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.
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.
Here, Mr. Congressman have some money, we don't need no silly neutrality. How about free HBO for your family instead?
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.
Basically. It would mean they could be regulated. The "Fit Willing and Able" part of being a common carrier would require them to upgrade as the regulations demanded. There is only one argument I see as valid against making ISP's common carriers, and that the resulting legal mess might make things chaotic for a few years, or even a decade. Too many legal/court things have been done under Information Services that changing would give a lot of lawyers a lot of money.
common carriers just says they have to carry all traffic equally and without discrimination.
You answered your own question.
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 difference is that provisioning the last mile is what's expensive. Running fiber to the point of presence is easy. So if you regulate telcos as common carriers, suddenly you have competition between ISPs again, and so they can't pull that crap.
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.
Peering isn't the same thing as enforcing QOS on the last mile of the connection. ISP's should be free to peer. They shouldn't be free to force QOS on end users. Having Netflix as a peer is entirely different than having my cable modem hard enforce download speeds of X everywhere, except Netflix which gets a download speed of Y. That's an artificial limitation.
Free as in liberty.