want to care whether it is a legal download. Common carriers are insulated from liability for the traffic that goes across the network. Even common carriers can refuse to provide service for blatantly illegal activity, and on occasion may be required by the government to do so.

Under normal conditions they just have no incentive to do so, in part because the burden of proof is on them instead of the other way around. Nobody who is largely insulated from legal liability wants to go around provoking lawsuits. To say nothing of the fact that electronic communications providers are generally prohibited from analyzing traffic content for the purpose of determining whether it is legal or not.

As we usually say

[Anonymous Coward]

Viva Chile Mierda!

Thanks to all the people who work for this goal.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[ScrewMaster]

Common carriers are insulated from liability for the traffic that goes across the network.

Internet providers (even those such as the Baby Bells and AT&T/SBC) received an exemption for their data services. Contrary to popular belief, they are not common carriers for the purposes of their data services, even if they also provide telephony service. Consequently, they are not largely insulated from legal liability.

You have it somewhat backwards (assuming you're talking about the U.S.) in that these big companies simply do not want to be considered common carriers when it comes to providing Internet connectivity. That's because a common carrier, in exchange for immunity from prosecution for any use of their equipment for illegal purposes, also comes under a much heavier regulatory burden (involving, among other things, quality of service, with penalties for failing to deliver) which they feel will cost them money. So, they take the risk of the occasional lawsuit in order to be able to deliver crappy service at will. In reality, nobody sues an ISP for Joe Crook's using the Internet so for them, not being a common carrier is a win-win situation.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm on your side on this, but I just have to point out

If there was a way to tell what's illegal and what's not from a technical standpoint, we wouldn't have a spam problem.

Cue that form reply in 5 4 3 2 1

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[mdmkolbe]

So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked?

Perhaps, but before it could be any arbitrary block. Now there's a law that specifically says you can not unless it meets some exception, so I don't see how it could possibly be worse than before.

Unless companies view this law as saying how much they can get away with and still be legal. I don't know why but it seems like whenever a new law says "don't do X", companies take it as license to do anything that is not X even if before the law they wouldn't have done them. (There is probably some psychological/sociological phenomenon that explains this but that isn't my area.)

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[perlchild]

If you expect to be able to sue someone for NOT carrying traffic, you can't really expect them NOT to care if their carrying traffic gets them sued for a bigger amount, by someone else.

What you seem to want is immunity for the carrier, in exchange for not analyzing the traffic. There's very few countries that would consider "opaque" traffic as desirable public policy after 9/11, your feelings on that aside.

A little lesson for you on the first amendment

[SuperKendall]

Perhaps, but before it could be any arbitrary block. Now there's a law that specifically says you can not unless it meets some exception

The exception being the only thing people are actually worried about being blocked.

I don't see how it could possibly be worse than before.

Not had to deal with government regulations I see. The worse part is that instead of media companies going to each and every ISP and attempting to get them to piss off customers, instead they simply have to convince a handful of regulators what a good idea it is for copyright to enforce a total ban on BitTorrent traffic, or at least from identified trackers. Then you are heading down the Great Firewall Of China route.

That is certainly worse.

And the first amendment means the government decides what you can say in the US?

The First Amendment PROHIBITS the government from making any laws restricting freedom of speech.

Is is exactly the opposite of making a law to say what speech is allowed, which is what happens with Net Neutrality laws.

The difference is that with no law you have true freedom, with a law explicitly allowing something the exceptions to what is "allowed" start rolling in, and can turn into disallowments.

The market? Comcast has most their customers trapped or in a duopoly with an equally unfriendly ISP. The only reason they got smacked down was because they were being covert and dishonest about it, if they had been above board then people would be screwed.

Then why didn't they go above board after and do it anyway?

Answer: Customers complained, and Comcast relented.

And I agree we have a terrible ISP monopoly problem in the U.S. So rather than stupid regulations "allowing" certain kinds of traffic, instead please "allow" us poor people to use any ISP we like.

I think you need better arguments, you sound like Chicken Little who has become convinced the sky is falling.

Here you are thinking of those arguing for regulation when no real problem is in sight.

We have plenty of examples of regulation choking industry and consumers (like the fact I can't sell old toys even in a yard sale now). It's pretty clear what will happen to anyone who cares not to repeat history.

Even worse

[SuperKendall]

Faking RST packets is not throttling. That is an active denial of service. This is what Comcast was alleged to be doing.

Yes, and perhaps I should have trusted the readership of Slashdot to understand the distinction, but to the average user there is no difference since "the traffic goes slower".

