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!

Net Neutrality Bill in Congress

samzenpus posted more than 8 years ago | from the try-again dept.

254

hip2b2 writes "The US Congress is finally doing something to prevent large bandwidth providers and network operators from charging (or putting restrictions on) competing web and other Internet media content providers. According to this NetworkWorld article, the new bill sponsored by Democratic Representatives Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jay Inslee of Washington state, Anna Eshoo of California and Rick Boucher of Virginia in the House and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in the Senate. I am not a big fan of legislation, but, I hope this bill keeps the Internet a freer place." Here is our coverage of the first round.

cancel ×

254 comments

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

FUCK YOU ALL. (0, Troll)

CmdrTaco (troll) (578383) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258719)

You heard right.

Re:FUCK YOU ALL. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15259093)

What was that again? I didn't quite catch that the first time.

Re:FUCK YOU ALL. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15259326)

HE SAID HE LOVES PONIES OMG.

Lameness filter encountered. Post Submitted!

Legislation != Free (1, Insightful)

Burdell (228580) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258721)

Government legislated control of Internet traffic management is the exact opposite of most any definition of "free".

Re:Legislation != Free (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15258746)

I think the real problem is that some ISPs want to sell "Internet connections" while giving their customers old-style AOL gated network services. There's a word for taking someone's money for a service, and giving them something different in return: fraud.

When someone advertises Internet access, people expect just that. "Net neutrality" is just a fancy term for the way the Internet is supposed to work. Fraudulent "internet service providers" should be sued, civilly and/or criminally, and shut down.

Re:Legislation != Free (1)

crbowman (7970) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259006)

Hear hear, the same goes for people that want to sell you "Internet Service" which doesn't allow you to run servers or use port 25. If you are blocking or deprioritizing ports or telling me what data I can send and recieve you aren't an internet service provider. You are provding some sort of kiddie pool. Which is fine, just don't engage in fraud and tell me you are an ISP.

Re:Legislation != Free (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15259043)

You say it jokingly, but I don't believe an ISP should be blocking servers. That's part of the whole television mentality: "the end users are consumers, we are the producers."

Why doesn't the ISP just limit upstream bandwidth, and sell it as an asymmetric connection? I think part of the answer is that they don't want to honestly sell what they advertise.

Re:Legislation != Free (1)

Burdell (228580) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259058)

If it is fraud (read the terms and conditions), then prosecute under existing fraud laws. No new laws needed.

Re:Legislation != Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15259149)

I agree to a degree, but not when you say, "read the terms and conditions." When someone boldly proclaims that they're selling all-you-can-eat bananas, eagerly taking your money, and in the fine-print sales agreement it says that the bananas on display aren't the ones you're really getting -- you'll be given leftover banana peels -- then they're committing fraud for all intents and purposes.

My point is that the network connections they want to sell cannot be honestly called "Internet connections." I agree that it shouldn't be resolved through legislation, except to the degree that the telecommunications companies are exploiting a monopoly position or engaging in a cartel.

Re:Legislation != Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15259125)

well see here, you really have no standing to stop a company like AOL from offering a 'discounted' tiered servic, for, say $9.99/month.

Just think how convincing to Joe-Sixpack would be those 30-second spot adds that AOL et al. couldrun non-stop on TV:

"Bad liberals at EFF" want to "limit your freedoms", "stiffle the innovation", "destroy the free market", "force legislation" on people, "steal your money", stop you from getting a great service at a fraction of the price.

In the best traditions of Karl Rove, EFF would be swiftboated to hell, and America will be yet another step closer to turning into China2.

Re:Legislation != Free (2, Interesting)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259244)

Fraudulent "internet service providers" should be sued, civilly and/or criminally, and shut down.

Look. If they don't lie, how do you expect them to get any customers? Do you expect a politician who doesn't lie to actually win an election? Of course not. You might hope for that, but you know it won't happen. We are definitely a masochistic society. We like being hurt and lied to. We crave it. And then we come back and ask for more. Metaphorically, we are very kinky(or maybe not so metaphorically). And we'll react very negatively to anybody who would try to tell us that the whore stole our wallets. Another good example of an industry that lives on lies is the cell phone business. They promised secure, private connections. How? By providing secure encryption? Nope. They had the feds instigate a prohibition on full band scanners. And we liked it! "Please sir, can I have another?"

AT&T on Net neutrality & it's new Tier opt (4, Funny)

usurper_ii (306966) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259256)

AT&T Introduces Privacy+ Tier for Consumers and an NSA Turbo-Speed Tier for the government, at Market-Leading Prices

Wednesday April 26, 6:00 am ET

For $24.95 a month extra, the new Privacy+ Tier offers consumers the ability to feed all data to the NSA at the slowest speeds available. However, for an extra $28.95 per month, per customer, the NSA can override the Privacy+ Tier and spy on Americans at Speeds of up to 6.0 Megabits per Second

SAN ANTONIO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 26, 2006--AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T - News) today announced a new, higher-privacy tier for its AT&T Yahoo!® High Speed Internet service that meets consumers' growing outrage for allowing the NSA full availability to its backbone. At the same time, it announced a new NSA Turbo-Speed Tier that, for a fee, allows the government to override the newly introduced Privacy+ Tier.

Beginning Monday, May 1, new residential customers who order AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet service online through www.att.com can purchase the Privacy+ Tier -- offering data to the NSA at speeds sometimes as slow as 56k. (other monthly charges and a 12-month term commitment apply). Effective today, the new Privacy+ Tier is available for $24.99, when it is ordered with a qualifying service bundle. Existing AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet customers can upgrade to the Privacy+ service through the company's Web site and take advantage of the current pricing promotion beginning Monday.

"Consumers are craving greater privacy, and now with the AT&T Privacy+ service, they can at least get the satisfaction that the government is going to get their private data at the slowest speeds possible; "Consumers could easily get more privacy from a company that doesn't offer the NSA a fat pipe right onto its backbone, but with the incredible amount of money that the government paid us for that pipe, we just couldn't pass it up. The new Privacy+ Tier, tips the scales back just a little bit in favor of the consumer," said Scott Helbing, chief marketing officer-AT&T Consumer.

