TechSpot

Democrats introduce bill to ban paid prioritization of Internet traffic

  1. Amid the ongoing public debate over net neutrality, a group of democratic US lawmakers yesterday introduced legislation that would ban ISPs from charging Web content generators for the so-called "fast lanes" -- deals similar to the recent agreement between Netflix...

    Read more
     
  2. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 3,149   +1,424

    Sounds like Internet Communism to me.

    Special fast lanes are reasonable, imo, because most of today's internet shares so-called fair-use policy, which cannot work with businesses that generate heavy traffic by their nature, heralded by the arrival of on-demand ultra-high definition media.
     
  3. As much as I personally like this, this is not what a democratic republic government does. This is socialism. Let the free market decide whether or not this happens. If ISPs lose subscribers over this then you will bet they will quit providing it. It could be an opportunity for a brand new ISP to secure market share. Speak with your wallet. Dont let "big brother" fight your battles for us. All they want is control.
     
    stewi0001 likes this.
  4. psycros

    psycros TS Evangelist Posts: 1,319   +709

    How is this socialism? Its simply a regulatory move to insure that the big entrenched players can't squelch their competition by starving them of bandwidth. That's the very epitome of REAL capitalism where the playing field is supposed to be level. What we have in the US these days, particularly when it comes to the telecom industry, is a cartel of companies who are merging and acquiring their way to complete monopoly. There's is no "free market" when a handful or corporations can set prices and act as gatekeepers to all Internet content. Do you want the Internet to look like the oil industry? Because allowing ISPs to arbitrarily decide who is deserving of a "fast lane" is exactly how you get there.
     
    eelemcl likes this.
  5. Hard to lose subscribers when you're the only ISP available. Have you not been following all the massive mergers happening?
     
    ikesmasher, SirGCal, SNGX1275 and 3 others like this.
  6. wastedkill

    wastedkill TS Evangelist Posts: 1,389   +329

    There is no such thing as a "Special-Line" all it is is paying a ISP to remove the cap that they put on you in the first place because they wasted all their cash on parties and paying stupid shareholders instead of improving their infranstructure and equipment!

    I would love for google to come in the UK and squash all the other lazy ISP's that blame this made up "Bandwidth" which really all it is another way to drive revenue like the made up "Prioritization of internet traffic" that ISP's like comcast made...
     
  7. RustyTech

    RustyTech TS Guru Posts: 865   +434

    You must have been living under a rock so allow me to bring you up to speed; if an ISP is an any particular area, no other ISP is allowed to be there, save DSL (which is cr@p anyway).

    There, you are now up to speed of the monopolistic nature (by willful design) of ISPs.
     
    Darkshadoe likes this.
  8. cmbjive

    cmbjive TS Booster Posts: 777   +137

    Bill ain't going nowhere, and properly so.

    No, but you do want the internet to look like the utilities, of which the telcos are when it pertains their original product, telephony.
     
  9. cmbjive

    cmbjive TS Booster Posts: 777   +137

    Where I live I can get access to broadband in a many different ways. Why can't you?
     
  10. Please Wiki the term to understand what socialism is. The term
    on the wiki page comes to mind.
    Actually no, real capitalism is practiced with no interference of government. It is determined by the market. Although no one can argue the some laws(such as monopoly laws) are needed to protect individuals. At what point does the reach of government power over private corporations stop? What can they tell you not to buy or sell? Besides health insurance now...

    The answer to this problem was already in the original comment. Try reading the whole thing next time. When the market demands change. There will always be competition. Ever heard of Google Fiber?
     
  11. yRaz

    yRaz TS Evangelist Posts: 1,897   +940

    How is this socialism? This is nothing but good for consumers, the economy and business. This is basically preventing big business from gaining and unfair competitive advantage over smaller start ups. It makes it harder for start ups to provide service on par with the big guys.

    everyone should have an equal playing field leaving only innovation and quality service to be the keys to success.
     
    Darkshadoe likes this.
  12. cmbjive

    cmbjive TS Booster Posts: 777   +137

    Obamacare was the last bill introduced by Dems that benefited "consumers, the economy, and business". How's that working out for "consumers, the economy, and business"?
     
  13. Obama care is working great for me and my family. Affordable healthcare where before insurance companies would have charged me the same cost as buying a car per month. If you can't see how Obamacare has helped this country you're more than likely part of the companies and organizations that have been the problem with healthcare in this country.
     
  14. You are looking at it all wrong RustyTech. The problem is that the local ISP has paid to have the physical lines run in the area of public property. So they are allowed to take ownership of it. Other companies cant provide competition because they then would have to pay the outrageous cost to lay the lines on public property. Local governments receive kickbacks from this in the form of crazy requirements(such as free internet to government buildings,price gouging,or donated equipment) so only the largest ISPs can afford to do so. They get the final say. Did you know a lot of public schools get free cable? If the federal government really wants to help, they could prevent the local governments from prohibiting any new telecommunication lines for anything other than the cost to do so. That is fully within their authority.

