Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Network Neutrality Is Law In Chile

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the muy-bien-tal-vez dept.

The Internet 180

An anonymous reader writes "Chile is the first country of the world to guarantee by law the principle of network neutrality, according to the Teleccomunications Market Comission's Blog from Spain. The official newspaper of the Chilean Republic published yesterday a Law that guarantees that any Internet user will be able to use, send, receive or offer any content, applications or legal services over the Internet, without arbitrary or discriminatory blocking."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A Law That Guarantees (3, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411314)

a Law that guarantees that any Internet user will be able to use, send, receive or offer any content, applications or legal services over the Internet, without arbitrary or discriminatory blocking

In Chile. If the servers are not in Chile then this law doesn't apply.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (4, Informative)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411324)

In Chile. If the servers are not in Chile then this law doesn't apply.

That was worded poorly. If the traffic doesn't originate in Chile then it is subject to arbitrary and/or discriminatory blocking or throttling before it gets to Chile.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (4, Informative)

cappp (1822388) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411376)

Google and I have joined forces to provide the following [google.com] description of what the law seems to cover:

1Prohibition for ISPs (those that provide Internet access) to interfere with, discriminate or interfere in any way the content, applications or services unless measures to ensure the privacy of users, virus protection and security the network;
2.It requires ISPs to provide parental control services;
3.Forces to provide clients with a series of written evidence for it to correctly identify the contracted service;
4.Forces to ensure the privacy of users, virus protection and network security, and
5.Forces to ensure access to all types of content, services or applications available on the network and offer a service that does not distinguish content, applications or services, based on the source of it or their property. Also prohibits activities that restrict users' freedom to use the content or services unless the specific request of users.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (1, Interesting)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411504)

So it's basically totally different from "network neutrality" as proposed in the US ? In the US network neutrality is not about blocking, but about QOS applied on a "discriminatory" basis*.

Not that I usually expect more from slashdot articles.

* note that applying QOS in a non-discriminatory way will still cause an ISP's own destinations to be better handled, for obvious reasons.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (3, Interesting)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412050)

I believe the part that said "interfere with, discriminate or interfere in any way" forbids both blocking and discriminatory QOS.

Also see the phase "and offer a service that does not distinguish content, applications or services, based on the source of it or their property", which also implies discriminatory QOS is forbidden.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33412298)

You missed the "Prohibits activities that restrict users' freedom to use the content or services unless the specific request of users".
I'd imagine that they would have clauses to allow QoS at the request of the user. Honestly though, you would really need to read (and understand) the native version to actually say that QoS was forbidden.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (4, Interesting)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411402)

Only because of less progressive jurisdictions. However, most of the non-neutral routing is on the client ISP side which IS in Chile.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (3, Insightful)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411648)

If the traffic doesn't originate in Chile then it is subject to arbitrary and/or discriminatory blocking or throttling before it gets to Chile.

You would pretty much expect that your packets are at the mercy of whomever is routing them anyway so this is no big deal. At least they are taking a step in the right direction. In this country (USA) that'll never happen because there's either too much consumer apathy or excessive control by those who have the most to lose. Sad but true.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411688)

Meaning people in Chile can throttle and/or block anyone/thing coming from outside their country?
Or just that Chile does not plan to (because it cannot) make other countries follow its examples and therefor cannot guarantee net neutrality from outside the country?

Re:A Law That Guarantees (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411346)

In Chile. If the servers are not in Chile then this law doesn't apply.

You expect Chile to enforce its will on foreign countries?

What do you think they are, AMERICA?

Re:A Law That Guarantees (5, Insightful)

LiquidPaper (69881) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411396)

Well, yes. We are part of America. I believe you are thinking of USA.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411624)

You are not part of America. You are in the Americas, but that is distinct from AMERICA.

Pay attention.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411660)

AMERICA is a continent, USA is a country located in the continent AMERICA. Seems USA schools teach poor geography...

Re:A Law That Guarantees (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411792)

AMERICA is a continent, USA is a country located in the continent AMERICA. Seems USA schools teach poor geography...

Well, if they taught you, then yes, because there is no continent called America. There is a continent called North America, and one called South America, which are collectively known as the Americas.

But none of them are AMERICA. That's a popular term for the United States of America.

Sad you didn't know that till now.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (2, Interesting)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412424)

Much like there's a continent called Western Europe and another called Eastern Europe, which are collectively known as the Europes.

Oh, wait.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411818)

"America" is not a continent. North America (which the US is located on) is a continent, and South America is a continent. Look at a map.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411836)

With all this outsourcing and exporting of jobs, we can't afford rich schools or middle class schools. We are stuck with poor schools and poor geography and poor math and . . . .

