So Verizon
and every other mega-ISP think Google and other content providers are
getting a
free ride and should be paying on both ends and Comcast
might be
throttling Vonage to death, none of seems like a trend that's good for consumers, much less the future of the
Internet. Luckily I'm not alone: U.S. senator from Oregon Ron Wyden has introduced the Internet Non-Discrimination Act
of 2006, which the press is describing as the "net neutrality bill." From Russell Shaw's
post on his ZDNet blog, the bill's key points are:
- Preventing interfering with, blocking, degrading, altering, modifying or changing traffic on the Internet;
- Prohibiting creation of a priority lane where content providers can buy quicker access to customers, while those
who don’t pay the fee are left in the slow lane;
- Allowing consumers to choose which devices they use
to connect to the Internet while they are on the Internet;
- Ensuring that consumers have non-discriminatory
access and service;
- Having a transparent system whereby consumers, Internet content, and applications
companies have access to the rates, terms, and conditions for Internet service.
Senator Wyden seems like a
very clueful guy who knows what kind of slippery slope Verizon and its ilk are about to create. He says, "I am not
going to allow a network operator to say a person who buys online for J.Crew can stay on hold for five minutes, and
where they make the Banana Republic customer wait 30 minutes." He intends to make his net neutrality bill part of
a large telecom package that'll be making its way through the senate this year. Whether net neutrality will be able to
overcome telecom's deep-pocketed lobbyists, however, is another question entirely. Head over to
Shaw's blog for more quotes from Wyden and the full text of the
bill.
Tags: bill, discrimination, government, internet, law, legislation, netneutrality, Ron Wyden, RonWyden, Russell Shaw, senate, verizon
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
WATCH: Shredding On The Google Guitar!
Comments
3
Subscribe to commentsBrentMar 3rd 2006 2:39PM
The only problem I can see with this (at the moment) is the first point would seem to conflict with ISP-side virus scanning and cleaning of emails...
Textbook SellerMar 5th 2006 1:11AM
Clueful? You call him clueful and follow it with this quote--
"I am not going to allow a network operator to say a person who buys online for J.Crew can stay on hold for five minutes, and where they make the Banana Republic customer wait 30 minutes."
If he thinks anything of that sort would happen he is as clueless as you can get. Apparently people are too lazy to change service providers to get the product they actually want. So why not coerce companies into providing it?
I hope folks will back my "Delivery Non-Discrimination Act of 2006" so we can get rid of the discriminatory policies of UPS and FedEx. They don't own the roads they use for transport after all, why should one package receive preferential treatment over another? We need USPS Third Class Rate package neutrality for one and all NOW! Everything in 3 weeks or so.
Also, my Internet access sometimes gets more expensive, a trend that doesn't bode welll for consumers. Can he please force them to give it to me for free too? I am clueless and unable to do even the most cursory comparison of available services to decide for myself.
Also please change my diaper for me.
John AndersonMar 12th 2006 12:43PM
Textbook Seller - "Apparently people are too lazy to change service providers to get the product they actually want."
Sheesh. If I want dial-up, I can choose from hundreds of suppliers. If I want a website hosted, ditto. But a high-speed ISP? Phone co. DSL, cable co. Cable (yes, that is what I use - without the TV, Radio, Phone etc. crap), and satellite (what, both of them? and my apt complex won't let me put an antenna outside, my apt faces NE while satellites are SW...). Past those two (!!!) choices, look at running your own T1 line or some such.