U.S. Democrats Propose Legislation To Ban Internet Fast Lanes

An anonymous reader writes: A proposal from Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate would require the FCC to stop ISPs from creating "internet fast lanes." Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said, "Americans are speaking loud and clear. They want an Internet that is a platform for free expression and innovation, where the best ideas and services can reach consumers based on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider." Representative Doris Matsui (D-CA) added, "A free and open Internet is essential for consumers. Our country cannot afford 'pay-for-play' schemes that divide our Internet into tiers based on who has the deepest pockets." Unfortunately, this is only half a solution — the bill doesn't actually add to the FCC's authority. It only requires them to use the authority they currently have, which is questionable at best.

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[gstoddart]

It's a sign that the FCC is entirely pointless if Congress has to order it to do every little thing

Making a former lobbyist for wireless and Cable the head of the FCC is a sign the FCC is entirely pointless.

Market

[ZombieBraintrust]

This doesn't fix the root cause. I have 1 ISP in my region that provides cable internet. As long as they have monopoly power they will abuse it. Fix the monopoly issue and the federal goverment might not need to regulate the internet like this.

And the Telco response

[zeroryoko1974]

Here, Mr. Congressman have some money, we don't need no silly neutrality. How about free HBO for your family instead?

Dead in the house

[jandrese]

Every single name on this bill has a (D) next to it. It will never make it to the floor in the house.

Bad idea

[thule]

I predicted this would happen. As soon as lawmakers figured out there was this thing called peering they'd freak out and try to control it. The discussion went from treating each packet the same to controlling peering. How long will it take for lawmakers to completely screw up the Internet? Much of what I see about net neutrality is like reading people's thoughts on organic food. Small bits of truth, but mostly junk. Now turn that ignorance over to the power of the Federal government. No good can come of this.

So basically between 1 in 4 to 1 in 2 packets going over the ISP's transit link will be Netflix data. Why would an ISP do that if they have the option to peer directly with Netflix? It makes absolutely no sense. Any spike in Netflix data will cause everyone's connection to be crap. Not just Netflix users, everyone. This is not helping the potential competitor to Netflix, it is hurting them! Peering is a good thing! Please stop trying to regulate it.

Re:just label ISP's as common carriers already

[Aryden]

common carriers just says they have to carry all traffic equally and without discrimination.

You answered your own question.

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[Em Adespoton]

It's a sign that the FCC is entirely pointless if Congress has to order it to do every little thing

Making a former lobbyist for wireless and Cable the head of the FCC is a sign the FCC is entirely pointless.

Not necessarily -- such a person knows all the tricks, and is in a good position to smack current lobbyists down.

However, in THIS case, his cultural bias is pretty obvious, and it seems that his reason for leaving the lobby was not "I became disillusioned with the whole racket."

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[mellon]

So our choices are (1) an industry shill or (2) someone with no experience in the industry?

I beg to differ.

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[mellon]

You want your streets constantly being dug up and inexpertly patched? You want your neighbor's inexpertly pointed microwave dish frying your eyeballs? What you ought to be asking for is an end to deals between municipalities and individual providers, and no restrictions on who can get into the market. Maybe it makes sense for municipalities to install last-mile service. Maybe it doesn't. Why not let the local voters decide?

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[mellon]

So what you're saying is that we can have a monopoly of greedy corporate bastards, or we can have a government-run monopoly that charges a price that's regulated by voters. And out of these two choices, you are selecting the former, because boo-hoo, the voters will set the price at cost, and the corporations want to make a profit, and that's not fair. Well fuck their profit. They want to own our eyeballs and sell them to the highest bidder. Fuck that.

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[spire3661]

This is a shitty argument. I want someone with a SCIENTIFIC background to run our communications, not a lobbyist.

Re:just label ISP's as common carriers already

[mellon]

The difference is that provisioning the last mile is what's expensive. Running fiber to the point of presence is easy. So if you regulate telcos as common carriers, suddenly you have competition between ISPs again, and so they can't pull that crap.