Net Neutrality Legislation Expected In January
from the wasting-no-time-at-all dept
This probably won't come as a big surprise to most folks, but Sen. Byron Dorgan, has made it clear that he intends to reintroduce net neutrality legislation early next year. While the issue of net neutrality used to not be a partisan issue, somehow it became one a few years ago, with many Democrats lining up in favor of net neutrality regulations, and many Republicans against them. President-elect Obama's platform included network neutrality legislation, and with more Democrats being elected to both the House and Senate, it's no surprise that such a bill would quickly find its way to being introduced.While we're strong supporters of keeping the internet's end-to-end principles intact, that doesn't necessarily mean legislation is the best way to do it. Once again, we'd urge anyone supporting the legislation to at least carefully read Tim Lee's paper on the subject. Yes, it's important to keep the internet working under these principles, and yes many internet providers would like to start double charging some providers for traffic, but this particular piece of legislation may not be the best answer -- and could, in fact, create more problems.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: byron dorgan, laws, net neutrality, regulations
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not Partison?
Republic Powell absolutely resisted open access and network neutrality. His economic approach was the Chicago School which was dereg, create economic incentives for companies to build infrastructure, and then have intermodal competition. When forced into a corner because his intermodal competition was not panning out too well, he announced a "statement" (not a reg, not a law) known as the "Four Freedoms". It had no legal standing and it was a bone to get the Dems off his back.
In comes Martin who essentially adopts the same approach. The proceeding was whether DSL was a telecommunications service subject to Title II of the Comm Act. He wanted to say that DSL was free of regulation. To get Dem buy in and under pressure from C. Copp's staffer Jessica Rossenworsel, Martin agreed to another "statement" of broadband principals - again, not a regulation, not a law, has no legal teeth.
In the last days, Martin has changed his approach and affirmed Net Neutrality against his enemy, cable - but the two other republicans have voted against it. Martin formed a block with the two Dems on the Commish.
So again, how is this not a partisan issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Partison?
Reading comprehension. Please look into it for your own sake if for no one else.
He did *not* say it wasn't a partisan issue now, but that when it started out it wasn't one. Which is true. It started as an academic debate and it became a partisan issue because the Dems and Repubs need something to differentiate themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Partison?
Prior to 2005. There were widespread discussions in technology and policy circles around the issue of net neutrality, but neither party had taken a position on either side, and you could find politicians on both sides who supported either position.
It was only in early 2006 that partisans lined up on the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've been thinking about what would be a better way to do that. From the article, AT&T says "The public would not pay for its Internet services if AT&T discriminated against content" (quoting the article, not AT&T). Ok, but the public likely wouldn't know which sites are being given the fast lane or the slow lane, or even if certain protocols are being blocked. So, how can we force ISPs to give full disclosure on what they're doing? How can we prove they're telling the truth?
Would advertising laws be enough? For example, say you can't advertise "unlimited Internet" when traffic shaping is taking place or when certain protocols are blocked. Would that work?
I hate the idea of slipping down a slope where a regulatory body is in charge of monitoring ISPs. I believe that free market forces will do their job. But I only believe that competition works when the public knows exactly what they're paying for and when information is easy to find.
(Of course, there also needs to be more competition among ISPs, but as long as municipalities grant near monopolies in areas or until a truly competitive wireless infrastructure is in place, I don't see what happening. That's a different issue altogether. But if we all had 5 or 6 real ISPs to choose from, net neutrality wouldn't even be an issue.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignore History
Ahhh, but non-free forces are at work.
1) The taking of rights of way - expressed as the places where cables go hither and yon.
2) The incumbents have existed under a protected monopoly status for years.
3) Because of population density/resource utilization - if you live in a rural area there is no competition. Sometimes no service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"But if we all had 5 or 6 real ISPs to choose from, net neutrality wouldn't even be an issue"
Agreed johnny q
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ummmm, they already do that. You can use their on demand services that still use bandwidth without it counting against your cap, but you can't use a competing service such as netflix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
how is that not tiered service? how is that not anti-competitive? how is that not what net neutrality is against?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay attention peeps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rather than a law, why not a stimulus package?
why not just subsidize a competitive product?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expiration
With that in mind, this might not be such a bad thing if they set up an expiration date, such that it must be either renewed after, say, seven years or it expires.
In fact, I think _most_ regulations should be set up this way. It not only makes it easier to allow bad regulations to day, but will force bodies to better consider whether they need to create the regulation at all, since they are now also creating a new burden on themselves to evaluate it again later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]