Re:A Law That Guarantees (4, Interesting)

Alexandra Erenhart (880036) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411920)

They do teach poor geography. The rest of the world knows that there's ONE continent called America, that has 3 different sections: North America, Central America and South America. US people like to join together central and south america and call it Latin America, but that's only them. The rest of us know geography. If you look at wikipedia, the english section refers America as the US, while the spanish section shows you America as the ONE continent. Is a cultural difference, but it hurt us non US citizens in the way that we feel americans, but not in the way the US thinks about it. It feels like they robbed us of our continent's name.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33412020)

They do teach poor geography. The rest of the world knows that there's ONE continent called America, that has 3 different sections: North America, Central America and South America. US people like to join together central and south america and call it Latin America, but that's only them.

You should complain to whoever taught your geography and history teachers. North America is on a separate continental plate from that of South America. Central America is partially on the North American Plate, and partially on the smaller Caribbean Plate, which is believed to have formed from either the Pacific or the Atlantic. Trying to make them into one continent? Doesn't work, because they're NOT!

In addition, the term Latin America? Created by LATIN AMERICANS! Yes, they did!

The rest of us know geography. If you look at wikipedia, the english section refers America as the US, while the spanish section shows you America as the ONE continent.

This is not an accurate description, because they're both actually disambiguation pages, as are those of many of the other language's Wikipedia pages.

Is a cultural difference, but it hurt us non US citizens in the way that we feel americans, but not in the way the US thinks about it. It feels like they robbed us of our continent's name.

And your responses feel like you're obsessed with proving Americans wrong, and just being spiteful because you're yet another Anti-American.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33412206)

You shouldn't feel bad. As you said, it is a cultural difference, and that is fine.

I used to agree with your POV for many years, until an insightful conversation with an American friend (this is before I became American myself).

The US were the first country to achieve independence from their corresponding European country. So, in 1776, there was no other independent country (or Confederation, to be more accurate). Calling oneself "American" was just natural and logical. Other independent countries appeared later on, but by then one could not expect to change the name of an institution to accommodate foreign powers and/or sentiment. The fact that most nations in the Americans speak another language make the cultural separation surrounding this point of contention more evident.

When I refer to my nationality, I use "American" in English and "Estadounidense" in Spanish. I believe the use of "Americano" for American in Spanish to be incorrect, but so I believe that it is completely unreasonable to expect Americans to call themselves something else in English.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411772)

Your country's official name is: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Thus, United States Federal Reserve, the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Food & Drug Administration, etc.

Now if you mean AMERIKA, then that is someting else...

Such seriousness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411850)

Your country's official name is: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Thus, United States Federal Reserve, the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Food & Drug Administration, etc.

Now if you mean AMERIKA, then that is someting else...

AMERIKA is indeed something else. But AMERICA? It also has its meaning, and it's as clear as say...BRITAIN, for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

BTW, there's no such thing as the United States Federal Reserve. Federal Reserve System is the actual title they use.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412118)

I dunno. The US is "The United States of (the continent of?) America", not "...of the Americas" or "...of North America"

Re:A Law That Guarantees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411642)

I wonder what poeple modded that one insightful.
I mean, if I told them that the sky is blue, would they consider that insightful or just odd that I was stating something obvious that everyone already know? Informative would be the correct tag.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411872)

At least some of them got the joke though.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412456)

Good, then when assholes talk about "stupid Americans", you fall under the umbrella. I for one welcome this new rewriting of terms to define "America" and "American" as anyone in North or South America. Spread the hate a little, you know what I mean?

Re:A Law That Guarantees (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411560)

Viva la Interweb! Move to Chile!

Re:A Law That Guarantees (1)

PsyciatricHelp (951182) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411708)

"LEGAL SERVICES" This is fine and dandy until they start making content illegal.

Re:A Law That Guarantees (1)

AmigaMMC (1103025) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411934)

I foresee a lot of servers being moved to Chile. Plus it's cheaper there.

Chile (5, Funny)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411320)

That makes sense. When I eat chile, I never have trouble with traffic flow or port blocking.

Re:Chile (0, Offtopic)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411354)

I wish I would have saved my mod points. lol

Turn Off Your TV (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411326)

Stop being slaves and turn off your TV!

http://www.areyoutargeted.com/ [areyoutargeted.com]
http://www.thehiddenevil.com/ [thehiddenevil.com]

Re:Turn Off Your TV (2, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411340)

Slashdot: Stop being slaves and turn off your TV!
Homer: Never! The answer to life's problems aren't at the bottom of a bottle, they're on TV!

If Chile can do it, why can't we do it? (5, Insightful)

LinearBob (258695) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411334)

In one word -- GREED!

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it? (5, Informative)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411356)

Greed and monopoly. If competitors were permitted in cities, I bet you'd see a return to unrestricted access. Where I have my hosting, I get transfer for under $0.01/GB. A TB of transfer is less than $10. Bandwidth is no longer a major cost of doing the ISP business. So why can't I get that at home? Lack of competition. Cities get fat checks for restricting competition, and we all pay for it.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411536)

I find it funny that people's solution is to then have the government get more involved, especially sense they ARE THE PROBLEM. Oh right I must be a conservative not job (I saved you the post :) )

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411544)

Indeed. Harry Browne said it best about government:

Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk."