However your post brings up a disturbing issue. Seemingly from the way the new law is written, an ISP would NOT be prevented from forging traffic. So the ONLY PROBLEM we have ever actually seen in the market is not even addressed by Net Neutrality legislation and rules!

Yes, really

[SuperKendall]

You seem to forgotten that there was a lot of complaining and a lot of people finding no competition to turn to and then the FCC smacked Comcast for throttling torrents.

But Comcast isn't doing it anymore. End of story.

Yes there is currently some regulation in the market - and that worked (although the customer complaints alone might have given enough time).

Basically, you have just argued that the regulation we have in place is enough, and we need no more. And with that, I agree.

In other words, exactly the opposite of what you said.

Since you just supported my position I'm not sure how that's so. Net Neutrality is a bad idea that is not needed, existing market forces and regulation seem to be doing the job just fine.

Inadvertently you also pointed out the regulation we have would not be needed if other regulations were not in place enforcing Comcast in a monopoly in so many communities (you said the problem was people had no other ISP to turn to)... and you want MORE regulation? Pile on the bandages enough and in the end you have only a mummified husk instead of a market.

In your own words - Really?

Re:Yes, really

[sjames]

If your position is that the free market was powerless to control the Comcast situation and that government regulation got the job done, then we do agree, but that's not at all what you said.

I want different regulation and MORE intervention. I want the last mile to be public property and many ISPs to compete to provide services over it.

As soon as eminent domain and right of way entered the equation (as they must), a totally free market went out the window. When residential customers can change ISPs like changing channels on the TV, then close regulation of the ISPs might become less important. Now if the FTC would actually enforce truth in advertising in a meaningful way things might actually work.

The logistical nightmare of privately negotiating right of way with millions of property owners assures that a totally free market solution is impossible.

Re:Yes, really

[jonaskoelker]

Inadvertently you also pointed out the regulation we have would not be needed if other regulations were not in place enforcing Comcast in a monopoly in so many communities (you said the problem was people had no other ISP to turn to)... and you want MORE regulation?

Regulation A is bad. Regulation B is regulation. Therefore, regulation B is bad.

I hope this isn't as nuanced a world understanding as you will ever get.

Re:Yes, really

[Attila Dimedici]

No, his statement was Regulation A is bad, therefore giving the people who implemented Regulation A more power in order to fix the problems created by Regulation A is only rewarding bad behavior. If we agree that Regulation A is bad and is causing the problems that cause some to desire Regulation B, wouldn't a better solution than Regulation B (which will have who knows what consequences--many possibly bad) be to get rid of Regulation A?

Nothing to do with servers!

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with servers. I can QoS traffic on my server however the hell I want! This is about ISP selling a service (internet access) and then manipulating that traffic for their financial gain. Period.

If an ISP has a server that lists today's date and they chose to block a bunch of IPs from there, then that's not part of "net neutrality". This is strictly about transit traffic and internet access being shaped without request from the user. This law requires the ISP by default to provide an unfiltered IP connection. It is then up to the user if they want parental control filters added by the ISP, VOIP QoS, etc. assuming any of such services are even offered by the said ISP.

Finally, QoS and shaping happens at the last mile. Backbones are not really doing shaping anyway. So if there any any impact of customers it is going to be by Chilean ISPs to Chilean customers. NO Chilean gives a rats ass that the law does not apply outside Chile. It's the same as I don't give a shit that China is blocking large swaths of internet to Chinese internet users - doesn't affect me.

PS. This law requires parental control filtering to be offered as a service by all ISPs. That doesn't mean it's free service, but it has to be available. Makes sense to me.

Hurrying to your own demise

[SuperKendall]

when I had a torrent going (of ANYTHING) my downloads (on ANYTHING) dropped to almost nothing within 5 minutes, even at 3am!

I can almost certainly guarantee that within four years of a network neutrality regulation being passed that at 3am your torrents would not slow - they would stop, at any time, because your ISP will be required by the FCC to not pass BitTorrent traffic from RIAA blacklisted sites.

Do not give them the very foothold they can use to get in your door.

I am a Comcast customer too. I had the same issues as you. And having had a taste of it in no way do I want that kind of thing permanent across all ISP's.

I can not wait for the US to implement mandatory network neutrality.

I almost year for you all to get just what you are asking for, so I can laugh and laugh and laugh. But as I said, I too enjoy the use of BitTorrent and I think I would be more sad to lose that than to be proven so completely how right I was...

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[SuperKendall]

First, thanks for the well reasoned response.

