Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Democrats Propose Legislation To Ban Internet Fast Lanes
An anonymous reader writes: A proposal from Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate would require the FCC to stop ISPs from creating "internet fast lanes." Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said, "Americans are speaking loud and clear. They want an Internet that is a platform for free expression and innovation, where the best ideas and services can reach consumers based on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider." Representative Doris Matsui (D-CA) added, "A free and open Internet is essential for consumers. Our country cannot afford 'pay-for-play' schemes that divide our Internet into tiers based on who has the deepest pockets." Unfortunately, this is only half a solution — the bill doesn't actually add to the FCC's authority. It only requires them to use the authority they currently have, which is questionable at best.
The Republican bill that would remove ISPs from FCC regulation would allow states to regulate. It would make rent seeking a lot more difficult for ISPs. This bill would do the obvious thing that the Fourth Branch has failed to do. It's a sign that the FCC is entirely pointless if Congress has to order it to do every little thing. This wouldn't address the paid prioritization problem, but seems like it would give consumers more rights against ISPs in re traffic shaping, etc.
phoenix arise!
If they would label ISP's as common carriers none of this would be needed.
This doesn't fix the root cause. I have 1 ISP in my region that provides cable internet. As long as they have monopoly power they will abuse it. Fix the monopoly issue and the federal goverment might not need to regulate the internet like this.
Slowing undesirable traffic down could be (and therefore will be) interpreted as creating slow lanes, not creating fast lanes. To maintain net neutrality both need to be forbidden.
So, what's the proposed difference in download speeds (in MB/s) between fast lanes and normal lanes?
Here, Mr. Congressman have some money, we don't need no silly neutrality. How about free HBO for your family instead?
If they ban internet fast lanes and tiers then what? Netflix can't pay off the ISPs and they just continue throttling the internet as they see fit? And when Netflix confronts them about their crappy service they just say "it wasn't me.".
Every single name on this bill has a (D) next to it. It will never make it to the floor in the house.
I read the internet for the articles.
Representative Doris Matsui (D-CA) added, "A free and open Internet is essential for consumers. Our country cannot afford 'pay-for-play' schemes that divide our Internet into tiers based on who has the deepest pockets."
I don't think you understand what that word (free) really means..
Nothing is free, there is ALWAYS a price and it is usually dumped on the working class.
The guy wrote the DMCA. He's in the pocket of every big content industry there is. Don't even pretend he has your interests in mind.
Always remember, just because someone in government suggests they do something, and that something sounds like a good idea, does not mean it will bode well for the population at large.
The only thing the feds have done right in the last 20 years, IMO, is expand their own power and influence. I expect that to be the end goal in this case as well.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I predicted this would happen. As soon as lawmakers figured out there was this thing called peering they'd freak out and try to control it. The discussion went from treating each packet the same to controlling peering. How long will it take for lawmakers to completely screw up the Internet? Much of what I see about net neutrality is like reading people's thoughts on organic food. Small bits of truth, but mostly junk. Now turn that ignorance over to the power of the Federal government. No good can come of this.
So basically between 1 in 4 to 1 in 2 packets going over the ISP's transit link will be Netflix data. Why would an ISP do that if they have the option to peer directly with Netflix? It makes absolutely no sense. Any spike in Netflix data will cause everyone's connection to be crap. Not just Netflix users, everyone. This is not helping the potential competitor to Netflix, it is hurting them! Peering is a good thing! Please stop trying to regulate it.
Up to their judegment. Comcast says they want a "fast lane" and a "faster lane" but since there is a finite amount of bandwidth available, who do you think is going to suffer?
They want to ban "fast lanes"....which is a vague (does that mean if you create slow lanes, it no longer applies? etc.) term....
"Fast lane" is the term the net neutrality opponents use to describe what's left after they've artificially slowed down traffic for everyone not willing to pay.
Historically, everything has been a fast lane, and that's what net neutrality fights to keep.
The "fast lane" suggestion is like if a county decided to decrease the speed in right hand lanes to 30 mph, and then charge extra for driving in the left lane, which they now call a "fast lane". Can you imagine the protests?
Silly wording. "U.S. Democrats Propose Legislation To Ban Internet Fast Lanes" The "fast lane" is what customers pays for and we expect to receive. The "slow lane" means they don't have to give us the bandwidth we pay for. They have no obligation to expand infrastructure to meet most customer's demand. Therefore, destroying net neutrality means everything becomes a slow lane.
