Slashdot Mirror
Legislation Would Prohibit ISPs From Throttling Online Video Services
Dega704 sends this story from Ars:
"A Senate bill called the 'Consumer Choice in Online Video Act' (PDF) takes aim at many of the tactics Internet service providers can use to overcharge customers and degrade the quality of rival online video services. Submitted yesterday by U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the 63-page bill provides a comprehensive look at the potential ways in which ISPs can limit consumer choice, and it boots the Federal Communications Commission's power to prevent bad outcomes. 'It shall be unlawful for a designated Internet service provider to engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the purpose or effect of which are to hinder significantly or to prevent an online video distributor from providing video programming to a consumer,' the bill states. A little more specifically, it would be illegal to 'block, degrade, or otherwise impair any content provided by an online video distributor' or 'provide benefits in the transmission of the video content of any company affiliated with the Internet service provider through specialized services or other means.' Those provisions overlap a bit with the FCC's authority under its own net neutrality law, the Open Internet Order, which already prevents the blockage of websites and services. However, Verizon is in court attempting to kill that law, and there is a real possibility that it could be limited in some way. The Consumer Choice in Online Video Act could provide a hedge against that possible outcome."
Too many Dems are in bed with Hollywood and too many Repubs will scream about socialism because it places limitations on big business.
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
Should be illegal to 'block, degrade, or otherwise impair ANY content'
I also don't want Verizon intentionally de-prioritizing my Vonage VoIP traffic, for example. Or a cable company that's tied to CNN.com making MSNBC.com's images load slower to make the site seem less appealing to read from.
What we need is a very stiff, broader law that says, in a nutshell: ISPs provide bandwidth, period. In selling Internet Access, you're not allowed to block, degrade, or de-prioritize select traffic based on the type or source of said traffic. You're not allowed to effect the same by over-prioritizing preferred sources or types of traffic. Legitimate QoS for the purposes of improving overall customer experience is ok, but the QoS rules have to be (a) publicly details to your consumers, and (b) optional, with a zero-cost option to disable the QoS-prioritization of a given customer's in- or out- bound traffic.
Do they belong to The People[TM], or to the Internet Service Providers competing with each other?
False dichotomy. They belong to internet service providers who don't compete with anyone, and who openly argue that they shouldn't allow other companies' services (eg Hulu, Netflix, and Vonage) to compete with their services (Cable TV and/or Telephone).
Of course, the bill won't do a thing for Vonage, but it's a start, and maybe when I stream a 1 minute 1080p video from youtube without having it take 5 minutes to buffer on UVerse and the world doesn't end? People might think "hey maybe there's something to this".
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Who missed the payment to that prick Rockefeller? Come on guys. You had one job - buy off enough Congressmen and Senators so we don't have to worry about this net neutrality crap. Now we're going to have to double his fee and go through all the political theater so he can save face.
That's what usage based billing is for. If some users download huge amounts and that costs them money, charge the individual users for that bandwidth.
I thought the 'common carrier' status meant they were required to send everything without preference. Because since if they lost their common carrier status, they'd be responsible for things like child porn.
As usual, these companies are asking for all of the protections of being a common carrier without any of the responsibilities and obligations.
However, throttling the service of someone else (like Netflix) because your customers are using that service (and so they can push you to using their competing service) is a pretty one-sided outcome for the ISPs.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Are you talking about the parts that are run on public and private property (not owned by the isp), Because if that's the way you want to play. I am ripping every cable down that is not on THEIR property.
You see they were granted easements in return for providing us a service. When they start limiting that service they should lose their right of way and then they won't have a network anymore.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
In addition, many of these networks were built thanks to an infusion of taxpayer dollars to the companies in question in exchange for some promises that the ISPs then "forgot" about when it came time to deliver (and used their lobbying muscle to prevent anyone holding them to their promises).
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
His profile doesn't seem to have Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon listed as major contributors, so I'd guess this man is honestly trying to do something for his constituents. It's also worth noting that he is doing this in spite of Verizon being a major source of funding. Also related and notable, he is retiring at the end of the current Congress -- he came out in favor of gay marriage this year too, and in West Virginia that probably means something. I get the impression he's trying to leave a good legacy, and it's nice to see that.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
I think you misread that a bit.
Both the 10 minute buffer and the 48 minute buffer can hit play and start watching immediately. The example is an hour long video, the difference being the 10 minute download used 5 times the bandwidth for the same end effect, meaning in a bandwidth limited scenario that user prevent 5 other users from being able to do the same thing.
That's the basis of the idea, allowing throttling that doesn't effect playback, but prevents spikes in usage from preventing others the same access.
And given how many copyright violations occur via torrents (percentage-wise), not sure the protocol deserves very many legal protections at this point in time.
Now there's an attitude that deserves no respect... like copyright itself. I don't want anybody deciding what protocols I can transmit/receive. I only want a pipe. That's what the ISPs should provide. Throttling is a form of censorship.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Here's one result from a quick Google search: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131012/02124724852/decades-failed-promises-verizon-it-promises-fiber-to-get-tax-breaks-then-never-delivers.shtml
Basically, Verizon asked for massive tax breaks ($2.1 billion) in 1994. In exchange, they said they would wire all homes up with fiber by 2015. By 2004, they were supposed to have 50% of homes wired, but didn't have any. Now they have halted all FIOS expansion and are basically reneging on the promise entirely. Of course, they're claiming that wording in the contract allows them to do some of this. (Stuff like lines "passing" homes which they claim means they can run a line near a home and that home counts even if that home isn't hooked up to the fiber.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Now a 3rd option is in my area. Haven't noticed any throtteling on Netflix or Youtube. Even a test torrent worked just fine.
Part of the problem is that the government defines "competition" (especially in communication regulation, ever since the initial rollout of analog cellphone service) as starting with two competitors. It writes regulations that stop pushing for competition at two.
As I understand it, with two "competitors", rational pricing optmization algorithms actually drive them to splitting the customer base about equally with a high profit margin. No collusion is necessary - the price and market share transmit enough information to drive the effect.
With four or more you're virtually certain to get somebody squeezed into a small market share but still able to survive. His best strategy, near term, is to compete with a low price or better price:performance ratio and grab market share. This starts a price or price:performance war that drives the market price toward cost plus a livable profit margin and/or makes the better service necessary for market survival. By the time this settles out the little guy is usually a big enough guy that he doesn't get squeezed out.
With three competitors the high profit / low service level equilibrium is somewhat unstable, so it might go any of several ways (three gougers, squeeze out the little guy, or {usually} the price/service war).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way