Slashdot Mirror
Bill Would Ban Paid Prioritization By ISPs
jfruh writes In the opening days of the new U.S. Congress, a bill has been introduced in both the House and Senate enforcing Net neutrality, making it illegal for ISPs to accept payment to prioritize some traffic packets over others. But the sponsors are all Democrats, and with Republicans now in charge of both house of Congress, the chances of it passing seem slim.
But the sponsors are all Democrats, and with Republicans now in charge of both house of Congress, the chances of it passing seem slim.
WooHoo!
On another note, whenever those assholes work together, Watch out! Like when the PATRIOT act was passed. Or when the criminal Wall Street crooks were given a free ride and bonuses to boot at taxpayer expense.
And where were the Teabaggers then? Nowhere.
But there was plenty of those people condemning the Occupy Wall Street kids! Who were protesting against taxpayer money waste!
Fox News watching morons.
Funny. Their actions would suggest they believe in pork barrels.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I've not been a fan of previous "Net Neutrality" efforts, because they didn't seem likely to fix the problem. This, however, is great. It totally undercuts the ISP extortion racket, without trying to fix a technical problem.
The big ISPs can always find a loophole in any law that tries to prevent throttling by some technical rules - that's what engineers do: we game a system to maximize some value. Bad approach. By instead saying "do whatever, but you can't charge money for priority access simply removes the incentive to do it in the first place. Good approach.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If the Democrats wanted this to pass, they would have brought the bill to floor when they had a chance of it actually passing. Far too many in the Democratic party are in the pockets of those that won't let this pass, but by bringing it up now, it can look like the Republicans are the bad guys.
Which, they are. Both parties are opposed to net neutrality. But this bill is just there for grandstanding. The Democrats could have made net neutrality happen MANY times in the last few years, so this is just to try to smear team red, even though team blue agrees with them totally on this issue.
This still doesn't address the real problem, when an ISP degrades traffic which competes with their other revenue streams. I.E. a cable company degrading netflix traffic or a telephone company degrading skype.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The Republicans believe in "free" market that helps the most powerful Corporations.
Oddly enough, Net Neutrality is about protecting and strengthening the free market such that it remains free and competitive.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
No, Net neutrality is a routing policy about how to prioritize packets that people can choose to implement.
Using the government to mandate it upon everyone, under threat of legal action, whether it's a good solution or not, is an entirely different issue.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
and with Republicans now in charge of both house of Congress, the chances of it passing seem slim.
To preface, this is not a partisan-based slam. This is a slam on our entire system. The fact that we accept something won't pass despite it being universally wanted by "the people" (not pronounced "corporations") shows our biggest hurdle that we as a country need to overcome. Not race/gender equality or financial disparity, but the ability of this country to be propelled forward by a system that is representative to the needs of the many, not the powerful.
a routing policy that protects and strengthens a competitive free market among internet based services and companies.
im well aware of what NN is.
and one aspect of its implications is that big fish cant pay for preferential treatment or an unfair advantage, allowing upstart "internet startups" a fair shot as taking on goliath. the task of a startup taking on an existing leviathan is hard enough on a level playing field, just by virtue of being a tiny nobody going against a big somebody, but its everyones interests to preevnt Goliath from stopping David from even born. And that is one aspect and implication of a sound NN policy.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
It would be great if we could have an actual debate, on actual solutions, to actual problems.
Thing is though, on this and many other issues, the politicians/parties don't believe there's a problem, won't propose solutions, and try to shut down, derail, or otherwise prevent actual debate by distorting the issues.
I would love it if the debate were between Republicans proposing measures to actually increase real competition, versus Democrats proposing measures to prevent the various companies from screwing over their customers. A situation like that, where most of the politicians were actually advocating for what the average citizen wants/needs, would be pretty close to ideal, and the outcome would at least be a reasonably close solution.
At least the Democrats in this case are trying to suggest solutions. We need Republicans that recognize there's a problem and propose solutions, too.
Not sure where you were going with that, but the bridge to nowhere was sponsored by Republicans.
In this case, it doesn't matter if they're Republicans or Democrats. AT&T is a major purchaser of votes in Congress. This has no chance of passing. The people sponsoring it know that and are still doing it so they can campaign on it.
In other words, it's a dog-and-pony show.
It is beneath the dignity of the slashdot front page.
No, really.
Our state allows wealthy drivers to pay extra for the convenience and speed of the Express Lane.
When your state installed this "Express Lane" did it actually add a new lane, or did they wall off existing lanes, forcing everyone who doesn't pay up into fewer lanes than they had before, making the traffic for everyone else worse?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Such revisionist history.
All history is revisionist. Anyone claiming otherwise is trying to sell you something.