Also effective Monday, May 1, the NSA can sign up for the new NSA Turbo-Speed Tier, which for an extra $28.95 per month, per customer, allows the government to override the newly created Privacy+ Tier. "The NSA is craving greater speed to American's private communications, and now with the NSA Turbo-Speed Tier, they can at least get the satisfaction that they can resume domestic spying at the highest speeds possible; "The NSA will be hard-pressed to find this speed at a better price, for a full 12 months, from one of our leading competitors," said Scott Helbing, chief marketing officer-AT&T Consumer.

AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet also announced that with the NSA paying an undisclosed, but very large amount of money for access to its backbone data, and with a higher than expected demand from consumers, that it has decided to ask popular web sites, such as Google and eBay to also pay a monthly fee to insure a speedy deliver of all consumer data to these web sites. In that regard, AT&T Yahoo introduced the new Extortion-racket Tier.

Also, in a move that is sure to stun Wall Street, AT&T has announced that they will soon enter the "garbage collection" business.

About the New AT&T

AT&T Inc. is one of the world's largest telecommunications holding companies and is the largest in the United States. Operating globally under the AT&T brand, AT&T companies are recognized as the leading worldwide providers of IP-based communications services to business and as leading U.S. providers of high-speed DSL Internet, local and long distance voice, and directory publishing and advertising services. AT&T Inc. holds a 60 percent ownership interest in Cingular Wireless, which is the No. 1 U.S. wireless services provider with 55.8 million wireless customers. Additional information about AT&T Inc. and AT&T products and services is available at www.att.com.

You will also be charged a monthly FUSF (Federal Universal Service Fund) cost recovery fee to help cover charges from our data transport supplier pursuant to state and federal telecom regulations. This fee is not a tax or government required charge.

Contact:AT&T Inc.
Sarah Baker, 314-982-8659
sbaker@attnews.us"

And in related news (2, Funny)

usurper_ii (306966) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259273)

Large gorillas have filed civil suits for violations stemming from the use of the slang "800-pound gorilla" when referring to large businesses which dominate an industry. A spokesperson for the gorillas said, while this has been an issue for gorillas for a long time, that since AT&T provided the NSA with a backdoor to its backbone, that it is just too offensive to have the word gorilla and AT&T used in the same sentence. As the suit winds its way through the judicial system, the gorillas prefer people use the more appropriate metaphor for large corporations who violate American citizen's privacy rights on a grand scale, by referring to them as "800-pound penises."

Usurper_ii

Re:Legislation != Free (4, Insightful)

d34thm0nk3y (653414) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258789)

Government legislated control of Internet traffic management is the exact opposite of most any definition of "free".

These companies were granted the rights to lay cable on public land via legislation in the first place.

Re:Legislation != Free (1)

Burdell (228580) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259067)

You presume all Internet traffic passes through the legacy telcos. That is not true, and if some companies decide to implement multi-tier service, others won't and can route around the trouble-makers.

absurd (5, Insightful)

penguin-collective (932038) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258792)

Your statement is absolutely absurd, and it is an insult to centuries of struggle for democratic government.

In fact, it is the primary purpose of our government to keep us free, and the primary instrument our government has for that is legislation: legislation that keeps people from harming each other, legislation that keeps companies from distorting a free market, and legislation that establishes institutions that protect us from external threats.

Government legislated control of Internet traffic management is exactly what it means for our government to keep us free.

Now, I'll give you this much: our government sometimes does the wrong thing, either because of misguided people (like you!) or because of outright corruption. But the solution is not to get rid of democratic government and legislation (we had that for a few millennia and it wasn't pretty and certainly not free), the solution is to fix government and make sure the legislation is good legislation.

Re:absurd (-1, Flamebait)

takeya (825259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258946)

Companies can't distort a free market, only a government can.

Prove me wrong. :)

Re:absurd (1, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258990)

Companies can't distort a free market, only a government can.

Prove me wrong. :)


MSFT

Re:absurd (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259102)

Rockefeller

Re:absurd (1)

FLEB (312391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259180)

The problem is that the government already has, long ago... often even legitimately in the purpose of the public good... but it has meant that the government now has to (or "ought to") juggle and balance back and forth in order to keep things fair.

Re:absurd (4, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259119)

Government legislated control of Internet traffic management is exactly what it means for our government to keep us free.

Nonsense. If a private company providing a service in a market where many other companies are doing the same wants to offer special pricing or performance options to customers that want to pay for such, they are (or should be) free to do so. It's no "distortion" of the market to change your offering to suit your own business objectives. You, as a customer, can just "distort" it right back by taking your business to another provider that suits your tastes.

In fact, it is the primary purpose of our government to keep us free,

No. It is your primary purpose to do so, and mine. The government's obligation is to stay out of our way, and to be there in case someone decides to prevent you (or me) from doing so.

and the primary instrument our government has for that is legislation:

Yikes! No. It's the Constitution that does that. Legislation comes and goes, but the key structural pillars of the government are set forth in the Constitution.

legislation that keeps people from harming each other,

Legislation doesn't do any such thing. People either do, or do not, harm each other. Legislation may set forth such penalties as are trotted out after that happens. Otherwise, you're talking about prior restraint... to which our courts are thankfully generally allergic.

legislation that establishes institutions that protect us from external threats

No, that's the executive branch's job. They do that through the military and various other supporting agencies. Certainly the legislative bodies approve funding, etc., but from a Founding Fathers perspective, defense against "external threats" is something the C-in-C and his branch is supposed to take care of.

Now, I'll give you this much: our government sometimes does the wrong thing

And the more you stick the government in the middle of transactions between private parties, especially where evolving technology is concerned, the more mistakes happen.

Re:absurd (3, Informative)

penguin-collective (932038) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259261)

Nonsense. If a private company providing a service in a market where many other companies are doing the same wants to offer special pricing or performance options to customers that want to pay for such, they are (or should be) free to do so. It's no "distortion" of the market to change your offering to suit your own business objectives. You, as a customer, can just "distort" it right back by taking your business to another provider that suits your tastes.