That sounds like a bill that would actually work FOR the consumer and AGAINST the corporations. So which one is it?
a) A bill that he knows will not pass due to never getting the required support
b) A trojan horse that sounds great but is actually going to make things worse
c) A decoy to paperclip something worse to its back
d) All three
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A racketeer, banker, and all-in-all ruthless Wall Street tycoon--he was appointed by FDR to become chairman of the SEC because he was the biggest, baddest wolf of them all. And he did a complete 180--he knew all the tricks because he'd done them (or invented them) and he turned the SEC into a force to be reckoned with. Kennedy not only obeyed the rules, he enforced them and made Wall Street toe the line, which arguably helped us get out of the Depression the first time (before Congress, going populist and austeristic, decided to put us back into the Depression by cutting spending).
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
It might. I remember when the first bill was produced a bill to regulate telemarketing. The idea was a classic political maneuver. They'd introduce the bill to give the impression they gave a shit. Then they'd quietly kill the bill or gut it before it got too far. But it turned out that people were really tired of having their phone lines abused. So many people called or wrote their congressmen that they couldn't kill the bill. They did water it down over the years but it had a lot more teeth than they intended. So yes, getting involved matters. When a congressman knows that a lot of people are paying attention it affects how they vote.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
The same lawmakers should ban airlines (and other transportation providers) from offering "First Class" travel.
Oh, and, certainly, the namesake Fast Lanes — now increasingly reserved for customers of E-ZPass and similar payment systems — should be banned too.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'm having a difficult time believing that this is a genuine effort to accomplish anything besides PR for the democratic party. First of all, everyone knows perfectly well that the FCC's current authority falls well short of what is needed to ban fast lanes; Verizon did a rather thorough job of demonstrating that if I remember correctly. Secondly, if they are going to pass legislation, then why not pass net neutrality directly into law? This is a farce. Most democrats do not care about this issue any more than the republicans do. They are simply trying to look good to the public while simultaneously pleasing their campaign donors; as if Obama's appointing Tom Wheeler as chairman wasn't proof enough of that already.
... slow lanes, instead.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
As long as comcast builds out their network in addition to the bandwidth yhey sold you, no one suffers. The key is ensuring their faster lane does not degrade your lane.
The fundamental problem is that ISPs seem to be in a sort of quantum superposition regarding common carrier status. Whenever they're applying to use common land or using it as a legal defense, they claim to be common carriers. Whenever they want to charge people more money for certain things, they aren't common carriers.
Let's let them pick. Every year, let them choose whether they want to be common carriers or not. If they are, then they get the access to existing utility poles, and the immunity for any criminal traffic that may pass through their lines, that common carrier status entails, along with the requirements for fair pricing and universal access. If they choose not to be common carriers, let them charge whatever they want for whatever they want - but they have to build a completely private infrastructure, and may be liable for any traffic that crosses their network.
PS: "Fast lanes" basically don't exist online. You can't make some traffic magically go faster, you can only make all other traffic go slower.
Bingo. Election year posturing - means nothing.
Tell me with a straight face that when a surgery robot is doing its work, commanded by a doctor over the internet, that those packets are equal to those of someone watching Netflix. Unintended consequences?
Since when is everybody entitled to a 4 lane highway to your front door? Yes, most everybody and their dog wants fast, faster, fastest internet, the provider has to pay the bill according to customer receipts and good standing with the banks to get money for more gear and laying cable. Once upon a time, telephone systems used party lines to get their customers wired, and they gradually migrated up to individual POTS as the systems and business environment improved. To have the government wave a legal wand proclaiming all or nothing most often results in nothing. Case in point -- a school that wanted to issue Tablet Computers for it's students, but DOE shot them down because they weren't usable by the blind. So much for reasonable accommodation -- why can't they still use what they were using before the tablets. Be very careful when demanding government solutions to market problems.
Pacifist paratroopers yell, "Ghandi!" when they jump.
So the FCC, which is a political tool for the administration du-jour, should now be put in charge of REGULATING the Internet?
In other countries where there is no rush to regulate everything based on the crazy notion that large numbers of people in groups called corporations are pure evil, but large number of people in groups called government are the solution to all our problems... guess what? Their internet access is faster than ours, and costs much much less. Not because they leapfrogged the technology. Because they don't have massive complicated regulatory nightmares and hundreds of hidden taxes on everything to pay for the political class.
This is the same FCC that championed BPL long after it was shown to be a flawed technology, the same FCC that has created the spectrum allocation nightmare, the same FCC that takes months, and even years to deal with interference complaints... This is the same government that drew up a political enemies list, time and time again, and used the power of the government to go after people with "incorrect" thoughts and speech... and now wants us to believe that they "lost the emails" that would prove who was involved... It would be in all our best interest if they didn't pass any more bills or write any executive orders for the remainder of our lifetimes. Please, for a moment, step out of the ivory tower and into reality. The worst thing you can do is walk around saying "The guverment, well, they ought to DO something because _____________"
Murphy was an optimist
again, if you have 100% and you want to allocate 50% to one group and 50% to another, everyone is equal, but the second you want to allocate 60% to one group, that 10% has to come from somewhere.