Bill Bars Web Traffic Discrimination

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Two lawmakers have proposed legislation that would stop network providers from playing traffic cop. Attempting to avoid any cries of “regulation,” one of the lawmakers involved said the bill doesn't regulate the internet, it only makes sure the rules online remain fair.

The Internet Freedom Preservation Act, which is co-sponsored by Rep. Chip Pickering, R-Miss., requires the Federal Communications Commission to assess whether broadband providers are "blocking, thwarting or unreasonably interfering" with consumers' rights to access, send, receive or offer content, applications and services over networks.
Click to expand...
 
This is going to piss off Comcast and the RIAA lol
 
This would appear to prevent an ISP shutting down a site for hosting kiddie porn or other highly unsavoury material, since that would be limiting your ability to transmit data. I hope they've been careful with the wording.
 
JDAdams said:
This would appear to prevent an ISP shutting down a site for hosting kiddie porn or other highly unsavoury material, since that would be limiting your ability to transmit data. I hope they've been careful with the wording.
Click to expand...

Problem is that you just said those golden words which will stump their bill. Hell put those golden words in any bill and you can terminate it there and then.
 
JDAdams said:
This would appear to prevent an ISP shutting down a site for hosting kiddie porn or other highly unsavoury material, since that would be limiting your ability to transmit data. I hope they've been careful with the wording.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything wrong with the wording of this so far. This blocks ISP from monitoring and restricting traffic, not preventing people from placing illegal data on their servers.
 
Ockie said:
Problem is that you just said those golden words which will stump their bill. Hell put those golden words in any bill and you can terminate it there and then.
Click to expand...

Think of it this way, if you turn off the internet of those who deal in kiddy porn they would know they authorities are onto them and could possibly flee the country. Its one art of deception, to make sure that your enemy thinks its business as usual. :D
 
This would appear to prevent an ISP shutting down a site for hosting kiddie porn or other highly unsavoury material, since that would be limiting your ability to transmit data. I hope they've been careful with the wording.
Click to expand...

Hosting kiddie porn is illegal atm (in the US where this bill is being proposed) and this wouldn't influence that. This is only saying that they (your ISP) can't block you from visiting specific sites, as well as stopping them from blocking specific ports, or peer-peer traffic. I havn't read the bill its self, but from the article this seems pretty clear.
 
Letting politicians touch anything thing tech related is dangerous. Example... I think it was Spain that passed a bill that would allow any compressed or degraded content to be freely distributed for non profit. In the bill it specified 256 bit rate for mp3s was sufficiently degraded. So they unwillingly made mp3 file sharing legal in Spain...that was not their intent.
God knows what stupidity is hiding in The Internet Freedom Preservation Act. Anybody out there wanna read the entire bill? Sounds great on the surface but...

http://www.news.com/Politicians-Clueless-on-technology/2100-1028_3-6130266.html
 
Cabn12 said:
Letting politicians touch anything thing tech related is dangerous. Example... I think it was Spain that passed a bill that would allow any compressed or degraded content to be freely distributed for non profit. In the bill it specified 256 bit rate for mp3s was sufficiently degraded. So they unwillingly made mp3 file sharing legal in Spain...that was not their intent.
God knows what stupidity is hiding in The Internet Freedom Preservation Act. Anybody out there wanna read the entire bill? Sounds great on the surface but...

http://www.news.com/Politicians-Clueless-on-technology/2100-1028_3-6130266.html
Click to expand...


Sharing MP3's in the United States is free, as long as it is not COPYRIGHTED. Everything I have read on this bill only states that the ISP's should not limit any kind of traffic. Realistically speaking, without tracking where the packets are coming from, the only thing you can tell with the packets is what kind of download/upload it is, be it normal web traffic, streaming video, torrents, or any other traffic.
 
Cabn12 said:
Letting politicians touch anything thing tech related is dangerous. Example... I think it was Spain that passed a bill that would allow any compressed or degraded content to be freely distributed for non profit. In the bill it specified 256 bit rate for mp3s was sufficiently degraded. So they unwillingly made mp3 file sharing legal in Spain...that was not their intent.
God knows what stupidity is hiding in The Internet Freedom Preservation Act. Anybody out there wanna read the entire bill? Sounds great on the surface but...

http://www.news.com/Politicians-Clueless-on-technology/2100-1028_3-6130266.html
Click to expand...

True, but somethings gotta be done to pull Comcast off their high horse. Laws can be amended. Letting Comcast continue to abuse their powers is just wrong.
 
Mega ISPs, get out your checkbooks. There are some congressmen and congresswomen to buy off.
 
Steve said:
Two lawmakers have proposed legislation that would stop network providers from playing traffic cop. Attempting to avoid any cries of “regulation,” one of the lawmakers involved said the bill doesn't regulate the internet, it only makes sure the rules online remain fair.
Click to expand...

Wow... it almost sounds like net neutrality. It'll never pass, but it sure is a nice thought.
 
