Senators Bash ISP and Push Extensive Net Neutrality 427
eldavojohn writes "Remember when Verizon sued the FCC over net neutrality rules? Well, Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Al Franken (D-MN) see it a bit differently and have authored a new working bill titled 'Internet Freedom, Broadband Promotion, and Consumer Protection Act of 2011 (PDF).' The bill lays out some stark clarity on what is meant by Net Neutrality by outright banning ISPs from doing many things including '(6) charge[ing] a content, application, or service provider for access to the broadband Internet access service providers' end users based on differing levels of quality of service or prioritized delivery of Internet protocol packets; (7) prioritiz[ing] among or between content, applications, and services, or among or between different types of content, applications, and services unless the end user requests to have such prioritization... (9) refus[ing] to interconnect on just and reasonable terms and conditions.' And that doesn't count for packets sent over just the internet connections but also wireless, radio, cell phone or pigeon carrier. Franken has constantly reiterated that this is the free speech issue of our time and Cantwell said, 'If we let telecom oligarchs control access to the Internet, consumers will lose. The actions that the FCC and Congress take now will set the ground rules for competition on the broadband Internet, impacting innovation, investment, and jobs for years to come. My bill returns the broadband cop back to the beat, and creates the same set of obligations regardless of how consumers get their broadband.'"
Franken 2012! (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, Al, please run!
One thing that's getting old... (Score:1, Insightful)
If we let telecom oligarchs control access to the Internet, consumers will lose.
No offense intended, but could they refer to us as citizens instead of consumers? Or is this revenge for staying home last election?
Re:Franken may be a little crazy, but not on this (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see it (Franken, at least). His books are the thing that switched my political reality. And they are funny. There's nothing nutball about his political stances--nothing along the nutball levels of a Glen Beck or Michele Bachmann, at least.
Miller and Garofalo were never funny to begin with, so the argument they are no longer funny is invalid ;-)
I voted against Franken last time (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't think Franken sounded any better than Coleman in the last election and voted for the devil I knew.
I must say that I have been shocked to see his name so often attached to great ideas (actual NN, ending ACTA secrecy, etc.). I will definitely be sending my vote his way next time around; I think he is one of the few senators with people's rights actually guiding him.
US = World (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that all telcos are waiting US decision to very soon spread those policies around the world. Will be very difficult to revert once they have control over all internet information. Besides, there is a deeper problem illustrated by two Brazilian episodes: 1) YouTube was blocked to the whole country due a decision involving a celebrity sex video (really). 2) Telcos already advertise promotions like "free social network access", not to mention dozen of lawsuits against Orkut for cloned profile, etc.
Putting all together: As soon as telcos start to dictate internet's tone, will be much easier for governments to implement restrictions without consulting people's right or even the content/service provider.
Let's hope not!!
Getting what you paid for (Score:5, Insightful)
I should get what I pay for.
Google should get what they pay for.
Party X should not be able to pay for party Y to get less than what has been paid for.
Re:One thing that's getting old... (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO, the annoying part is ever being called a "consumer."
It reduces my existence down to the one-dimensional act of consuming. Makes me feel like some sort of herd animal grazing on whatever slop the farmer is throwing in front of my face.
Granted, there is utility in only focusing on one dimension when that's the one being, ahem, focused on. For example, IT calls the individuals who operate computers "users."
But from an economic standpoint, it is dangerous to reduce people to consumers, because it locks you into thinking that that is their actual purpose for existence. We see this a lot now: that consumption = good, and any diminution in consumption is somehow bad.
Words are powerful, and "consumer" is not a positive word.
Franken is the common man (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus H Christ, why is a former comedian the smartest politician we have? It's embarrassing that this guy has to come to Washington to kick some sense into them just because our elite educational institutions have been pumping out the smartest dumb fucks on the planet for years.
not this tired old argument again (Score:5, Insightful)
"up to" means "at least"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One thing that's getting old... (Score:5, Insightful)
Son, welcome to what's known in these parts as "free market capitalism" where you have two functions: to work for as little as possible and to consume as much as possible.
When corporations have the same constitutional rights as you, the term "citizen" really doesn't have much meaning anymore. "Consumer" is nothing but accurate.
Re:Franken is the common man (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus H Christ, why is a former comedian the smartest politician we have? It's embarrassing that this guy has to come to Washington to kick some sense into them just because our elite educational institutions have been pumping out the smartest dumb fucks on the planet for years.
Is it really? Usually the best way to get the pulse of the public is to see what comedians are joking about. They can rip people a new arsehole from behind the guise of comedy, and nobody really gives a crap. Now if $yourFavoriteTalkingHead does the same thing, they in turn get ripped a new arsehole by $theOpposingViewTalkingHead and it goes into a shouting match on the Today Show.