Quite to the contrary: many business practices (including various pricing, contractual, and distribution strategies) have the goal of establishing monopolies. In order to keep the market free and efficient, those practices need to be regulated.

Now, the term "free market" is used by some to refer to a market "free from government control", but that's a misleading use of the term, because the same people still incorrectly suggest (and often believe) that that's the kind of market people like Adam Smith were talking about. But for Adam Smith's invisible hand to function, markets need a specific structure; within that structure, there are certain freedoms, primarily the freedom to set prices, but not others, like the freedom to monopolize. A market that is supposed to operate efficiently needs government regulation, all that libertarian hot air notwithstanding.

And the more you stick the government in the middle of transactions between private parties, especially where evolving technology is concerned, the more mistakes happen.

When you leave government out of those transactions, you get monopolies that are even worse. Leaving aside Microsoft for the moment, just look at what happened with monopolization in the railroad, oil, and telephone industries in the past--those were all excesses of unregulate markets involving new technologies, and consumer outrage finally brought them under government control.

Government sucks and makes many mistakes, but lack of government sucks even more.

Re:Legislation != Free (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15258808)

That is a pretty childish view when you know that the major telecommunication carriers (that through collusion can completely control the Internet themselves, any customers be damned) are intent on charging different rates to different websites on the Internet to provide or not provide certain quality of service (bandwidth). In what way do you believe this fundamental change to the Internet will be beneficial, other than to allow those with more money the ability to get their message out on the Internet better than those with less money?

Re:Legislation != Free (1)

Burdell (228580) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259084)

The telcos cannot control the Internet themselves. They sell raw point-to-point pipes to a large number of other companies that then run Internet traffic outside of the telco control (the PTP pipes are already regulated so the telcos can't affect the flow of traffic across them). These other companies connect to each other at public and private peering points; if some telcos persist with the multi-tier plans, the other companies can route right around them.

Knee, meet jerk. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15258821)

Government legislated control of Internet traffic management is the exact opposite of most any definition of "free".

In your ideal world there would be no regulations of anything, period, right? Brilliant plan - it's the recipe for anarchy.

Re:Knee, meet jerk. (2, Insightful)

I(rispee_I(reme (310391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259363)

I think it's actually the definition of anarchy, which means you're arguing in circles.

The internet, despite being funded by the government, is a creature born relatively free of arbitrary strictures, conceived, in fact, with the intention of circumventing them.

Re:Legislation != Free (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258864)

You do know that free speech and free enterprise are protected by legislation? If we had things your way (assuming you aim for maximum "freedom") there would be no laws or constitutional framework of any sort since all legislation must restrict freedom by definition. Therefore only 100% anarchy is the most desirable social order. Of course, we have the whole nature/vacuum deal ... and we end up with a dictatorship.

People like you are the reason why Microsoft still has a monopoly and hasn't been broken up. In your relentless bashing of "gubmint" being all things bad, we end up with less freedom than if we restricted freedoms that some people shouldn't have.

Re:Legislation != Free (1)

Burdell (228580) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259111)

Free speech is protected on public property. You have no right to come on my property and say anything; I can tell you to leave (and if you persist I can have you arrested). If some companies want to do something to their network that will probably cause them to lose customers, why should the government prevent it? The Internet is made up of a large number of companies; if a few choose to shoot themselves in the foot, the rest will pick up the slack.

I'm no Microsoft fan (don't run Windows anywhere I can help it), but they don't have a monopoly. Otherwise Apple would be out of business and Linux/FreeBSD/etc. would not be gaining market share.

Re:Legislation != Free (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259198)

The Internet is made up of a large number of companies; if a few choose to shoot themselves in the foot, the rest will pick up the slack.

You assume this because it is what traditional liberal economic theory says will happen. I charge that you can't assume that. As many, many people have said, the invisible hand that Smith spoke of only holds in specific situations, not everywhere for all t.

Re:Legislation != Free (1)

Burdell (228580) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259296)

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Internet companies in the US. So far, two or three have said they want to do this. They are large, but they are not without competition.

Another big problem with this proposed legislation is that, if it were passed and stood up in court (where it would no doubt be challenged), it would also be the toe in the door for government regulation of Internet traffic for other reasons. "Think of the children" groups, RIAA/MPAA, and who knows who else would send even more lobbiests to Washington with new justification. Spammers could sue ISPs that disconnect them for not being "neutral" about their traffic.

Some networks that have limited bandwidth (smaller ISPs, corporate and education networks) rate-limit peer-to-peer traffic to keep it from flooding out other traffic, but that would be stopped. QoS for VOIP may also have to stop. Lots of ISP traffic engineering would come under government review.

Re:Legislation != Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15258879)

You're right. I'd feel a LOT freer if I were under the thumb of a giant telco monopoly.

Sometimes I think libertarianism is as hopeless as most Slashdotters seem to think....

Re:Legislation != Free (1)

r00t (33219) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258902)

I'd agree, if telecom were not:

a. a government-granted monopoly
b. naturally inclined to become an abusive monopoly

We could really use a corporate tax rate based on marketshare. It can't be added now because of the lobbyists, and there are problems determining market share, but conceptually it would fix many problems in the market.

Re:Legislation != Free (1)

AnyThingButWindows (939158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258961)

Would you rather it be Corporate controlled? This is your idea of free? You would rather have a company tell you what you can and cannot do, than have the government 'not' tell you what you can and cannot do?

A company is not garanteed freedom here in the U.S. People are. And it should remain that way.

You're absolutely right!!! (1)

absurdist (758409) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259054)

And if it were not for that accursed law that robs us of our liberty, I would murder you on the spot. (Kudos to Eric Blair - George Orwell to the rest of you. He DID write more than 1984 and Animal Farm.)

Re:You're absolutely right!!! (1)

Burdell (228580) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259130)

What next: a law to prevent Wal-Mart from putting the more expensive single-bottle Cokes next to the checkout registers (especially when Coke pays them extra or credits them some to put Coke there instead of Pepsi)?

