Please continue to write to your local congressman…I know I will.

As I said earlier, there are plenty of opportunities to help address the language at the appropriate time. My preference is to drive momentum for the legislation so providers realize we are deadly serious about not allowing Internet Overcharging schemes to be taken lightly.

I will make inquiries about the constitutionality of the major/minor ISP differential language.

Tnx!

My only concern is that IF the language of the bill as it is DID make it into law that we would not have won much of anything for the little guy — the rural guy.

I did read the FAQ and I understand the reasons for excluding small ISPs but they’re not so innocent as they seem (at least not all of them).

I have not given up on hopes of some useful legislation and I will keep my eyes and ears peeled to watch and see if this thing progresses. But quite frankly, I don’t see how the language as stated wouldn’t be shot down in court on grounds of unequal and unfair treatment of major ISPs (mostly because the language takes the wrong tack and the imposition of the rules seems rather arbitrary). Certainly if I were a judge presiding over a case arguing the legality of the language of the bill with major ISPs on one side and Eric Massa on the other, I’d be hard-pressed to not rule in the ISPs favor based solely on the bill’s language.

Let it be known I am not a fan of any ISP (major or minor) that I have ever dealt with, but I don’t feel this proposed bill has what it takes to pass muster to make it to the next step.

But that’s just me.

This bill also doesn’t exist in a vacuum and is not set in stone.

First, as I explained in the FAQ article, there are a number of things I *cannot* explain here for strategic reasons. You’ll have to decide for yourself, based on the entire mission we’ve had here, whether I’d involve myself in a bill that doesn’t achieve our ultimate goals.

Second, what you read today isn’t necessarily the same bill that ultimately will be passed. Refinements through amendments, adjusting language, and other such things will occur as the bill progresses and other members of Congress propose changes.

Third, some other legislation addressing some of the other issues you raised is likely forthcoming soon.

In closing, I cannot reiterate enough that there is going to be a lot of things happening behind the scenes. If I ever believed our fundamental principles and goals were not being addressed, I would withdraw support for the legislation.

I’ve read through the entirety of the text and all I see is punitive measures against a subset of ISPs – the largest ISPs. There is nothing in the bill that prevents small ISPs such as the one in my father’s hometown from charging $70/month for 1Mbps download and something slower than dial-up for upstream bandwidth. As a matter of fact this bill excludes exactly those ISPs.

Additionally, this puts a lot of faith that I see no reason to have into the FCC and FTC to do a good job. Are we forgetting that the FTC has been implicated in the whole Wall Street regulation debacle by getting too cozy with the banks there? And the FCC hasn’t really been a stellar player either in the recent past (last 10 years) trying to push thing things like the broadcast flag to impose draconian Digital Rights Management on digital broadcasts so they could not be recorded on conforming hardware (TV sets, set-top-boxes, DVRs, etc.).

Finally, all this legislation does is add more process and bureaucracy to the system which will drive up real costs for the major ISPs who will then be justified in raising rates because their costs have gone up (as per the legislation). Not to mention that this legislation is singling out the broadband internet providers and telling them how they can and cannot price their product. What other businesses (not industries – remember, we’re not applying this industry-wide, just to select companies) does the government interfere this much when they don’t have a 60% shareholder stake in the company *cough* GM *cough*?

No… good legislation would have been broader by requiring that ISPs not have any conflict of interest with content providers (i.e. TWC — content delivery — cannot be related in any way to TWE — content provider). It should also have stipulated expressly that municipal competition that is not sustained by tax money be allowed to compete against incumbent ISPs.

This bill as written should never make it into law and if it does I will be supremely disappointed in our legislation for being so short-sighted.