Net Neutrality Bill in Congress 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.
Won't make it out of committee (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Won't make it out of committee (Score:2, Interesting)
And yes, we are biased. Our demographic likes our bias. So piss off about that.
Re:Won't make it out of committee (Score:2)
You are hurting America.
Re:Won't make it out of committee (Score:2)
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 ma
Re:Won't make it out of committee (Score:2)
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 majo
Re:Won't make it out of committee (Score:2)
You could get involved you know.
This is what laws are _supposed_ to do. (Score:3, Interesting)
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. (Score:2)
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
Re:This is what laws are _supposed_ to do. (Score:2)
No, the legislative branch is supposed to pass laws that restrict our freedom. The judicial branch exists to ensure our freedom by protecting us from the legislative branch. At least that's how its worded in the constitution.
Re:This is what laws are _supposed_ to do. (Score:2)
Legislation exists to protect society, not the rights and freedoms of every single individual. The powers of arrest of any police officer could be abused in orderto limit the rights and freedomsof individuals, however, such abuses are extremely rare, and the alternative (no police powers) would
Don't miss the comparison... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is particularly often seen with the House bill being the publicity seeker - Reps need to run for office every 2 years...
In addition, the broadcast flag on the senate one (Score:4, Insightful)
Wont happen (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Oil companies dontate alot to their party. It's a hands off policy by Republicans.
Fox guarding the chickens.
Re:Wont happen (Score:3, Insightful)
I love capitalism. Is the oil industry a free market ? NO.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/gas-prices.htm [thememoryhole.org]
Re:Wont happen (Score:2)
The system (Score:2, Insightful)
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 s
Re:The system (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Good god, could this be...a non-corrupt method of lobbying?
Re:The system (Score:2)
We already have those. They're called political action committees.
Grammar nazi! (Score:5, Funny)
I would like to point out that every sentence should have a verb. Except maybe this one.
Re:Grammar nazi! (Score:2)
(yes, my response was meant to be ironic.)
Re:Grammar nazi! (Score:2)
"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! (Score:2)
It has a verb, it's missing the word "is" in front of sponsored.
Democrats again (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Democrats again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democrats again (Score:2)
Re:Democrats again (Score:2)
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
Re:Democrats again (Score:2)
Re:Democrats again (Score:2)
governmental interference (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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 "
Re:Indeed. BTW Boucher's got some integrity (Score:2)
Bullshit.
In most countries, states, cities, etc, there is not regulation on "black/grey market" goods. I'm talking about "taboo" things like good drugs, sex, you know, the things people want, and there is a market, no regulation and better than average quality control.
Cocaine in the US has not gone up in price in about 20 years. Marijuana has gone up in price, but so has the quality. Sex is always at market value.
What is the difference between a $1,000 hooker a
Re:Indeed. BTW Boucher's got some integrity (Score:2)
One definition of regulation is: To bring into conformity with rules or principles or usage
So if the rule or principle is "this good is illegal to seek or posses" then regulating it is fairly straight forward.
A lot of states regulate marijuana sales. I
Re:governmental interference (Score:3, Interesting)
> 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 gover
Re:governmental interference (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure whether you're engaging in revisionist history or whether you just have no idea what you're talking about. Boies and the other attorneys beat Microsoft like a drum, up one side and down the other. Two factors combined to kill any chance at a governmental remedy (this time):
1) Judge Jackson couldn't keep his damn mouth shut during the trial, so the Appellate Court threw out his order to break up the company. In their ruling they stated that there was absolutely no evidence he'd been anything but impartial, but someone might complain so out went the order and the case was sent (with the finding of Sherman violations intact) to a new judge for a new disposition order. Unfortunately, that turned out to be Judge Kollar-Kotelly, who has less antitrust experience in her whole body than Judge Jackson had in his lovesack. Her over-the-head-ness led to a desperate, frantic plea for a settlement. Here's Factor 2.
2) While Factor 1 was going down, we had a change of Administration and the DOJ's antitrust bunch were replaced by Republican douches whose entire antitrust experience was based on the assertion that antitrust was nonsense and probably an affront to God Almighty. When presented with Judge K-K's desperate, frantic plea for a settlement, they all sprouted wood and absolutely, utterly, shamefully threw in the towel and offered up a settlement that wasn't so much a slap on the wrist as it was a long, slow, deep, wet tongue-kiss.
History isn't always written by the victors.