I haven't read the bill itself, but ambiguous words like "unreasonable" are never good. Hopefully it's spelled out very well what specific filtering or "shaping" practices are disallowed. Since this is Congress, well, yeah. :rolleyes:
 
Agreed...it would be awesome if this passed, but they have nothing to gain by passing it. But by denying it, they'll have the support of the RIAA and other large corporations with deep pockets. It's all about money in the end.
 
Cannon_Fodder said:
Sharing MP3's in the United States is free, as long as it is not COPYRIGHTED. Everything I have read on this bill only states that the ISP's should not limit any kind of traffic. Realistically speaking, without tracking where the packets are coming from, the only thing you can tell with the packets is what kind of download/upload it is, be it normal web traffic, streaming video, torrents, or any other traffic.
Click to expand...

The bill didn't specify copyrighted material or not. That was my point. Because of the ignorance of the individuals who wrote the bill any content that was sufficiently degraded could be freely shared, including copyrighted material. That was in favor of file sharers. What happens if the people drafting this new bill inadvertently make a mistake that eventually screws us all.
 
So I'm curious, is this "Congressmen promoting change" or "Congressmen extorting RIAA and Comcast to increase thier giving"? Be kind of a neat political trick to see extortion on the part of congress vs special interest groups.

And by "kind of neat" I mean that hypothetically it's funny, if this is reality then.... well it's still funny, but very depressing at the same time.
 
I have an answer to the problem of tech bills being passed by people that refer to the Internet as "The Internets" basically no clue. Have the bills debated on the forums. Then let the moderator draft the bill. :p
 
Sounds decent. The problem is that it'll either be thrown out or amended to the point where it's useless (or makes things worse).
 
SockMan! said:
Sounds decent. The problem is that it'll either be thrown out or amended to the point where it's useless (or makes things worse).
Click to expand...

is that not how almost all laws end up? Adding stuff to popular bills has become a norm.
 
I don't think the ISP should have protection both ways. They've already been given immunity in case illegal content is sent over their wires. With that protection, they should also be required to keep their lines open.
 
Could this not conflict with the bill that just passed the house about university funding and implementing "reasonable" measures to block "illicit" traffic?

Hope this one passes.
 
If they pass this bill into law, I wonder if it'll make all the people who lost a case against the RIAA to appeal claiming they've been monitored illegally.
 
vengence said:
Hosting kiddie porn is illegal atm (in the US where this bill is being proposed) and this wouldn't influence that. This is only saying that they (your ISP) can't block you from visiting specific sites, as well as stopping them from blocking specific ports, or peer-peer traffic. I havn't read the bill its self, but from the article this seems pretty clear.
Click to expand...

It also throws the FCC into the mix, is that something we want...

The FCC would also be required to determine whether providers charge extra for certain services and if it's lawful.

The bill also requires the agency to hold at least eight summits around the country to get input from various groups about Internet service competition and services.
Click to expand...
 
"blocking, thwarting or unreasonably interfering"
Click to expand...

Comcast could still interfere with P2P traffic with reason of preventing poor service to other customers.



Something tells me the only thing that will stop them is changing service providers.
 
ND40oz said:
It also throws the FCC into the mix, is that something we want...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, I know that the path we're heading down has your ISP sniffing everything you do then THEY are choosing if your worthy of thier bandwidth (that you've already paid for :mad:). This isn't just about illegal file sharring, comcast currently has measures in place to hurt ALL file sharing, even the 100% legal ones. I think I'm willing to risk the FCC's involvement when faced with the alternatives.
 
vengence said:
I'm not sure, I know that the path we're heading down has your ISP sniffing everything you do then THEY are choosing if your worthy of thier bandwidth (that you've already paid for :mad:). This isn't just about illegal file sharring, comcast currently has measures in place to hurt ALL file sharing, even the 100% legal ones. I think I'm willing to risk the FCC's involvement when faced with the alternatives.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to think Comcast has changed their tactics. I now find that my ability to browse the web is next to nill if I do any sort of uploading for more than a few minutes. My average max upstream is around 40-50KB/s. It was always a given if I uploaded that much, my downstream was trashed.

Now, even if I limit my upstream to 10KB/s, it goes to hell. If I stop, it' frees me up after 30-120 seconds.

I need to see if I can get DSL here. The only good thing about comcast is the ridiculously low price (33/month with tax).
 
Well, once the RIAA and MPAA get done lining the pockets of the politicians, the bill will end up not getting passed.
 
nilepez said:
I'm starting to think Comcast has changed their tactics. I now find that my ability to browse the web is next to nill if I do any sort of uploading for more than a few minutes. My average max upstream is around 40-50KB/s. It was always a given if I uploaded that much, my downstream was trashed.

Now, even if I limit my upstream to 10KB/s, it goes to hell. If I stop, it' frees me up after 30-120 seconds.

I need to see if I can get DSL here. The only good thing about comcast is the ridiculously low price (33/month with tax).
Click to expand...

Yea but $33/month for what? Limited useless speeds?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top