Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Bill Aimed At ISP Data Caps Introduced In US Senate
New submitter Likes Microsoft writes "Yesterday, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) introduced a Net Neutrality bill aimed at ISPs using data caps soley for profiteering purposes, rather than the 'traffic management' purpose they often claim. The text of the bill is available at Wyden's Senate page. It would require ISPs to be certified by the FCC before implementing data caps. It says, in part, 'The [FCC] shall evaluate a data cap proposed by an Internet service provider to determine whether the data cap functions to reasonably limit network congestion in a manner that does not unnecessarily discourage use of the Internet.' In a statement, Wyden said, 'Americans are increasingly tethered to the Internet and connecting more devices to it, but they don’t really have the tools to effectively manage data consumption across their networks. Data caps create challenges for consumers and run the risk of undermining innovation in the digital economy if they are imposed bluntly and not designed to truly manage network congestion.'"
Well, no, the FCC does not have the authority to do this. This story is about a bill that would grant the FCC such authority.
It won't pass though, because there is a lot more money against than there is in favor.
The law is created in the bill. The FCC is the enforcer or "over watch" of the law.
Much like when you contact the FCC for a spectrum use violation.
This isn't the FCC doing something, its a member of Congress proposing a law directing the FCC to do it. If they pass the law, then the FCC will, ipso facto, have authority to do it (assuming, of course, that Congress has Constitutional authority to pass the law.)
That's exactly what Senator Wyden is proposing: Congress passing a LAW that would ISPs from imposing data caps without prior approval of the specific cap meeting specific requirements from the FCC.
An alternative to this would be to finally break the monopoly faced by many Americans on their broadband cable services.
I live in an area served by both FIOS and Cablevision, and neither have caps, and have played them against each other to get discounts on my service bills.
They don't need any prompting to not improve their infrastructure. Their "solution" is to impose arbitrary limits and offers slow service to stretch their profit margins by not improving their infrastructure. Competition is necessary for them to improve and they fight vigorously to deny it, suing municipalities to prevent them from offering their own lower cost, higher quality services.
My ISP has a 150Gb limit too. When we moved here it was unlimited. Then the ISP proposed a 30Gb monthly limit. After a local campaign, they acted like they were going to go bankrupt after upping it to 100Gb. Now it's 150Gb. I called them when the 100Gb limit came in and asked them how I was meant to use Netflix and the like with 100Gb. their answer was to use their own VOD system. To me, there's the heart of the matter - it's not the cost of transport, it's protecting their own revenue from online competitors. BTW, this ISP (Bend Broadband) is in Mr. Wydens district and he was receptive to complaints about their data caps.
"pants-on-head retarded" ? no it probably doesn't exist in the constitution but Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 says "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" that's a fancy way of saying they have the authority to regulate interstate commerce. How applicable it is for 99% of the stuff they say allows it I wont argue, but the constitution does in fact give them the authority to regulate commerce among the states.