Re:You're absolutely right!!! (1)

absurdist (758409) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259222)

No, just assist me in repealing the laws that keep me fron shooting you through your thick fucking skull and I'll be more than pleased.

Re:Legislation != Free (1)

chicago_scott (458445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259333)

You sure have that right. Legislation restricts and defines freedom, not expands it.

The only time legislation expands freedom is when said legislation is nullifying a previous law.

Won't make it out of committee (5, Insightful)

Thanatopsis (29786) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258726)

My prediction is that this bill will never even make it out of committee. Far too many telco lobbyists on K Street to let that happen.

Re:Won't make it out of committee (2, Interesting)

daeg (828071) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258813)

I've made it clear to all of my federal representatives that this is my deciding factor in their vote. I do not like voting on one issue alone, but this is one that I would. I also made it very, very clear that I will make a very, very big deal out if this if they do not support it. Working in mass media has its perks.

And yes, we are biased. Our demographic likes our bias. So piss off about that.

Re:Won't make it out of committee (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258918)

If only your demographic new you are biased. I will go out on a limb and say you don't announce your bias at the begining of the show.

You are hurting America.

Re:Won't make it out of committee (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258998)

The only bad thing about that strategy is that in a rather low visibility issue like this, the challenger is very likely to hold the same position. Net neutrality isn't sexy, and a lot of people really don't care about it or don't understand it. I'd love to vote based on copyright reform, but the CTEA of 1998 was passed by voice vote in both houses.

Currently*, the only way realistic way to get a minor issue in the fold is to start a single-issue party and attempt to gain enough votes so that one of the major parties take your issue and make it part of their platform. Not enough conservatives or liberals will vote for a Democrat or Republican, respectively, based on a single issue to make any difference in the congressional race in question.

*With comphrensive voting reform we could bypass the 2-party dictatorship and actually get some real traction on issues other than Jesus, terrorism, and boys kissing.

Re:Won't make it out of committee (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259265)

I do not like voting on one issue alone, but this is one that I would.

Even if the other guy kills kittens and eats babies?

Re:Won't make it out of committee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15258824)

Hey, I work at a law firm on K Street, really. Oh wait....

Re:Won't make it out of committee (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258905)

Well no shit, this is a Republican congress. Look at the list of public laws [loc.gov] . I'd be willing to bet none of them have come from Democratic congressmen, excepting the odd naming of a post office.

One of the rules of being in the majority party is making sure the minority doesn't get any bills passed. This allows the majority to cast the minority as ineffective and without ideas or a coherent strategy. If the minority does put forth something that has bipartisan or widespread constitutent support, the majority will often just copy most of the bill and submit it themselves. That way they can take all the credit.

Re:Won't make it out of committee (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15259023)

You are absolutely correct. Remember that:
1) The House is controlled by the Republicans
2) The Senate is controlled by the Republicans
3) The White House is controlled by the Republicans
4) The Supreme Court is now controlled by the Republicans

As a result Democrats have no subpoena power, no power to hold hearings, no swearing in the witnesses, no impeachment stick to protect the Constitution.

Hence you have:
1) Increase in poverty & misery coupled to the record proffits for the oil companies
2) Domestic NSA spying
3) Rape rooms and torture chambers in Iraq, Gitmo, and other military bases
4) Iran nuking coming up
5) Assault on freedom of speech, including on the Internet
6) Complete non-existance of intelligent debate in the media. You get Aruba 24/7, with no real news. Case-in-point: stonewalling of Colbert's dinner address (google-news it)

I hope you will remember that come November elections.
Two-party system NEEDS at least two parties, you know.
1) Vote
2) Donate $$$. A little money can go a long way here

Re:Won't make it out of committee (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259027)

Not with that attitude it won't.
You could get involved you know.

This is what laws are _supposed_ to do. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15258738)

"I am not a big fan of legislation, but, I hope this bill keeps the Internet a freer place"

Is not the legislative branch of the US government the body that is supposed to be responsible for passing laws to protect our freedom and liberty?

The mere statement made gives me the impression that this type of thing is not the norm. And this makes me sad.

Re:This is what laws are _supposed_ to do. (1)

lbrandy (923907) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258975)

The mere statement made gives me the impression that this type of thing is not the norm. And this makes me sad.

Which statement? That he is not "a big fan of legislation"? That statement struck me as extremely bizzarre. How can you not be a big fan of legislation short of being an anarchist. I think the vast majority of people think that the vast majority of laws are good laws... right? It boggles my mind that people can be that out of touch and lack perspective either through willful ignorance, but more likely just outright cyncism, that they can just discard something as fundamental as... law.... Just saying that boggles my mind.

Maybe there was a mistype, and he meant "this" legislation, or "internet" legislation... I can only hope.

Most legislation is bad. Unintended consequences (0, Flamebait)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259332)

The government consistantly shoots itself in the foot.

Once that is done they pass additional laws (to shoot the other foot for equality).

Name a private Ponzi scheam that lasted for 70 years and is about to pop to the tune of billions? I can name a US government one. Can you? Other western governments have exactly the same problem, so it's clearly a problem with government in general.

How about the smaller handgun marketing act (they said it was about the number of rounds in the clip).

Or the poor folks family breakup act (called the great society when it was passed).

Re:This is what laws are _supposed_ to do. (1)

gzearfoss (829360) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259002)

> Is not the legislative branch of the US government the body that is supposed to be responsible for passing laws to protect our freedom and liberty?

It is. The legislative branch is also the body that passed the Patriot Act.

> The mere statement made gives me the impression that this type of thing is not the norm. And this makes me sad.

Is it the norm? I don't know. I'd wager against it, in fact, but I don't have enough proof (or time to research to find proof) one way or the other.
The sentiment against legislation is quite understandable, though. Some people want a nanny government - to protect people from evil by restricting access to risqué materials, to control the violence children see in movies or TV, or to keep travel (relatively) safe by establishing and enforcing traffic laws. Other people want the government to keep a more hands-off approach - to let companies have unsafe workplaces because it's private property, to let women have easy access to abortions or emergency contraceptives, or to let people express negative views of the government and president. Most people, though, want some sort of happy medium between the two. Apparently you fall more towards the former, while the original poster falls more towards the latter. Good thing both views are allowed, then.

