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.'"
Dear Senator Wyden,
Thank you for actually being a good Senator, that introduces good bills that create or change laws that help out the average US Citizen. I'm glad I voted for you the last time you were on the ballot, and if I still lived in Oregon I'd vote for you again.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
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.
We start approaching our monthly ISP imposed data cap of 150 GB just from watching Netflix. One room mate nearly busted us through when she started watching the new Dr. Who series, beginning from the first David Tennant episode on up.
If I remember right, Netflix currently accounts for about one third of all total Internet data usage.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
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.
Couldn't this serve to discourage ISPs from improving their infrastructure? If they let their infrastructure age, they'd be spending nothing on improvement, and would eventually be allowed to put data caps in place as bandwidth usage increases.
Disclaimer: Didn't RTFA.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
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.
Let's cut to the chase. In the modern political arena our money faces no obstacles whatsoever. It is up to you whether that money supports you in your next run for office or pours into your precious state decimating not only your own campaign but every other congress critter down-ticket along party lines. Not that we enjoy threatening our investment opportunities, far from it. Its just business.
Hugs and Kisses,
ISPs
While this law sounds reasonable on the surface and seems well enough intentioned, looking at the past history of government regulations, I can't help but assume that even if this were to pass, the law will be twisted and manipulated to the point that it actually hurts the end users or stifles competition. Perhaps the requirements for compliance with the law will be so onerous that small ISPs cannot compete, leaving only the big players and a high barrier to entry, or it will prevent new innovative business models and force us to stick with the status quo even if a better alternative is found.
For example, the regulations for bidding for government contracts were intended to level the playing field, reduce corruption, and lower costs. But as the regulations became more and more complicated (trying to plug the loopholes), only the biggest contractors with government bidding officers and on-staff lawyers can actually get through all the red tape. The result is that small players cannot compete and costs go up. The regulations ended up doing exactly the opposite of what was intended.
The government exists to regulate monopolies that must exist, like power, gas, water, waste disposal, police, fire, and transportation, and break those that must not, like telephone, computer hardware, and computer software.
Those monopolies I listed must exist because of the barrier to entry and the potential consequences of a monopoly. Electricity and gas being necessary to survive winter, or even summer for some folks, a company cannot be allowed to hold someone's life for ransom. Water is a necessity of life, which is why it's provided by the city government (who holds a monopoly on it). On the other hand, there are things a monopoly can do better than competition, like take a loss on serving certain customers because the loss is made up by less costly customers, or make a large capital investment because they can take a credit risk and be assured that customers have no other choice (in a more competitive market, risk is heightened).
Of course, what I've just said is a good argument for government-owned fiber to the home (except for the "necessary for life" thing, which is only a matter of time).