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it? (1, Troll)

microbox (704317) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411590)

ARE THE PROBLEM

How are they the problem again? Oh, that's right, it's because it's typed in all-caps.

Yet another vacuous statement on government regulation from a conservative "not" job.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it? (3, Insightful)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412260)

The government must restrict monopolies. Without a government, the monopoly holders would find some other way to stop upstarts besides putting pressure on the local offices. A truly free market will devolve into a pit of snakes very fast, taking in both those who have and those who have not.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it? (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411608)

If there were "unrestricted access" in place in a major American city like, lets say, Columbus, OH, how many cable companies do you believe would be in operation?

Protip: We do have unrestricted access in Columbus, and there are 2.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411924)

So, you have two cable companies and FIOS. That means you have three choices for High Speed Internet. If more cities had unrestricted access, there would be more players. Actually, I did a little research and Columbus does not have unrestricted access. Any company that wishes to provide cable video service in Columbus, OH, must get authorization from the Ohio Department of Commerce ( http://www.puco.ohio.gov/PUCO/Consumer/Information.cfm?id=8306 [ohio.gov] ). Additionally, since the elimination of local franchise in Ohio only occurred in 2007, it is a little early to reach a conclusion about what effect this change will have on competition throughout the state. Around 2015 we will be able to determine how this change is working out.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it? (2, Interesting)

stinerman (812158) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411980)

Three! All you need is three and you've got a well-functioning free market! And do you know how difficult it is to get authorization? Very, very easy.

I used to be part of an advisory board that dealt with the local charters back when we did have local franchise agreements. In Fairborn, OH all you had to do was negotiate a deal with the city to use their rights-of-way and you could offer service. We still had one cable company. There simply weren't enough people in Fairborn (about 30,000) to keep two franchises profitable.

The problem is that the people selling infrastructure are the same people selling service. Imagine if UPS and FedEx had to build their own roads. We'd have the same problem.

We need publicly owned infrastructure and privately owned businesses selling service over that infrastructure. Remember the good old days of dial-up? You didn't have to buy service from your phone company. You could choose any ISP in the world if you really wanted to. Of course, you were generally limited by the ISPs that had a local number you could dial, but there were more than three. I grew up in a town of about 7,000 residents and we had 5 choices.

I agree that the state of Internet access is a problem, and I'd like nothing more than to see some real competition, but you're not going to get competition until you remove the inherent conflict of interest that occurs when a company owns the infrastructure in a market that lends itself to a natural monopoly.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33412344)

Protip: Setting up a cable network costs a hell of a lot of $$$ and having 2 entrenched competitors who can afford to undercut you (without lose overall due to profits made elsewhere) makes it really hard to recoup the costs.

Just out of curiosity, how many major cable companies are there in the USA? I can think of Roadrunner (are they still around?), Timewarner, Verizon(are they cable?), and Comcast.

Hell, we had our major telecoms company (Telstra) privatised here in Australia over a decade ago and it's monopoly on the infrastructure is still skewing the market (even with laws which force it to lease it out on a fair and non-discriminatory basis). Every week or three I get phonecalls from them saying that I should switch back to Telstra because they can do it cheaper (which is a lie cause I pay less to a third party for 1.5mb adsl who lease the telstra lines for better service).

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it? (2, Insightful)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411722)

Um...I agree with you that lack of competition probably has a lot to do with it...but they don't just throw a datacenter at some random place. One of the key things they would look for is cheap bandwidth. Plus, when you're moving huge quantities of data, it's easier to get a good deal. It's like anything else.

I once had a girlfriend whose mother was a regional manager for a restaurant chain. She got hundreds of dollars of free food every month. Does that mean that, if there was more competition in the restaurant industry, we could all get hundreds of dollars of free food? No. When you have certain locations and deals and jobs, you get things cheaper. So to say that bandwidth to your home should be cheap because bandwidth to a datacenter is cheap is a pretty poor argument.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it? (2, Insightful)

Klinky (636952) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412012)

Bandwidth for the ISP should be even cheaper for the ISP than what the OP pays for it. Where do you think your home connection ends up going to? A large datacenter run by your ISP that is located strategically to allow for the ISP to reap cheap bandwidth. On top of that, they possibly don't even pay for much bandwidth at all & instead setup peering agreements with backbone providers. Yet broadband prices keep going up. The last mile is not cheap to maintain, but a lot of the intiail costs have already been recouped as far as setting up initial infrastructure & the ISPs are very slow at upgrading or even maintaining their network.