Re:This is what laws are _supposed_ to do. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15259282)

Is not the legislative branch of the US government the body that is supposed to be responsible for passing laws to protect our freedom and liberty?

I think part of the idea was to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Don't miss the comparison... (5, Insightful)

QuaintRealist (905302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258750)

at the end - the Senate bill would only require that net neutrality be "studied", not enforced. This is a tactic employed by both parties - introduce a bill for publicity in one branch of the legislature, introduce a version which is watered down into oblivion in the other, and kill it in committee during the process of "reconciling" the House and Senate versions.

This is particularly often seen with the House bill being the publicity seeker - Reps need to run for office every 2 years...

Wont happen (1, Insightful)

zymano (581466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258760)

Have you seen who runs Congress ?

Have you seen noticed the oil companies raking it in ?

I expect more intrusive laws to divide and conquer the internet by corporate robber barons.

Re:Wont happen (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258907)

Get involoved.

Did you notice that corporate heads of major energy companies are being questioned by Congress? Did you hear that the companies are being investigated?
This time, it's no cozy up like last time, this time they will be swearing an oath.
Tobacco is big industry, but they didn't get their way.

Re:Wont happen (1)

zymano (581466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259311)

Who do you think elected the people questioning them ?

Oil companies dontate alot to their party. It's a hands off policy by Republicans.

Fox guarding the chickens.

Re:Wont happen (1, Insightful)

XMilkProject (935232) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259138)

What is wrong with the oil companies raking it in? If you started a company wouldn't you try to rake it in? They actually sell their product at a much much lower profit margin than most products.

Apple is raking in the profit and probably making many times the profit margin on each device than an oil company does on a barrel of oil.

Also, people seem to forget that the oil business is a very risky business, but no one seems to notice when hurricanes take out oil rigs or a company drills dry wells, and loses billions of dollars, they only notice when the company is profitable.

It is a product just like any other, and you are more than welcome to stop purchasing it. Natural Gas powered vehicles can be purchased just as cheaply as gasoline vehicles in many cases, go get one of them. Or buy an electric car.

You and everyone else keep using oil becuase it is abundant and cheaper than almost any alternative... Sounds like a pretty good product to me, so why be angry with the people providing it to us?

Also keep in mind that these oil companies are not setting the prices, oil is traded as a commodity, it is being bought and sold on speculation just like a stock... If someone is afraid they won't be able to get their hands on any more of it they will of course charge more for what they do have. Wouldn't you?

In response to your implication about congress, I of course agree entirely. They are a bunch of scumbags and are not serving their constituents at all. But that surely isn't their fault, the great people of this country are the ones that keep electing them. The fact that 50% of the public probably could not name a single congressmen gives a little insight into the root of the problem.

Re:Wont happen (2, Insightful)

zymano (581466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259322)

It's not a free market. They intentionally created bottlenecks.

I love capitalism. Is the oil industry a free market ? NO.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/gas-prices.htm [thememoryhole.org]

The system (2, Insightful)

gerrysteele (927030) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258761)

As I recall there is a very long path before a law becomes a bill. It's a rough ride and poor old bill might get a bit hurt on the way.

Should we all have a whip around, get some cash to lobby/bribe some of the body politic? I mean the free man doesn't really have an input into the political system these, days what with all the major corporations and their politcal representatives.

They should invent something to deal with that. I suggest something to do with "common people" and "rule, strength", leveraging something called voting. Maybe democracy? Worth a shot.

Re:The system (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258886)

Call, Fax or write each of the sponser, tell them you like the bill.
Ask them if they know the stance your representitive is taking. Probably not, but if the do it can prepare you to tlak to your representitive.
Contact your congress critter, ask them where they stand. They may not even know about it yet. In your letter be sure to use the correct name of the legislation.

Depending on your state, you may be able to get a face to face with the senator. If you do , for the love of god, dress appropriatly, i.e. Suit.

Go to all the local User groups, even one you wouldn't normally be interested. Ask for 2 minutes in front of the group. Tell them you are orginizing people to get your congress to vote for the bill. Get names and cards of people willing to sign a petition.

Find our how much it cost to get a not for profit.
IF it is too expensive for you to shell out the cash,
Contact the people who signed the petition, tell what you are trying to do, ask for their help.

Once you have your organization set up, use it to get a meeting with your congress person. If you have any business owners that signed your petition, try damn hard to get them to go if you get a face to face. Politician like business.
Any businessman worth theis salt should jump at the opportunity to get a face to face with a politician.

All that isn't as much work as it seems. And yes, it can work. WIll it work? I don't know, depends on other factors because it is politics. I can tell you this: It wo't work if you don't try.

Re:The system (2)

Phanatic1a (413374) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259109)

Call, Fax or write each of the sponser, tell them you like the bill.

Dear Lord, don't do that. Tell them you hate it. snuck the Broadcast Flag [publicknowledge.org] into it.

Screw that. Tell your Congressmen to support net neutrality and to fight against the broadcast flag.

Re:The system (3, Insightful)

Xiroth (917768) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259040)

Heh, interesting idea. Maybe you guys need metaparties - parties which don't actually run for anything, but are able to say "We represent an association of x voters, and if you want us to recommend they vote for you then you should do y."

Good god, could this be...a non-corrupt method of lobbying?

Re:The system (1)

iced_773 (857608) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259131)


We already have those. They're called political action committees.

Grammar nazi! (5, Funny)

xoran99 (745620) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258782)

According to this NetworkWorld article, the new bill sponsored by Democratic Representatives Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jay Inslee of Washington state, Anna Eshoo of California and Rick Boucher of Virginia in the House and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in the Senate.

I would like to point out that every sentence should have a verb. Except maybe this one.