    Don't blame a company for dropping the cash and taking ownership of their property when its YOUR local government which is causing the problem! Government is the issue here.
     
  15. Whether you like it or not, you are in the minority on this. Thousands of people have lost their insurance because of the HUGE spike in prices after obamacare took effect. And its only going to go up. This is just year one. We are just now seeing some of the horror stories from the Gov controlled VA clinics. You really want more of this?
     
    SNGX1275, eelemcl and cmbjive like this.
  16. cmbjive

    cmbjive TS Booster Posts: 777   +137

    While I will not question that Obamacare is helping your family, my wife just lost her insurance due to the same law. In addition, she will now have to get put on my insurance, which charges me a premium because my wife has access to health insurance via the exchange. While she can get insurance on the exchange, we do not qualify for subsidies because we make too much money to qualify (and I wouldn't take it even if I did qualify).

    In other words, because of Obamacare my health insurance costs, which are already high because I pay mostly out of pocket due to not hitting the deductible, are going to be even higher.

    Besides, you are just one family, you are not all "consumers, the economy, and business".
     
    SNGX1275 likes this.
  17. [QUOTE]Don’t Blame Big Cable. It’s Local Governments That Choke Broadband Competition[/QUOTE]

    Google that term, then let me know how you feel about it.
     
  18. cmbjive

    cmbjive TS Booster Posts: 777   +137

    I'm assuming you are talking to me, so let me advise you:

    In my area I have access to satellite (Hughes), cable (Cox), DSL (Centurylink), and wireless (all four wireless companies) for broadband service. In addition, Google Fiber is researching to bring their service to the Phoenix metro area.

    You should probably check yourself: The reason there is probably only one ISP allowed in your area is due to the fact that there is only one telco that is generally allowed in your area. After Ma Bell was trivested, local governments worked to give the baby Bells public utility status for telephony service, which severely limited the ability of the phone companies to charge adequate pricing for their service which, in turn, limited the amount of innovation that could go into telephony.

    Now, the Dems want to introduce this style of "regulation" into the broadband because someone somewhere is feeling aggrieved that they can't stream Netflix at 50 GB/sec as opposed to 5 GB/sec for the same price.
     
    MilwaukeeMike likes this.
  19. I was actually referring to RustyTechs comment. I agree with what you said. Its local government that is the issue here. We don't need government "regulation" on private companies to fix this. We need government regulation of government! That is supposed to be what they do!
     
    cmbjive likes this.
  20. cmbjive

    cmbjive TS Booster Posts: 777   +137

    I apologize then.
     
  21. Camikazi

    Camikazi TS Maniac Posts: 816   +231

    Very few places in the US have multiple, useful, equal speed/price broadband in the same area most are one cable company (fastest speeds), one DSL company (slower) and maybe one satellite (horrible) and that is by government sanctioned monopolies.
     
  22. If the Republicans had introduced the bill the same poster would say how great it is that Republicans are looking out for us, creating jobs and fostering innovation.
     
    eelemcl likes this.
  23. tonylukac

    tonylukac TS Evangelist Posts: 1,309   +56

    If you knew anything you'd know that the GOVERNMENT paid to put land lines in and paid to put the cable lines in. The question is then, whey don't those cable companies/isps just charge for the electricity? They upgrade the speed only once in about 10 years. Land line phone companies also recieve a subsidy for lines in rural areas. That's the only reason att and verizon are profitable, while sprint and tmobile which have few if any land lines are not.
     
  24. tonylukac

    tonylukac TS Evangelist Posts: 1,309   +56

    Cable companies/isps SHOULD be regulated as utilities, the monopolies they are. The us government put in those lines, why are isps/cable companies charging us rent? And as far as supporting it, did you in the last 10 years see ANY new cell towers put in? I haven't. Look at the monopoly of microsoft with their child's toy called windows 8. All businesses of the world have to use the sh-t, seemingly written by kindergardeners. You have all those course materials, mcse etc. Hire american and train your employees with that material.
     
    eelemcl likes this.
  25. GeforcerFX

    GeforcerFX TS Evangelist Posts: 494   +126

    Where I live we have a really unique selection of ISP's, infact Montana in general has a large amount ot pick from for how small most communitties are. In my town/area of 45,000 people we have Charter Cable offering 30/60mb, centurylink offering 20/10mb DSL, montanasky.net offering 10mb DSL, Montan MAx offering 10Mb DSL, and Montanasky.net offering up to 10mb WiMax. The you have Hughes satellite, and at&t and Verizon for 4g connections. Pretty diverse market, but I would say charter and century link make up at least 65% of it, with montana sky picking up 15% and the rest split what remains. I could see for non-streamers Cellular internet becoming the standard soon. Was reading a rticle somewhere and talking with both my ATT and Verizon rep when they come into the store. We see having a 10g mobile hotspot being around $50 a month within a year or too. Making a 20gb option run $100 (that's what 10gb's runs you now). If there able to keep expanding network capacity and speeds, while dropping the price of data packages I could see celluar internet mkaing a huge dent in tradition ISP's market share.
     

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...