Prices keep going up because there is no reasonable competition. Usually it's either cable for $X or DSL, that after you are forced into getting a POTS line put in and then their addt'l fees is just as much yet half the speed.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it? (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412122)

The last mile is not cheap to maintain

Exactly the point I was thinking about. Yes, competition could drive down prices immensely, but that last mile isn't cheap, and if you aren't paying for your part of it, you're probably paying for somebody else's. Again, prices could go down a lot, but those last mile connections will cost a hell of a lot more to maintain than a single (well, a few) large pipe(s) to a datacenter, and that's really where the cost comes from. They don't really charge you for bandwidth, they charge you for the connection and bandwidth and service (well, some service) all in one price.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it? (1)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412370)

You make a good point. I would argue that ISPs in most places can get similar deals, at least in major cities. Most run their own backbones and peer when possible, so bandwidth usage still shouldn't be expensive. Either way, I think it really comes down to a lack of competition.

That being said, I understand there is a cost to the last mile, so it's unlikely that at-home bandwidth will ever be as cheap as datacenter bandwidth. Still, the incidental cost of additional bandwidth should not be that much compared to the other infrastructure or corporate overhead costs.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it? (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411890)

It hasn't been proven one way or the other if "Chile" (or rather, the companies which operate within Chile) can "do it", whatever that means.

It's quite possible it will not be feasible to do so without raising costs, cutting service in areas, or otherwise going out of business.

Expect to see limited, "non-Internet" accounts pop up at lower (but inflated) prices, with the cost of standard Internet services going sky high.

Re:If Chile can do it, why can't we do it? (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411952)

It hasn't been proven one way or the other if "Chile" (or rather, the companies which operate within Chile) can "do it", whatever that means.

It's quite possible it will not be feasible to do so without raising costs, cutting service in areas, or otherwise going out of business.

Expect to see limited, "non-Internet" accounts pop up at lower (but inflated) prices, with the cost of standard Internet services going sky high.

You appear to have difficulty distinguishing between bandwidth limits and network neutrality.

Safe Haven? (0, Troll)

kachakaach (1336273) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411362)

So servers for spammers, hackers, torrents, porn, & gambling sites all have safe haven in Chile now?

Re:Safe Haven? (2, Insightful)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411374)

Obviously not. I'm certain the Chilean ISPs are still permitted to have acceptable use policies.

Re:Safe Haven? (2, Insightful)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411404)

Glad to see the FUD campaign wrt Net Neutrality has achieved its goals. The meaning of the concept has been distorted beyond all recognition in certain countries.

Re:Safe Haven? (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411630)

So servers for spammers, hackers, torrents, porn, & gambling sites all have safe haven in Chile now?

I see you failed to read even the summary. The traffic still has to be legal.

Re:Safe Haven? (1)

purpleraison (1042004) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411710)

So servers for spammers, hackers, torrents, porn, & gambling sites all have safe haven in Chile now?

At least THEY have rights! ---- you fucking douche.

"applications or legal services over the Internet" (3, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411372)

So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked?

And how long is it before that changes to "must be blocked" due to being a signatory on an international copyright treaty...

Or does it mean companies can no longer filter websites they find inappropriate? They after all a form of ISP in a way.

Any time you let the government decide what is permissible on your network you will be sorry in the end.

All this to solve a problem that doesn't even exist. The only time we saw torrent throttling (not even blocking!!) in the U.S. was Comcast, and they got smacked down for it. The market worked, why do we need regulation when there is no problem?

"Network Neutrality" sounds so happy and awesome at first, but it hides a greater problem than you'll ever see from throttling.

Furthermore, VOIP is screwed (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411386)

He explained that suppliers must provide a service "which makes no distinction arbitrary content, applications or services based on the source of their origin or ownership."

In other words - no VOIP traffic prioritizing or in fact traffic shaping of any kind. Sorry Skype users, you'll have to stick with the big business telcos!

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed (3, Informative)

Sigma 7 (266129) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411548)

He explained that suppliers must provide a service "which makes no distinction arbitrary content, applications or services based on the source of their origin or ownership."

In other words - no VOIP traffic prioritizing or in fact traffic shaping of any kind. Sorry Skype users, you'll have to stick with the big business telcos!

There's a set of bits in IP meant to adjust QoS, which is a non-arbitrary way of handling things. Thus, Bittorrent can claim itself to a minimal QoS, which is announcing to nearby routers that they're the first ones to go if there's a problem. Likewise, an RSS feed may declare it to be a low QoS, and defer to a normal QoS (such as from an HTTP browser), or a high QoS (such as real-time video conferencing or telephony.)

In this case, it's the applications themselves that volunteer to be dropped as issues arise from QoS, rather than being arbitrary.

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed (2, Insightful)

Burdell (228580) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411892)

The standard QoS bits are basically useless across any administrative boundary (such as the connection between you and your ISP, or your ISP and their upstreams/peers). Otherwise, you very quickly get people realizing they can just set all of their traffic to the "high priority" class. The only way an ISP could reasonably do QoS is by port or packet inspection.

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33412224)

simply say you get a maximum of 10 kbps of critical priority, and 100 kbps of high priority, and Z mbps of best effort low priority.

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33412286)

derp.