Re:Grammar nazi! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15258858)

Sponsored is, believe it or not a verb.

Evan

Re:Grammar nazi! (1)

koko775 (617640) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259187)

Except is a verb. Shame on you!

(yes, my response was meant to be ironic.)

Re:Grammar nazi! (1)

TheoMurpse (729043) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259234)

Except maybe this one.

"Except" is the verb in that sentence. I think it's an imperative sentence requesting that the reader "except" the sentence from the rule.

Re:Grammar nazi! (1)

Zakabog (603757) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259270)

According to this NetworkWorld article, the new bill sponsored by Democratic Representatives Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jay Inslee of Washington state, Anna Eshoo of California and Rick Boucher of Virginia in the House and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in the Senate.

It has a verb, it's missing the word "is" in front of sponsored.

Great but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15258790)

Great but, why wouldn't the republicans introduce a bill like this? Why does it always have to be the party not in power that has the good ideas?

Re:Great but... (4, Funny)

sexyrexy (793497) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258819)

Great but, why wouldn't the republicans introduce a bill like this? Why does it always have to be the party not in power that has the good ideas?

Same reason your girlfriend looks great when she's trying to get you but then she gets fat when you're "committed".

Wait, slashdot... ok, bad analogy. TCP/IP, Something about a linux distro... ha ha!

Democrats again (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258814)

It was in Democrats' time that internet was spread all over the world, and it became the medium with the most freedom ever known, and it is democrats again who are trying to protect it.

Re:Democrats again (5, Insightful)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258924)

While I'd like to agree with you, that statement is essentially bullshit. There are a few Democrats who have signed on as sponsors, but I'm reasonably sure that less than half of congressional Democrats would vote for the bill. Telcos, like Hollywood, give generously to both sides of the aisle.

Re:Democrats again (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259079)

Maybe it's about time that we pass something preventing this corporate sponsorship BS. Last I knew, we were supposed to elect people based off of how they'd vote, not from whom they'd accept money and therefore support.

Re:Democrats again (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259233)

Maybe it's about time that we pass something preventing this corporate sponsorship BS.

Thats just the point. It's a chicken/egg problem.

The politicians in power aren't going to change a structure that enables them to turn the government into an ATM for their contributors, so they make rules that make it nearly impossible for anyone to change the system from the outside.

It is a positive feedback loop. The more the politicians become entrenched, the more laws they pass to entrench themselves, and the harder it becomes to remove them.

Re:Democrats again (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259350)

just as it was a Democrat signing COPA, DMCA, NET and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.

governmental interference (4, Insightful)

wall0159 (881759) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258840)

"I am not a big fan of legislation, but..."

I've read this a few times on Slashdot now. It's usually followed by some comment about a special case (or special interest?) where legislation is a Good Thing. This bugs me, because it's hypocritical.

As an example, the entire concept of laissez-faire (free-market) economics (thank you, Adam Smith!) is based upon assumptions that do not hold in the real world. If we want an economy that even approximates a 'free-market', then we need legislation.

Look at Microsoft, or AT&T. Were it not for legislation, there's be no check to their anti-competitive practices. In my opinion (FWIW) the natural end-consequence of a totally free market (in the absence of any control) are cartels - massive companies bribing (what remains of) the government, and helping their cronies and friends.

Indeed. BTW Boucher's got some integrity (3, Informative)

chub_mackerel (911522) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258938)

If we want an economy that even approximates a 'free-market', then we need legislation.

You're spot on. Without regulations, a market is impossible. Particularly in matters concerning infrastructure, information flow, etc. But I agree the majority of Congressfolks are pretty clueless about technology, so I always cringe when I see bills relating to technology, fearing the worst.

One reason to be hopeful, though: Rick Boucher, one of this bill's sponsors, strikes me as a person who "gets" tech and the "public-good" benefits of online culture more than most. I sat in on some of the DMCA subcommittee hearings, and he was the sole member of the House subcommittee at that time who actually understood the issues (and as a result opposed most of the DMCA, ultimately unsuccessfully). He's also one who has been behind several efforts to blunt the harshest provisions of the DMCA.

See, for example, http://news.com.com/2010-1071-825335.html [com.com] .

So let's not write off his efforts and those of his cosponsors out of hand, just because we "don't like legislation." Let's take a look at the specifics.

Re:governmental interference (2, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259377)

> As an example, the entire concept of laissez-faire (free-market) economics (thank you, Adam
> Smith!) is based upon assumptions that do not hold in the real world. If we want an economy
> that even approximates a 'free-market', then we need legislation.

No we don't. We need a government to do the job it was tasked with. That means a Federal Givernment about 10-20% of it's present size.

> Look at Microsoft, or AT&T.

Yes, look at them. Both are monopolies which were mostly CREATED by the government. AT&T was explicitly given a government monopoy grant because it was believed (perhaps with some merit) that only a single monopoly could solve the problem of the chaos that existed at the time with dozens of phone companies none of which could interoperate with the others.

The whole present problem has a very simple solution, which is why no politician will consider it. (solve the problem permanently and you lose the 'campaign contributions' from both sides every couple of years as you pass band-aid fixes, much like what would happen to Microsoft if they ever published a version of Windows that 'just worked'.)

The problem is the government. Specifically their grants of monopoly to the telcos and cable companies. Even if we could say it was a bad idea to do it it is now done, they have billions of plant & equipment which was subsidized by the power of the State so a level playing field can't exist. But there is a solution. The AT&T breakup was stupid, as all should now realize, because it didn't attack the problem; the government subsidized monopolies on the local loops. So force the phone company into one more government mandated reorg. Company A gets the local loops and the monopoly that goes with them. They (and the Public service commissions in each state) set a rate for a loop but can't so much as run a current through one other than for testing. They don't charge the subscriber, they charge carriers. Company B is that part of their current business. So long as they buy at the same rate as any other carrier they (and the other carriers) would be 100% free of ALL government interferrence. Not subject to public service commissions, the FCC or Congress.

