Draft of Waxman's net-neutrality legislation leaked

[kpete]

Source: The Hill

Draft of Waxman's net-neutrality legislation leaked
By Sara Jerome - 09/27/10 01:57 PM ET

Here is a draft copy of the net-neutrality proposal under development by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (Calif.), according to an industry source.

This version was under consideration as of the weekend.

Two non-Hill sources said Monday afternoon they believe the bill will come on Monday or Tuesday.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/121101-read-a-draft-of-waxmans-net-neutrality-bill

---

Draft Copy:
http://thehill.com/images/stories/whitepapers/pdf/proposed_net_neutrality_legislative_framework-1.pdf

[JDPriestly]

1. Seems to me this is kind of crucial

“(a) DUTIES OF WIRELINE PROVIDERS.—A person engaged in the provision of broadband
Internet access service by wire, insofar as such person is so engaged—
“(1) shall not block lawful content, applications, or services, or prohibit the use of
non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management;
“(2) shall not unjustly or unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful traffic
over a consumer’s wireline broadband Internet access service. For purposes of this
subparagraph, reasonable network management practices shall not be construed to be
unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory.
“(3) shall disclose accurate and relevant information in plain language regarding
the price, performance, and network management practices of its wireline broadband
Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use
of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop and
market new Internet offerings. The Commission shall not require public disclosure of
competitively sensitive information or information that could compromise network
security or undermine the efficacy of reasonable network management practices]. In
promulgating rules implementing this subparagraph, the Commission shall at minimum
require providers to display or provide links to the required information on an Internet
website and to update such information in a timely


. . .

“(3) REASONABLE NETWORK MANAGEMENT. – The term “reasonable network
management” means a network management practice that is appropriate and tailored to
achieving a legitimate network management function, taking into account the particular
network architecture or technology of the provider. It includes appropriate and tailored
practices to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on a broadband Internet access
provider’s network; to ensure network security or integrity; to address traffic that is
harmful to or unwanted by users, including premise operators, or to the provider’s
network, or the Internet; to meet the needs of public safety; and to provide services or
capabilities to effectuate a consumer’s choices, including parental controls or security
capabilities. In determining whether a network management practice is reasonable, the
Commission shall consider technical requirements, standards, or best practices adopted
by one or more independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiative
or standard-setting organization. In determining whether a network management practice
for wireless broadband Internet access service is reasonable, the Commission shall also
consider the technical, operational, and other differences between wireless and other
broadband Internet access platforms, including the need to ensure the efficient use of
spectrum.

http://thehill.com/images/stories/whitepapers/pdf/proposed_net_neutrality_legislative_framework-1.pdf

OK, experts. What do you think?

[CLANG]

3. Since I'm not a lawyer, I couldn't say, but as someone who can read

it looks like there's enough loopholes to drive a data center through.

[snot]

4. This might be worse than nothing.

[Uncle Joe]

2. On the face of it, this seems reasonable to me but I wonder whether this leaves an out

to the new hyper high speed wireless that I've heard was under development and would be coming out in the near future?

I forgot the name given to the new higher speed wireless.

“(2) HIGH-SPEED.—The term ‘high-speed’ shall have the meaning given to it in
the Commission’s Fifth Report on the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications
Capability to All Americans, FCC 08-88 (rel. June 12, 2008).

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[KeepItReal]

5. Here's a good guide on what Net Neutrality is (from CNET)

The skinny on Net neutrality (FAQ)

What is Net neutrality?
There is no clear definition of the phrase "Net neutrality." But to most people it simply means that Internet users should be able to have unfettered access to content and services on the Web. In other words, broadband service providers should not be allowed to monkey with the traffic to block certain content or slow it down.

Are there any laws or regulations that currently keep the Internet "open"?
No, there have never been enforceable rules or laws written to specifically tell broadband providers what they can and cannot do on their networks. Some legislation has been proposed, but all efforts up to this point have failed. The Federal Communications Commission has written Net neutrality principles (PDF), but they aren't official rules. The FCC is currently considering official rules that it says it would be able to enforce.

...
... So what are Net neutrality supporters so afraid of?
There is concern that without formal rules of the road, broadband providers could abuse their power. So instead of using their management techniques simply to keep traffic flowing, they might use them to slow or block traffic from competitors to encourage consumers to use their own services more.

For example, say your broadband provider offers a streaming video service. It might be tempted to give its service priority in the network over a competitor's streaming video service. So while a competitor's video service would stutter, the broadband provider's service would fly through the network and provide superior quality.

The other fear is that broadband service providers would make deals with content and application developers and that every Net-based service would charge consumers for a better experience. The only services left on the public Internet would provide crappy, slow, and ad-laden content.

Link to article and video: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20015590-266.html#ixzz10lu94ODC

--------------

IMHO: The goal of eliminating net neutrality is to create for the Wireless Carriers a way of double charging you for content you *already* pay for in your wireless data plans. Right now you get all the data you want (or are allocated per month) at hopefully the same speed to your wireless device. After they kill net neutrality, YouTube may have to pay ATT and Verizon more in order to make sure its videos get to you as fast as regular content like emails or regular web pages. Faced with having to now pay to push its content on the wireless, non-net neutral web, YouTube may have to charge you or get the Wireless Carrier to charge you extra for the "privilege" of streaming their video at a "normal" speed.

Hope that makes sense.

(edited for typo and quick content add)