QoS isn't "I want to go faster" or "I want to go slower". It's "I care about bandwidth" and "I care about latency".

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33412072)

Setting ToS is arbitrary... routers have to be configured to foremost trust such markings and then schedule based upon those markings... and sorry to break the news to you, but service providers don't schedule based upon those markings. And if they chose to, they surely wouldn't trust from customers without doing a policed remarker.

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411884)

He explained that suppliers must provide a service "which makes no distinction arbitrary content, applications or services based on the source of their origin or ownership."

In other words - no VOIP traffic prioritizing or in fact traffic shaping of any kind. Sorry Skype users, you'll have to stick with the big business telcos!

What is the matter with you? Read the text you quoted yourself. VOIP is a traffic type. It is not a "source of origin or ownership". So yes, they can prioritize VOIP. They just can't prioritize Company A's VOIP while not prioritizing Company B's VOIP.

Reading comprehension is important. Not important to you, apparently, but it is important. Really man, the text you quoted yourself answered the question you are asking. You deserve to be called out on that.

Re:Furthermore, VOIP is screwed (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411928)

I use an ooma device for VOIP; as far as I know, Comcast doesn't prioritize that, and it works OK.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern (5, Informative)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411488)

All this to solve a problem that doesn't even exist. The only time we saw torrent throttling (not even blocking!!) in the U.S. was Comcast, and they got smacked down for it. The market worked, why do we need regulation when there is no problem?

REALLY?

You seem to forgotten that there was a lot of complaining and a lot of people finding no competition to turn to and then the FCC smacked Comcast for throttling torrents.

In other words, exactly the opposite of what you said.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411496)

I disagree, strongly. As one of the unlucky comcast customers who was caught up by their throttling for months, its very much a big deal to me. Especially when they kept insisting they weren't doing any of the kind of shit they eventually got caught doing, and to this day they still lie about the crap they were pulling. "Reasonable network management", my ass! Comcast claimed they weren't blocking anything, but when I had a torrent going (of ANYTHING) my downloads (on ANYTHING) dropped to almost nothing within 5 minutes, even at 3am! They throttled all traffic going to my computer because they saw one piece was something they didn't like (torrent traffic). The whole point of network neutrality is to keep them from pulling this kind of shit. They are welcome to throttle when I hit a certain amount of traffic for the month. They are NOT welcome to start throttling my fucking connection 5 minutes into a LEGAL BSD ISO download and turn the torrent, as well as the rest of my connection to crap to save themselves a few pennies on data transit costs. That is bullshit. Pure bullshit.

I can not wait for the US to implement mandatory network neutrality. And I'm not talking about Google+Verizon's underhanded back door deals that let them only do it where its favorable to them. It's either that, or force comcast, the bells, and any other company that's ever been given tax breaks and subsidized land from the city for their equipment and for their lines to force them to provide wholesale access to their wires to other isps. That way, consumers really do have a choice on who they can get internet from and whether they are going to put up with this kind of crap or not.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern (1)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411576)

"It's either that, or force comcast, the bells, and any other company that's ever been given tax breaks and subsidized land from the city for their equipment and for their lines to force them to provide wholesale access to their wires to other isps. That way, consumers really do have a choice on who they can get internet from and whether they are going to put up with this kind of crap or not."

A. The ILECs (monopoly phone companies) generally do have to sell wholesale and ISPs use this. They just price their low-end DSL so low it forces all the competition out of business. You need a DSLAM in every POP to serve the whole city, and that means the cost of the hardware and rent to the ILEC. It also means rent for wires to cross-connect -- the ILECs milk you for whatever they can. It's expensive, and the ILEC has a huge advantage on it. So it's not just the leasing of wires that's the problem here. If you want real DSL competition, you need to allow a lot more cheap stuff to competitors, and see that it's not just the wires the ILEC has a monopoly on.

B. Little ISPs buy transit from bigger ISPs. DSL providers buy transit from backbone companies. If you don't have neutrality laws, the shit you're describing will still happen on a larger scale at the backbone level. I remember a case in Canada where precisely this happened, so the little ISP had to give up on promising no throttling.

C. "Pennies on data transit costs"? What are you smoking? They saved NOTHING on transit costs. They were trying to delay modernizing their network to handle the real traffic load. They were trying to make money on having extra cash to play with today, rather than invest for the future. This is done by giving dividends on the stocks (which your top executives own a lot of, isn't that interesting), profiting from investments, and not getting loans. Comcast was just behaving naturally: they were being colossal dicks.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern (2, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411736)

They are NOT welcome to start throttling my fucking connection 5 minutes into a LEGAL BSD ISO download and turn the torrent

I agree, but I ask: why should it matter if it's a "legal" download ... or otherwise? I don't expect my telephone company to censor my speech if I say things that someone else doesn't like (although that would certainly be possible from a technical perspective.) Likewise, I don't expect a company that I pay to transmit packetized data from here to there and back again to be in any way involved in determining the legality of said communications.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern (1)

butlerm (3112) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412124)

The telephone company doesn't want to care whether it is a legal download. Common carriers are insulated from liability for the traffic that goes across the network. Even common carriers can refuse to provide service for blatantly illegal activity, and on occasion may be required by the government to do so.