As for your example of Microsoft, notice that the Government couldn't fix that problem. And no it wasn't Bush's fault. The case had pretty much collapsed by election day 2000. David Bois (of SCO fame) had already managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory months before Bush & Ashcroft were in office. And if Microsoft is going to be dislodged it will be by the Free Software movement, not some farcical court case. And anyway, Microsoft derives most of their power from the government. Office is the government standard, which pretty much forces anyone doing business (and nowadays that is almost everyone, the government's tentacles are everywhere) with the government to run Office which pretty much means Windows. And it is the government Copyright monopoly, DMCA and other crap that makes anyone afraid of cloning Windows.

This farce of a network neutrality bill will solve nothing and almost certainly make matters worse. Watch how many evil things slither in with it even if it passes. And if we allow the government to start regulating how ISPs run their network I can promise you it won't stop where you guys supporting this idea would like it to.

Just wait. No, you can't throttle VoIP traffic..... so long as it is unencrypted and the long distance tariffs are being paid. No you can't throttle traffic.... unless it is P2P and the RIAA doesn't like it.. oh wait they don't like ANY of it so block it. No you can't block VPN traffic..... well ok you can require 'business grade service'. And once the regulation genie is out of the bottle just wait until the state public service commissions get into it. If you think Congress is clueless just wait until the REAL idiots start micromanaging the infrastructure.

Wait until the bill reaches the floor (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15258849)

I really wish slashdot would wait until a bill reaches the floor of the House and/or Senate before posting its presence. Every year, thousands of bills are proposed. Only a few percent (I think its less than that) reach the floor of House and/or Senate. Most of the bills that do make it to the floor are voted down.

Re:Wait until the bill reaches the floor (4, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259096)

Without pressure from constituents, it is even less likely that a bill will ever reach the floor.

Proposed legislation is just as important as legislation that reaches the floor, potentially more so -- once it reaches the floor, most legislators have already decided where they stand on the issue.

Now, in the formative stages of legislative thought, is when it is MOST important to make sure your legislators support your views on issues like this. Waiting until it hits the floor is like waiting to have your brakes fixed until you need to stop to keep from rear-ending someone while barreling down a hill at 80 miles per hour. Our legislature needs 'preventative maintenance' just as much as your car does.

Contact your legislators early. Contact them often.

True Net Neutrality - Wireless (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258888)

It's the only way. If there's a pipe that a corporation can control, they will.

Re:True Net Neutrality - Wireless (2, Insightful)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259154)

If not the ethernet into your home or office, they will control the wireless access points.

If it's a free service in one of the many coffee shops that offer it, then you can't really expect them not to try to find some way to make a profit off of the free bandwidth they are giving you.

Broadcast Flag? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15258903)

Wasn't there a senator who tried to slip the broadcast flag into this bill or something?

Re:Broadcast Flag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15259163)

yeah - that waste of space from Alaska Senator Stevens.

How do we get neutrality without the broadcast flag crap?!

Re:Broadcast Flag? (2, Informative)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259385)

This is a different bill than the 130+ page monstrosity that Ted Stevens introduced. In fact, TFA notes that this bill is an alternative being introduced a day after Stevens and Inouye brought their telecom bill to the committee.

I'm pretty sure Boucher would never sponsor a bill that included the broadcast flag.

Network "neutrality" is bad (0, Flamebait)

The Only Druid (587299) | more than 8 years ago | (#15258943)

It's astonishing how many people are just automatically assuming that network neutrality is good. Considering no such neutrality is imposed on wireless telephony, cable or DBS, why is it necessary here?

Christopher Yoo, a Vanderbilt Law professor (whom I met in his capacity visiting here at Penn Law this semester) has written repeatedly on the fact that what we actually want is network diversity.

Why would it be bad to have competition in the type of service provided? Why would it be bad to be able to prioritize types of network traffic? Why would it be bad to have competitive internets where different networks interconnected out of market pressure instead of FCC or Congressional regulation?

It seems that most people just respond automatically without considering the actual costs and benefits to so-called network neutrality.

Re:Network "neutrality" is bad (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15259034)

So you've seen no evidence of any wireless provider disallowing SMS messages to another, right?

So you've also seen no evidence of some ISP's throttling access to certain types of traffic, particularly someone else's VOIP (e.g. Vonage)? Talk to the Canadians who are getting screwed by Rogers.

The telephone systems work as seemlessly as they do because they are REQUIRED to do so. Yes, I can switch providers for long distance, etc. Why is that so easy, because everyone HAS to pass the traffic along equally. Imagine having a phone conversation where you speak, the other party has to wait a second or two and vice versa.

I already pay to consume bandwidth and data providers pay to send it. Enough of the greedy SOBs trying to extort every penny out of everyone because they were too stupid to develop their own Googles and Yahoos. This is no different then the scum "patent" holders who sit back with what are typically bogus patents waiting for a company to spend their time and money to create real products and then swoop in and extort money from them.

Re:Network "neutrality" is bad (1)

realmolo (574068) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259045)

How, exactly, do you build "competitive internets"?

The really big players in the telecom industry own most of the actual pipes. It's taken them 100 years and untold billions of dollars to build. How could that possibly be duplicated?

Yes, they own it, and they should be allowed to make money from it. But they HAVE and DO make money from it. They just want MORE, at the expense of essentially everyone else. Would it even be possible to completely bypass AT&T/SBC's network without some major "reconstruction" of the internet?

Letting them charge for the mere *privilege* of using their lines (because they already charge for bandwidth, you see) is ridiculous. Imagine if every street in the entire U.S. had a toll booth, even though you ALREADY paid for the street with taxes.

Re:Network "neutrality" is bad (1)

Burdell (228580) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259160)

The sale of the actual pipes is already regulated. Just because BellSouth (for example) sells a company a T1 to an Internet provider doesn't mean they actually control the traffic flowing through that pipe. Don't send the traffic through a BellSouth Internet connection and BellSouth has no control over it.