I read it as meaning that if the operation of spam clients/servers in Chile were considered illegal then an ISP would be within its rights to downgrade the internet connectivity of those hosts without breaching their contract.

That is how it reads now. But as with any law the problem is that other people can read it differently. And the fact there is a law means it is possible for someone to argue strongly it also includes copyright infringing traffic. And if the media industry has one thing, it's an army of very strong lawyers.

This law is sensible, problem is too many of us aren't used to sensible laws!

The law itself is eminently sensible, and even I would say well meaning. But a law is a tool that can be used by those who control how it is interpreted, and it basically gives those seeking to stop torrent traffic the tool they need.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

They were?

You misunderstand me. The law makes it no more or less possible for illegal services to be blocked.

End of IP bans?

[SharpFang]

I wonder about an unintended side effect.

If a forum site blocks valid outgoing traffic to given IP address/block, serving "Your IP has been banned" page instead, isn't it in violation of this law?

What if an IRC user is unable to access a channel due to ban?

Re:End of IP bans?

[JDmetro]

People still use IRC?
Next thing you know back to BBS.

Re:End of IP bans?

[SharpFang]

Interestingly, they do.

With advent of advanced free Java IRC client applets the skill threshold to access IRC has been vastly lowered, the underlying system is more rich than most of online chat applications, and this being IRC, it allows power-users to access it using more advanced dedicated clients.

So often on a site instead of "Live Chat" link you'll see "IRC channel", which leads you to a page with the applet and irc:// link for these who prefer their dedicated clients. For most users this is nothing but another glorified web chatroom, but it gives the admins more power.

Re:End of IP bans?

[ailnlv]

a forum site is not an ISP

Re:End of IP bans?

[SharpFang]

What if it is?
My ISP runs a forum for users to discuss problems, needs, shortages, advices and so on. Some discussions are quite heated, especially when people running on 10mbit ethernet demand migration to 100mbit and people on 56k modems oppose, demanding priority in moving them to broadband instead.
Bans on the forum happen, definitely.

Re:Post-Fascism

[ailnlv]

hint: not all dictators are fascists. They all pretty much suck, though.

Original Meaning

[Anonymous Coward]

The word was used in Spain long before it crossed the Atlantic to denote foreign, non-native speakers of Spanish.

Bad translation

[dolmen.fr]

The diario oficial is not "the official newspaper". It is in fact the public journal of the country, where laws are published.

Old news

[mr_gorkajuice]

Slashdot already covered this.

I for one welcome this new rewriting of terms

[Gonoff]

I once saw a pre WWII Disney cartoon starring Donald Duck that used "American" this way.
I can't remember which one though.

Re:Post-Fascism

[Doc Ruby]

Its' true that some dictators are not fascists. Castro is not and was not a fascist, nor were any number of other Communist dictators, nor were most dictators before the Industrial Age, including the dictators of Rome.

But the argument that Pinochet was not a fascist says that he was a non-fascist in a category with non-fascists like Hitler. Therefore, apart from purely academic mental masturbation, Pinochet was a fascist.

Net Neutrality

[lsatenstein]

I presume it means that if service is throttled for one, then it must be throttled for all. There is nothing there that says that ISPs must go max out with delivery speed.

Re:Post-Fascism

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation -2
    50% Offtopic
    50% Overrated

Fascists always have time to trollmod the truth about fascism.

That's what I find bad

[SuperKendall]

There's nothing there that will stop them from prioritizing _all_ VOIP traffic.

There is - because it will provide no benefit for them.

As long as they are not slowing down other traffic arbitrarily, I have no problem with a company choosing to prioritize certain traffic on behalf of the user that the user pays for specifically.

In short, I would love to be able to pay for a high quality VOIP stream that would work well with video. But regulations like this will ensure a company cannot offer this service, because it would have to do the packet examination necessary to determine all the VOIP/video traffic and prioritize it as well - a large expense for little gain. So instead you'll continue to simply get mediocre service for everything instead of being able to pay extra for a higher quality service for some things.

I am against the forced reduction of choice that offers the market. Regulation is ALWAYS about limiting choice in some way, you just have to understand where the limitations are being imposed.

This comment is by Richard M Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

The Spanish text has been mistranslated. The correct translation is

      any legal (i.e., lawful) content (*), applications or services.

In other words, the law does not preclude filtering aimed against
forbidden cooperation and sharing. So it does not establish
full neutrality.

* I rebuke their use of the word "content" to refer to works of
authorship, because the word denigrates these works.

Richard M Stallman