Under normal conditions they just have no incentive to do so, in part because the burden of proof is on them instead of the other way around. Nobody who is largely insulated from legal liability wants to go around provoking lawsuits. To say nothing of the fact that electronic communications providers are generally prohibited from analyzing traffic content for the purpose of determining whether it is legal or not.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412232)

Common carriers are insulated from liability for the traffic that goes across the network.

Internet providers (even those such as the Baby Bells and AT&T/SBC) received an exemption for their data services. Contrary to popular belief, they are not common carriers for the purposes of their data services, even if they also provide telephony service. Consequently, they are not largely insulated from legal liability.

You have it somewhat backwards (assuming you're talking about the U.S.) in that these big companies simply do not want to be considered common carriers when it comes to providing Internet connectivity. That's because a common carrier, in exchange for immunity from prosecution for any use of their equipment for illegal purposes, also comes under a much heavier regulatory burden (involving, among other things, quality of service, with penalties for failing to deliver) which they feel will cost them money. So, they take the risk of the occasional lawsuit in order to be able to deliver crappy service at will. In reality, nobody sues an ISP for Joe Crook's using the Internet so for them, not being a common carrier is a win-win situation.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern (1)

perlchild (582235) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412378)

If you expect to be able to sue someone for NOT carrying traffic, you can't really expect them NOT to care if their carrying traffic gets them sued for a bigger amount, by someone else.

What you seem to want is immunity for the carrier, in exchange for not analyzing the traffic. There's very few countries that would consider "opaque" traffic as desirable public policy after 9/11, your feelings on that aside.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411606)

I read it as meaning that if the operation of spam clients/servers in Chile were considered illegal then an ISP would be within its rights to downgrade the internet connectivity of those hosts without breaching their contract.

And so on.

For your question about torrent sites on a blacklist to have meaning, Chile would first need such a thing.

In this instance, the government isn't deciding what's permissible on *your* network. You don't own the network beyond your "modem".

This law is sensible, problem is too many of us aren't used to sensible laws!

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411618)

MORON ALERT:

Faking RST packets is not throttling. That is an active denial of service. This is what Comcast was alleged to be doing.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern (2, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411656)

So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked?

Perhaps, but before it could be any arbitrary block. Now there's a law that specifically says you can not unless it meets some exception, so I don't see how it could possibly be worse than before.

And how long is it before that changes to "must be blocked" due to being a signatory on an international copyright treaty...

The day YouTube has to shut down because *one* pirated clip is found on their service is the day all sanity has left the Internet anyway.

Or does it mean companies can no longer filter websites they find inappropriate? They after all a form of ISP in a way.

Only if they resell access to individuals or other companies, I would think. An employee is more like a child in your household, I doubt your teenage son can demand you give him unfiltered internet access by this law. I guess there's some ambiguity at college campuses and the like, but that is not a new discussion. Also I'm quite sure ISPs can continue to offer voluntary filtering services, I know at least some ISPs here do.

Any time you let the government decide what is permissible on your network you will be sorry in the end.

And the first amendment means the government decides what you can say in the US? Which is by the way a pretty good response to your first statement, even though there is freedom of speech there are certain forms of speech that are illegal and forbidden. It would be very strange for "speech" over the Internet to be any other way.

All this to solve a problem that doesn't even exist. The only time we saw torrent throttling (not even blocking!!) in the U.S. was Comcast, and they got smacked down for it. The market worked, why do we need regulation when there is no problem?

The market? Comcast has most their customers trapped or in a duopoly with an equally unfriendly ISP. The only reason they got smacked down was because they were being covert and dishonest about it, if they had been above board then people would be screwed.

"Network Neutrality" sounds so happy and awesome at first, but it hides a greater problem than you'll ever see from throttling.

I think you need better arguments, you sound like Chicken Little who has become convinced the sky is falling. So far I've hardly seen anyone against network neutrality that I would say act with the customer's best interests at heart. Predominantly it's either companies who will lose their ability to double dip and become Internet gatekeepers or MAFIAA-like organizations that have as their stated goal to reach agreements with intermediaries to block unregulated services and offer only a cripple-net of "approved" services. Then there's some shills and quite possibly the most legitimate are the libertarians who claims the government can't do anything right, even though rights like this is a huge counterexample.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern (1)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412328)

So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked?

Perhaps, but before it could be any arbitrary block. Now there's a law that specifically says you can not unless it meets some exception, so I don't see how it could possibly be worse than before.

Unless companies view this law as saying how much they can get away with and still be legal. I don't know why but it seems like whenever a new law says "don't do X", companies take it as license to do anything that is not X even if before the law they wouldn't have done them. (There is probably some psychological/sociological phenomenon that explains this but that isn't my area.)

