The Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006

Filed under: Internet

The Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006

by Jordan Running Mar 3rd 2006

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

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Brent said 2:39PM on 3-03-2006

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 Seller said 1:11AM on 3-05-2006

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 Anderson said 12:43PM on 3-12-2006

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.

Add your comments

Your comments:

Remember me

E-Mail me when someone replies to this comment

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.

Featured Time Waster

Civiballs is a beautiful, soothing physics puzzle Time Waster

I have an absolute weakness for physics games, and while Civiballs isn't the strongest physics-based game, what it lacks in the physics department it makes up for a few times over in style and fun.

In Civiballs, you are presented with a few colored balls, and your goal is to get those balls into the same-colored urn on the level. The "civi" part of Civiballs is that there are 3 sets of levels to play, each representing a different civilization. While the civilization doesn't affect gameplay, the artwork for each level is beautifully themed to it's appropriate era.

To play the game, you are given only one tool - a sword with which to cut the chains that are holding the balls. The puzzle part of the game is in figuring out what order, and with what timing to cut each chain. Do it right, and all the right balls end up in the right urns, with no stray balls entering an urn (a no-no). Do it wrong, and you get to start over again.

Civiballs is not terribly deep on gameplay; the entire game can be completed in about 15 minutes. But if you enjoy this type of game, it will be a very enjoyable 15 minutes.

View more Time Wasters