Re:Network "neutrality" is bad (2, Interesting)

pavera (320634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259380)

You are obviously an idiot. SBC/ATT, Verizon, and Qwest control the internet pipes.. I don't care if you use MaPa DSL, or have a Covad T1, try doing a traceroute to some sites sometime (ibm.com, microsoft.com, google.com, yahoo.com, myspace.com, vonage.com) I have comcast cable (only because its the only high speed option I have), from home accessing any one of those sites crosses one of those ILEC networks somewhere. If they are allowed to do "whatever" they want, each of those sites will have to go negotiate independent contracts with each of the telco providers just so that you can access them. At my office I have a local DSL ISP. Same thing, you cannot access sites on the internet without crossing the ILEC networks. It is not possible. Therefore anything that allows them to do anything like what they are proposing breaks the entire internet.

Re:Network "neutrality" is bad (3, Insightful)

blincoln (592401) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259081)

Why would it be bad to have competition in the type of service provided? Why would it be bad to be able to prioritize types of network traffic? Why would it be bad to have competitive internets where different networks interconnected out of market pressure instead of FCC or Congressional regulation?

Because the end result would be a "diverse" array of options that were all worse than what we have now.

Your argument sounds like the one American health care companies pitch to their customers - "hey, wouldn't it be great if you could *choose* to pay a different rate because you live a healthy lifestyle according to this detailed information you supplied us with?" The implication is supposed to be that your health care costs will go down because you're healthy, when really they will stay the same (instead of increasing)... for now. As time passes, your rates will still increase as other "unhealthy" behaviours are added to the list.

No telecom corporation in the US is going to *improve* service in the name of competition for internet access customers. They will race to the bottom to see who can provide the shittiest service while still retaining the most subscribers, because it's more profitable in the short term (which is all they care about now, thanks to myopic shareholders and execs).

The internet works just fine the way it is. What *possible* benefit could competing networks provide, other than to the people with stock in the telecom companies involved?

Re:Network "neutrality" is bad (1)

Killshot (724273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259153)

Competitive internets?
So you want to make it really difficult for people to communicate and do business?
You want to be unable to email your family because they are on a different internet than you?
Not only does your idea make no sense, but no one is going to shell out several trillion dollars to create a new internet to compete with the old one.

Re:Network "neutrality" is bad (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15259237)

It's astonishing how many people are just automatically assuming that network neutrality is good. Considering no such neutrality is imposed on wireless telephony, cable or DBS, why is it necessary here?

Because it's not politcally acceptable to charge some businesses extra money in order to avoid having static on their phone lines, or certain entertainment companies not have snow or ridiculously high MPG compression on their channels. It is, however, for some reason politically acceptable to do this with when the very same data is transmitted by TCP/IP.

Imagine if Verizon Wireless told Fox that they had to pay Verizon money if they wanted callers from Verizon Wireless calling in votes for American Idol to avoid static and dropped calls. What if Rupert Murdoch (DirecTV) told HBO that unless they paid, HBO's video stream would be set on very high MPG compression so it looked like crap. It is technically possible, but customers wouldn't accept it. With the Internet, customers are largely ignorant of how it works. They won't know they're getting fucked until after it's over. That's why.

I hope it never passes (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15258985)

Ted Stevens of Alaska introduced the Broadcast Flag into it. Check http://ipaction.org/blog/ [ipaction.org] for more info.

You're an "it" getter (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15259007)

"I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."

-- Stephen Colbert

Not going anywhere ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15259035)

If this legislation was going anywhere at all, it would have:
1) republican sponsors
2) many more sponsors

Love them or hate them, Republicans currently control both the House and Senate. From a political perspective, and completely ignoring whether or nor net neutrality is good public policy, it makes no sense to pass either of these bills. If Sen. Wyden and Rep. Markey were serious about doing this, and doing it THIS congress, they would have shopped their legislation and worked to build consensus. 90% of legislation is passed by unanimous consent or on suspension in the middle of the night, and a bill which has NO cosponsorships from the majority caucus isn't going to proceed without objection.

These are "marker" pieces. They more or less just say to other members, and interested groups, that the authors are interested in an issue and may offer similar language as an amendment on some other piece of legislation, later.

As others have noted, this is just hype. When you see a Stevens-Wyden bill, then you'll be talking ...

Not just content provider neutrality is at stake (5, Interesting)

WatchTheTramCarPleas (970756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259061)

Evcer think about the possibility that not just content providers would have an advantage/disadvantage, but also the consumer's general access? Would it not be possible for Internet providers to give machines running a particular operating system (cough Windows), have a particular processor(ahem Intel), or come from a particular vendor (acch Dell) because these systems are "More capable of network operation" or some other lie like that. Something similar to the Skype/Intel thing a few weeks back (Slashdot) http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/04/143024 3 [slashdot.org]

Re:Not just content provider neutrality is at stak (2, Interesting)

RickPartin (892479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259151)

I remember dying from laughter when commercials were proclaiming Intel processors made the internet faster. Now they could actually pull it off.

Net Neutrality Bill Includes Broadcast Flag... (3, Informative)

GreenPlastikMan (881184) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259072)

Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska (R), tries to sneak in the Broadcast Flag again [engadget.com] .

For those of you who don't know what this is, please review: Broadcast Flag Article at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Someone stop this man. The bridge to nowhere apparently keeps leading to the stupid &#$@* Broadcast Flag. DO NOT WANT...!!!! (Contact your Reps and Senators)

Keep Legislators Accountable (4, Insightful)

ncfoster (661711) | more than 8 years ago | (#15259077)

As noted elsewhere in this thread, be very careful about getting too excited about this bill. I'm all for network neutrality, but if the re-introduction of the broadcast flag is the price we pay for it, I'm not sure what to think. We need to stand up to our legislators and get them to pass an honest bill. We're not talking about a little pork project added onto an otherwise good bill. Rather, this bill now is now a complete mess, giving corporations less control over the internet, but more control over digital media. The only difference is which big corporate entities stand to benefit most on the backs of consumers. Do not stand for this kind of garbage, and contact your representative and senator today, because no informed American would want the broadcast flag, even if it is wrapped up in a pretty little bow that says "network neutrality" on it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>