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern (2, Insightful)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411732)

So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked

Yes. Just like they were before.

And how long is it before that changes to "must be blocked" due to being a signatory on an international copyright treaty...

No shorter (if ever) than before the law.

Or does it mean companies can no longer filter websites they find inappropriate? They after all a form of ISP in a way.

Certainly not by any sane legal definition.

Any time you let the government decide what is permissible on your network you will be sorry in the end.

...which has what to do with Net Neutrality?

All this to solve a problem that doesn't even exist. The only time we saw torrent throttling (not even blocking!!) in the U.S. was Comcast, and they got smacked down for it. The market worked, why do we need regulation when there is no problem?

What if an ISP started throttling/blocking something a little less beloved than torrents? How much support would you get if they blocked, say, terrorist propaganda? Every one of the slippery slope arguments applied to government (not that I've heard a convincing one yet) can be applied to companies.

"Network Neutrality" sounds so happy and awesome at first, but it hides a greater problem than you'll ever see from throttling.

Again, no more than without Net Neutrality.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412024)

"Yes. Just like they were before."

They were? ThePirateBay isn't blocked for me, or any other torrent website for that matter. There's no way they can block the torrents either, considering the fact that there's no way to tell what's illegal and what's not from a technical standpoint.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33412264)

I'm on your side on this, but I just have to point out

If there was a way to tell what's illegal and what's not from a technical standpoint, we wouldn't have a spam problem.

Cue that form reply in 5 4 3 2 1

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern (2, Insightful)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411878)

So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked?

Well, what do you think? Were illegal services all fine and dandy beforehand? Use your brain.

And how long is it before that changes to "must be blocked" due to being a signatory on an international copyright treaty...

OK, so throw out the baby with the bathwater. Also, that's pretty off-topic.

Or does it mean companies can no longer filter websites they find inappropriate? They after all a form of ISP in a way.

Huh? Are employees consumers?

Any time you let the government decide what is permissible on your network you will be sorry in the end.

This isn't the great firewall of China, in fact it's quite the opposite but "government bad! government will make you sorry!" is not a compelling argument.

All this to solve a problem that doesn't even exist. The only time we saw torrent throttling (not even blocking!!) in the U.S. was Comcast, and they got smacked down for it. The market worked, why do we need regulation when there is no problem?

Comcast won in the end in case you forgot here's a link [businessweek.com] , and they were resetting traffic with RST packets. If you dont think that was a test of what they could get away with, you're crazy. It was precedent setting.

"Network Neutrality" sounds so happy and awesome at first, but it hides a greater problem than you'll ever see from throttling.

I'm sorry this is going to sound rude but.... your post was either a complete troll or one of the stupidest things I have read on Slashdot in a long time. You warn of fixing a problem that doesn't exist and try proving your point with a bunch of unrelated "what-if" scenarios peppered with existential "you'll be sorry" fear mongering.

Re:"applications or legal services over the Intern (1)

butlerm (3112) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412086)

Comcast won in the end in case you forgot

The only reason why Comcast won is that the FCC was trying to regulate the Internet under a section of the law that gave them absolutely no power to do so. The FCC is in a position to fix that problem, by regulating Internet access providers under Title II.

Avoiding Title II was criminally irresponsible on the part of the FCC in the first place, they got smacked down for it and now we all suffer the consequences of the FCC's previous decision to operate under a purely fictional legal regime. Wishful thinking doesn't usually carry you very far in the legal system. The FCC has the proper tools, now they just have to use them.

From Specifics Upwards (3, Insightful)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411380)

"Chile is the first country of the world to guarantee by law the principle of network neutrality,"

Isn't passing a law that makes something originally outside the law to remain outside the law rather oxymoronic? It's like the US requiring members of sovereign nations that exist within its own borders prove to the US that they are valid members of said nation before the US will recognize them as such; such is the requirement for tribal membership for Native Americans. To pass such a law Chile only proves that it an make laws regarding net neutrality. If it can make them, it can remake them. If net neutrality were an objective fact, no country's laws would matter. Since they obviously do, even a 100% granting of neutrality by all concerned is no more than lip service. And being international, such a law would require a treaty. Check out for yourself how many treaties get signed by all involved, and how few of those actually get honored. TFA is the appropriate first step, but unless it's followed with some far more powerful and reaching reforms, say, putting worldwide network administration under a UN component with the power to actually act, it's strictly superficial regardless of intentions.

Re:From Specifics Upwards (3, Insightful)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411410)

Isn't passing a law that makes something originally outside the law to remain outside the law rather oxymoronic?

Hmm, is it? I vaguely recall a set of laws that certain things shall remain outside the law to be rather highly thought of somewhere...

"Congress shall make no law" sound familiar?

Re:From Specifics Upwards (1)

Maxhrk (680390) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411492)

Isn't passing a law that makes something originally outside the law to remain outside the law rather oxymoronic?