I'm all for level headed comedian policy makers. I would have moved across the river to Minnesota to vote for Frankin, I had to watch all his ads anyway ;)
Re:Finally! (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe that's not what VOIP is for.
Re:Franken 2012! (Score:5, Insightful)
the man actually reads the bills that come in front of him, and he's actually honest about why he makes a vote.
we don't get that out of other republicans and democrats, almost universally. they just toe the party vote and/or remain as anonymous [techdirt.com](and opaque) [techdirt.com] as possible.
I'd like to see him up top (pres), but I think he needs time to build some reputable people with him. aka folks who don't whore themselves out to the most expensive lobbyist/corporation.
Re:Franken may be a little crazy, but not on this (Score:5, Insightful)
Franken hasn't billed himself as a "comedian" in well over a decade. Unlike the very unfunny Dennis Miller, who still tries to do standup, mostly in front of audiences who know him from his right-wing radio show. For them, showing up at Miller's shows is more of a tribal identifier than comedy consumption.
For the most part, Franken was always more of a writer than a performer and anyway, he left the comedy business a good while ago, though you could say the U.S. Senate is pretty comical.
Re:Franken may be a little crazy, but not on this (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, you really told that dude. Put him in his place.
Nothing wins an argument like "You should try opening your eyes." It's like, BLAM! TKO!
I'm going to have to remember that one. "You should try opening your eyes for a change." It's sort of like, "...because your stupid, that's why!" Except "You should try opening your eyes" has more class. There is just no comeback for "You should try opening your eyes."
Re:Getting what you paid for (Score:5, Insightful)
If paying full price is the cost of preventing large corps from dominating the internet landscape, Im all for it.
in the end, it is about presenting a level playing field of all participants. There may be some inefficiency in this model, but that cost is more than made up for in choice and innovation.
Re:One thing that's getting old... (Score:5, Insightful)
Words are powerful, and "consumer" is not a positive word.
In line with my sig of the week, I think we should be called owners.
After all, "We built this internet one Dial-UP account at a time" for the last 20 or 30 years. We built the carriers and ISPs with our dollars. We hired them to run it, not to own it.
They run infrastructure thru right-of-way corridors granted by us, and send content thru the airways granted by us, and we pay the bills. Every month. Between cellular and internet connections most geeks pay well north of $100 per month to these companies. Its time we had our say.
Re:Getting what you paid for (Score:2, Insightful)
Please, shut the fuck up.
Internet Service Provider. Let us just look at that for a moment. Ready? Lets move on to the point then. INTERNET, ALL OF IT. PERIOD. Any questions?
Re:Franken 2012! (Score:2, Insightful)
No, clearly you read the fake bill that was posted for everyone to see on thomas.loc.gov while the Democrats voted on and passed the real shadow bill in their secret tree house base (chunk of plywood hanging from the branch in runny yellow paint, "No <strike>Gurls</strike> Reblicns allowd").
It was shorter than War & Peace. Anyone who wanted to read it, could have. The problem is that nobody wanted to read it, it would have cut into the time they were using to rant about bills being passed in secret.
Maybe we should fix... (Score:3, Insightful)
... the way ISPs (and other utilities) work so that we can actually have real competition. Competition would basically fix this sort of thing, wouldn't it? Droves of people don't want X-ISP because X-ISP is throttling/sniffing/whatever traffic. Y-ISP comes in and advertises they don't do that (and in fact, they don't). Droves of people switch to Y-ISP.
Right now, though, because of the way ISPs share (or don't share) infrastructure and all that, we don't have competition; we have local monopolies. The fact that we allow local monopolies is why we now are struggling to regulate them; regulation may not be required, though, if we actually had competition. By "competition" I mean competition for the same customer using the same - more or less - technology; e.g., one person looking for cable can actually buy from multiple providers.
Maybe I misunderstand how it works right now, but it seems to me that allowing local monopolies is a bad idea and is the only reason we are having to go down the regulation route. Maybe if the infrastructure were public and paid for through $x-per-customer-served by the provider, thus allowing multiple providers access to the same infrastructure at the same cost (and that cost going to the local government, which would be maintaining/improving/whatever the infrastructure), we wouldn't have need for all this?
Re:"up to" means "at least"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Advertise 3 numbers - minimum guaranteed, average (that is achievable over, say, a day) and peak bandwidth. That would reduce the confusion greatly.
For example, my connection is advertised as "up to" 80mbps (up/down), which is great. I manage to get about 32mbps average and the bandwidth sometimes (for a few hours every day) drops down to 10mbps (let's assume this is due to the ISP). I still think that my connection is great, especially for what I pay for it. However, the ad could have said 10/30/80 mbps (min/avg/max). The contract actually specifies a minimum guaranteed bandwidth, but I am too lazy to go now and look it up.
Re:ISPs have the right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ISPs have the right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Franken 2012! (Score:3, Insightful)