Wait until the bill reaches the floor (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wait until the bill reaches the floor (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wait until the bill reaches the floor (Score:2)
True Net Neutrality - Wireless (Score:2)
Re:True Net Neutrality - Wireless (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
You're an "it" getter (Score:3, Funny)
-- Stephen Colbert
Not just content provider neutrality is at stake (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not just content provider neutrality is at stak (Score:3, Interesting)
Net Neutrality Bill Includes Broadcast Flag... (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Keep Legislators Accountable (Score:2)
So either way, some evil bastards win. Broadcast flag gets in and the MPAA wins, or AT&T gets to extort money for not throttling bandwidth. And we all know that both parties will get what they want, sooner or later anyhow. If not this bill, then the next. They just haven't picked the right "campaign contributions" yet. Bitter? Yes.
First time I've rooted for the banking lobbyists (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First time I've rooted for the banking lobbyist (Score:2, Informative)
109 H.R. 5273 (Score:2)
Net neutrality law = unnecessary (Score:2)
What would happen if Congress tried to pass some Net Neutrality Law? Since there isn't any kind of ACTUAL problem now, I'm sure the bill would undoubtedly screw stuff up through the law of unintended consequences.
Congress would inser
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:2, Interesting)
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
AT&T on Net neutrality & it's new Tier opt (Score:5, Funny)
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 Un
And in related news (Score:3, Funny)
Funny, but unfortunately plausible (Score:2)
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:2)
If you aren't running an SMTP server and you are running Windoze, then port 25 should be blocked.
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:4, Insightful)
That is just bull on soooooo many levels.
Cable TV has a number of packages, all geared to specific type of viewers, at different prices.
The sports nuts can watch every baseball, hocky, & basketball game played
I pay less, because I'm less of a "nut".
Want to run a mail server? Get a commercial account - don't expect to be able to do everything IBM can do for $9.95/month.
And if you think that blocking port 25 makes you not an ISP, then you've never had to administer a mail server *before* the ISP's started blocking port 25, and the wannabe spammers and botnets that generated the majority of that crap.
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:3, Funny)
No, actually, it's not, and on a couple of points.
First, there's the old saw that says "Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose"
That is exactly what the ISP is doing - stopping you from hitting MY nose, just because somebody wants to play with an email server. If you want to
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:2)
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:5, Insightful)
These companies were granted the rights to lay cable on public land via legislation in the first place.
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:2)
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:5, Informative)
But in small towns and rural areas, there may be multiple ISPs, but their internet connections all run through the same connection, usually owned by the telephone company. There is no route around the telephone company in such cases.
absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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:absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
It has nothing whatsoever to do with real life, reality, markets as they currently are. The "free market" does not exist. What's more the free market cannot exist.
The free market relies on several things :
No free market can function. In order for the consumer to not get completely screwed, legislation is absolutely imperative. And there should actually be much more of it.
Re:absurd (Score:3)
Nonsense. Using a public right of way as part of your business has nothing to do with your pricing. Do you drive on public roads while commuting to work? Should a company that uses public roads while delivering a mail-order shipment to you suddenly be subject to government-approved pricing models for every transaction,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:absurd (Score:2)
houghi (78078), You obviously don't have your Passport.net account.
Get one at http://www.passport.net/ [passport.net] and welcome to the Miscrosoft Nation. President Gates will be glad you joined.
Re:absurd (Score:2)
Re:absurd (Score:2)
You can't be proven wrong because free markets do not exist outside of books.
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:2)
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:2)
In theory everyone is connected everywhere (or at least to several places) and "can route around damage". In practice everyone (apart from Google, Yahoo and a bunch of others) has one pipe and can easily drop off the network.
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:2)
People like you are the reason why Microsoft still has a monopoly and hasn't been broken up
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:2)
I'm no Microsoft fan (don't run Windows anywhere I can
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 lo
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:2)
This is going to be like the backsheesh in arms (or plane/factories/etc.) deals, if your competitors do it, you're going to have to do it as well to remain in the race.
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:2)
Just my opinion...
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:2)
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.
You're absolutely right!!! (Score:2)
Re:You're absolutely right!!! (Score:2)
Re:You're absolutely right!!! (Score:2)
Re:Legislation != Free (Score:2)
Freedom for Citizens != Freedom for Corporations (Score:2, Insightful)
In my view, it's important for the government to regulate corporations, when corporations take a prominent role in determining how basic services will be provided to citizens.
Individual citizens do not have much of a voice in determining what the options are...unless our government is that voice.
I find it baffling why you would value a corporation's "freedom" over that of the masses. But that's just a difference of opinion. Neither side in this argument can le
Re:Knee, meet jerk. (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Great but... (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re:Network "neutrality" is bad (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Network "neutrality" is bad (Score:2)
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 "reconstr
Re:Network "neutrality" is bad (Score:2)
Re:Network "neutrality" is bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Network "neutrality" is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 whe
Re:Broadcast Flag? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm pretty sure Boucher would never sponsor a bill that included the broadcast flag.
Not the same bill (Score:2)