Would the bill presented by John McCain about net neutrality have an effect on internet users around the world if it passes?

His idiocy would be confined to the States, where dollars always trump freedom.

I don’t think Time Warner could slow it down for us in the Netherlands, as its not our ISP. I wonder whether the market would be able to punish such behaviour.

…... actually what McCain did…... The FCC voted unanimously yesterday to move forward with the debate in an effort to formalize net neutrality guidelines. Senator John McCain followed up by introducing a bill that would prohibit the FCC from governing communications.

John McCain is the last man who should be passing any bills dealing with the internet. I bet that old fuck doesnt even know how to use “the googles”

we are the web

The bill would probably not have that much short term effect, but in the long term it might change the way people and businesses will behave in respect to the internet. If for example you have to pay extra to be a video streaming service, maybe we will not see an awesome video streaming service because the threshold of entering the video streaming market is higher.
So I do believe that in the long term the way the US views the internet will affect it in the long term, and therefor affect all of us who use US websites.

It’s not worth the trouble. An ISP would have to put lots of effort into regulating the flow of information to all of its customers. A router would have to check the IP of the outgoing packet every time to find out if it was going to a rival company. This costs computation and would require a more expensive/expansive routing system plus a higher cost for each packet routed. Not to mention the fact that the company wants to keep your business. If the company is limiting your ability to do what you want to do on the internet, you’re better off using a different provider. They don’t want you to switch, so they’d never do this.

I actually have to agree with McCain in this situation. I don’t think anyone should make any steps to regulate the internet in any way. Protocol standards are one thing, internet regulation is entirely different.

@Shuttle128 Sounds like you’ve drunk the Kool-Aid. The giant Telcos are bribing Congress, especially McCain, with huge sums of money, not because they are stalwart supporters of Internet Freedom, but exactly because they are afraid that the FCC will impose real Internet Freedom, and not allow them to manipulate the Net in the interest of their bottom line.

How do you suppose that you can impose freedom? That makes no sense whatsoever.

@Shuttle128 by not allowing ISPs to throttle service and letting users FREELY go wherever they wish on the interwebs?

Perzackly.

@uberbatman As I explained before, capitalism doesn’t work that way. There is more money to be made by not regulating the internet. The only problem I can see is that there is a slight “barrier to entry” into the ISP market as the overhead cost is very large.

During the campaign, McCain admitted that he didn’t know how to use a computer. What business does he have deciding how the internet works.

@Shuttle128 soooo yea is that what it all comes down to? Money? Fuck our freedoms, i mean theres money to be made after all.

Why in the fuck cant we have someone educated on how the internet actually works deciding these things for once?

It’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes.

We have seen the pernicious effects of a lack of regulation in the Securities business, we saw what happened to the banks when Glass-Steagal was repealed. Capitalists have no urge for pro bono publico and never will. For ordinary people to enjoy the fruits of technology, the ISPs will have to be regulated.l If not, they will fuck us all in the ass.

@uberbatman Is there some inalienable right to access the internet that I don’t know about? These companies are providing access to a network in exchange for your money. It is almost always in their best interest not to regulate your access to it (with a rather important caveat). If you find that the company you are using does not meet your expectations you can use a different company as long as the ISP is not a monopoly and the competing companies are not colluding (both are not legal in US economy).

When you regulate the ways in which companies do their business you are restricting innovations that might violate these regulations. The reason ISP’s are battling this so badly is that they limit the access of users that access certain files in order to supply a higher bandwidth to all users. If the ports are all “opened wide” there will be problems with guaranteeing any kind of access to users. A company must be able to provide a product to all its customers, and not being able to limit usage creates the possibility that some users will be SOL when it comes to bandwidth because the ISP’s can’t regulate their traffic the way they want to.

@pdworkin What if this bill passes and internet providers cannot cope with the sudden requirement to deregulate their traffic management? Do other ISP’s spring up in their place? Probably not, there is much too high an overhead cost for small companies to get into the ISP business….not only this but they will have to deal with the same problems that the big companies couldn’t deal with. Does the government step in and sink money into keeping the internet alive like it had to for the airlines because we’ve become so dependent on it? Would the internet become a government run service with an internet tax for all to pay?

An ISP has to make its customers happy if it wants to keep them. It costs more money to get a new customer than it takes to keep an old customer. It is entirely in the ISP’s interest to make the customer happy. The only reason a customer would stay with an ISP if it was fucking them in the ass is if they didn’t know they were being fucked in the ass. I’m fairly certain most intelligent people would notice getting fucked in the ass.