Hmm, is it? I vaguely recall a set of laws that certain things shall remain outside the law to be rather highly thought of somewhere...

"Congress shall make no law" sound familiar?

"Congress shall make no law" is too vague. explain more what you mean by that..?

Re:From Specifics Upwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411552)

It's a quote from the constitution, specifically the first amendment. LMGTFY http://lmgtfy.com/?q=congress+shall+make+no+law

Re:From Specifics Upwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411716)

It's a quote from the constitution, specifically the first amendment. LMGTFY http://lmgtfy.com/?q=congress+shall+make+no+law

LMAHREFTFY

Congress shall make now law... [lmgtfy.com]

Re:From Specifics Upwards (2, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411718)

countries can make laws about anything they want to.
and their are lots of laws that exist to make other laws illegal.

Re:From Specifics Upwards (2, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411944)

Yeah that's a great idea, put enforcing network administration of the Internet under the UN, then they can set up a commission to oversee it. I figure the Chairperson of that committee will be from Iran or China, countries known far and wide for their dedication to open and free exchange of knowledge.

Re:From Specifics Upwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33412412)

Involving the UN is a terrible idea, and I don't care if it's regulating internet traffic, fighting a war, or making hotdogs, the UN is the path to failure.

The argument for net neutrality (2, Insightful)

WarJolt (990309) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411418)

If this works out and their internet access appears to have been improved as a result, then I will support the concept of net neutrality. However, I doubt I will support and US implementation of it. I don't like the FCC. Anyone know anything about the regulatory commission that enforces net neutrality in Chile? Hopefully they are less political than our FCC.

Re:The argument for net neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411780)

It will probably get more expensive.. whenever governments regulates and forces companies to do things, they push the cost to the consumer.
And it usually raises the barrier of entry too, stalling competition. But I don't know how is it in Chile, so these are just generalities

Re:The argument for net neutrality (5, Informative)

Alexandra Erenhart (880036) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411970)

The entity in charge of regulating this is probably the SUBTEL,(Subsecretaría de Telecomunicaciones, subsecretary of telecommunications perhaps is the translation?). I don't know if you have any idea about politics in Chile, but we have several political parties over there, not only two. Yeah, there are like 3 or 4 that are bigger and with more power than the others, but they don't get to bend government entities the same way political parties in the US do. So in a way, by being more political (more parties), they are less political (the power is more spread). I don't know if that makes sense, but it sounds pretty haha.

Chile doesn't have states like the US. The main divisions are regions. They have their own governmental entities but they're all controlled by the central ones in Santiago, the capital. So regions don't get to do whatever they want either, meaning that if the government creates a law, all the rest of the regions have to follow, and individual regions can't make their own laws.

I hope that helped somewhat to understand a bit how Chile works. Of course, the real question is if the SUBTEL is going to care enough to reinforce the law in all its extent. That's a completely different deal.

key word: "blocking" (0, Troll)

Michael D Kristopeit (1887500) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411564)

without arbitrary or discriminatory blocking.

delaying a packet in a queue is not blocking the packet... so the law is pointless. deciding now much delay is effectively a block would itself be arbitrary. packet prioritization with some level of latency is still inevitable.

stop using the phrase "network neutrality"... it no longer means anything.

Re:key word: "blocking" (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411686)

you "sound" bitter just beacuse Chile passed a law that restricts the -evil- actions of the ISPs before the US

PS: the law also includes "delaying", so your post is pointless

Link to the law. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33411566)

Here is a link to the law (in Spanish) and some comments from IT people living and working in Chile.

Chile Net Neutrality Law [allchile.net]

Great News Everyone (3, Insightful)

Strange Ranger (454494) | more than 4 years ago | (#33411668)

Zoidberg aside, this IS great news. Despite the "free from government" leanings here on slashdot, because of the way the market and the legal system works (despite our ideals), this is great news.

It's regulations like this that keep free markets free.

Re:Great News Everyone (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412186)

Yes, the legal aspect is important. The judiciary in Chile now have a solid guideline on how they should interpret the law (which is, in the interests of Net Neutrality).

Re:Great News Everyone (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412376)

Zoidberg aside, this IS great news.

/Zoidberg voice
Why is everyone always pushing Zoidberg aside!
/sobs and scuttles away

Re:Great News Everyone (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412470)

Despite the "free from government" leanings here on slashdot

We must be on two different SlashDots. Maybe you've been gone from slashdot for 10 years and are just coming back? There is definitely no "free from government" leaning here. The latest boogieman is..da da daaaaa (sinister music).. The Corporation.

As we usually say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33412162)

Viva Chile Mierda!

Thanks to all the people who work for this goal.

DILLAGIF? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33412176)

DILLAGIF?

Post-Fascism (-1, Offtopic)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#33412266)

At least Chile has gotten over fascism. Elsewhere, we're still working on it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?