I really think you guys are getting at a completely different problem. That is the problem of a capitalistic company’s goal. The goal of a company is to make money whether you guys like it or not. There is a much stronger incentive to make money than to make customers happy. Because of this, companies will do things that don’t make customers happy to enhance their profit. The only way of preventing this is by regulation. Regulation is used to protect customers from harm; however, it is accomplished by imposing regulations that deprive the company of profits. Which is more desirable? This is not always clear. In this case I don’t see regulating ISP’s services as more desirable. I’m not in any way advocating that regulation should be abolished, I just think that it is not always necessary. In this case the outcome may be worse with regulation. The internet has been okay without regulating standards so far, does it need it now?

@Shuttle128 That was a thoughtful and reasoned answer. Let me think about this before I say any more.

@virtualist Seriously, you are going to make this about government control? For your clarification, the government voted on keeping the internet FREE OF CONTROL. This means free of government control AND free market control. (with free market I mean; people who want your money)

@Hellfrost I was under the impression that he was simply clarifying what is actually happening.

Senator McCain is not passing a bill to promote the abilities to do the things you listed. He is promoting a bill to prevent the FCC from mandating what these companies can or cannot do.

From what I understand, John McCain presented a bill that would do exactly this, the government is the one saying: no, internet should be free for everybody.

@Hellfrost NOT!

Net neutrality foe McCain biggest beneficiary of telco/ISP money
Senator John McCain is the biggest champion against Net neutrality rules and introduced a bill that would block regulation of the nation’s largest broadband networks

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is the top recipient of campaign contributions from large Internet service providers like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast over the past two years, according to a new report from the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics. McCain has taken in a total of $894,379 (much of that money going to support his failed 2008 bid for the presidency), more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ($341,089).

Meanwhile, McCain has emerged as the ISPs’ biggest champion against new “network neutrality” rules from the Federal Communications Commission, which voted Thursday to move forward in the process to adopt such rules. Shortly after the FCC vote, McCain introduced a bill (the “Internet Freedom Act”) that would block regulation of the nation’s largest broadband networks.

[ InfoWorld’s Paul Venezia says federal legislators’ utter failure to comprehend Net neutrality would be funny if it weren’t so terrifying. He offers an open letter to the enemies of Net neutrality. ]

Net neutrality rules would amount to a federal mandate that broadband providers cannot block or hinder the internet traffic of any web site or service, regardless of whether or not that site or service completes with a similar site or service offered by the ISP itself. In other words, a telco ISP could not limit bandwidth used for Skype VoIP traffic, while maximizing bandwidth available for its own VoIP service.

As Congress considers legislation that would codify net neutrality into law, cable and phone companies are hoping to cut a better deal on Capitol Hill than they are likely to get from the FCC, the Sunlight Foundation’s Bill Allison says.

As the network neutrality issue has come to a head over the past year, due in large part to the new FCC’s interest in it, telco and cable lobbyists have been flooding the offices (and coffers) of lawmakers. The Sunlight Foundation study found that some 244 members of Congress were the beneficiaries of contributions—totaling more than $9.4 million—from January 2007 to June 2009. The analysis was based on a survey of giving by eight large broadband providers and two trade associations that represent them, all which have disclosed lobbying on net neutrality issues.

The telecom interests also targeted House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. ($275,275), Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus, D-Mont. ($248,999) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ($198,972).

Verizon and AT&T have been particularly active in this effort; they also were the sources of all the clustered contributions among broadband providers, with AT&T and its outside lobbyists combining to give to 110 members, followed by Comcast (105 members) and Verizon (96 members).

@Shuttle128 I have given what you said some thought, and here’s the current state of my thinking:

I think your first argument about ISPs not being able to cope is a straw man argument. There is no evidence that it is more onerous to refrain from capping loads and making preferential streams than it is to do the extra work it takes to accomplish these things.

Secondly, it is the consumer who needs a level playing field, not the huge Telcos.

I tend to agree with you, however, that once government gets its nose under the tent it doesn’t like to stop, and that does pose dangers to a well-regulated but fair marketplace.

For that reason I believe that the FCC, having a professional staff of communications experts as it does, is probably a fairer regulator than Congress would be in this case, since Congresspeople are subject to importuning by lobbyists handing out money.

Thus I conclude that McCain’s bill will actually tamper with freedom, even though technically you are correct in saying that logically it should help prevent interference.