|
|
A new year, new congress, and new laws?
Author: Brett ThomasPublished: 29th December 2006
Much of the US Government will be very different come the new year - will internet policies change, too?
First up on the list is a net neutrality issue. In the US, internet providers would like to boost their own traffic, and so want to be able to promote sites that are using their internet services. That means that sites that don't use them could actually see their allowed bandwidth reduced or even blocked entirely - this concept could generate a huge pay-to-play issue. Republicans staunchly supported the measure as the rights of a business, and the vote in 2006 was expected to be straight down party lines.
At the time, Democrats used a stall tactic to put the bill out of commission. This time around, it's rumoured that they could push for a bill that bans selective bandwidth entirely and therefore stop the debate. However, it's likely that Republicans will give it the same fate as their own bill met - one Republican staffer even said as much anonymously. If it did pass, it would essentially turn internet into a public utility, which could have considerable benefits.
Another big issue this year is patent reform. It's a little more grey than the neutrality issue, as there is no clear winner or loser. Everybody is hoping that patents could be made a bit harder to get, and that they would require more specific declaration of what technologies are being covered. The Supreme Court is already stepping into the ring, so it looks like there could be some genuine headway on this.
Also in the patent law debate, many bigger companies are banding together in hopes to limit injunctions on their products. There have been several scenarios in 2005 and 2006 where very small inventers who never had the ability to bring their ideas to market in the first place have asked for big companies to be prevented from releasing already finished products, often for one small, trivial bit of code. For instance, in 2006, Ebay was threatened with an injunction for its "Buy it Now" feature, though thankfully the courts refused.
Of course, there are many other potentials floating around aside from these two topics. Things like Municipal Wi-Fi (which internet companies are lobbying to ban), government technology subsidies for lower-income areas, and even highly-skilled migrant visas are all being looked into. Whether much, if anything, comes from these has yet to be seen - but expect 2007 to be a legal firestorm in the technology sector, even if nothing actually gets burned up.
Got a thought on the year ahead? Any legislation you're particularly concerned with on either side of the pond? Tell us your thoughts in our forums.
Recent articles on bit-tech.net
Comments (13)Stats: 0.073 seconds
good ideas thought.....
Banning municipal Wi-fi is just plain wrong though. If anything, it needs to be expanded and publicly funded. I think the way to go is a tiered service where 56k equivelant speed is available to everyone free and full speed is available at competitive cost. IIRC San Fransisco is going in somthing like this direction.
Or something to that effect. I like the idea, but problems like that make it just a bit less appealing to me.
Oh yeah, blame the GOP. It's always the GOP's fault. Like the liberals didn't play a negative role in the congressional drama. Granted the GOP did the most in support of the anti-net neturalilty bill. But quite a few democrats are to blame. One grand example is Indianapolis congress-woman Julia Carson, (D)-Indiana. While she expressed some support for the net-neutrality bill, she also voted in favor for the COPE act which passed in congress. Her excuse was that it would encourage compeition for telecomunication companies which is somewhat great (but all it's really to her is so she won't have to pay so much for cable and instead for once pay her taxes). But there's more to that bill than what she expressed in a responsive letter sent almost a month after inquiring about the issue over the phone.
And according to the Bill results, sure Republicans reared their ugly head in this vote but lots of Democrats voiced their support to.
My point here is that while the GOP didn't always look after the little guy, neither did the Democrats. Like the article mentioned, new year, new faces, new house, same issue, new hope. The liberals better have it right this time because while I generally support the GOP (although I can't vote b/c i'm 17) I will support whoever makes the right decisions that I know will affect me and everyone else in cyberspace.
That being said, I do stand behind what I wrote - the bill I was discussing was expected to be split right down party lines. COPE is another whole mess, and though certain voting is clearly inconsistent, I was discussing the particulars of the net neutrality bill.
Next year is exactly as you summed up - new year, new faces, same issues. And I'm betting the exact same nada will get done ;) Except in patent law, at least
But it will be an interesting fireworks show.
Currently in my area several cities have gotten sick of the Comworst/Qworst monopoly and have decided to set up their own infrastructure. This entails running a fiber line to just about every home and business in the participating cities, with the available bandwidth to each establishment being 100Mb/s and 1000Mb/s. Then various companies could come in and license rights to use the network and provide services (internet, digital television, telecommunications, medical monitoring, distance learning, web hosting, home security, etc). This effectively allows smaller companies to offer a much more stable, higher bandwidth solution than Comcast or Qwest at a fraction of the price, with out having to invest millions of dollars into building their own infrastructure.
Obviously Comcast and Qwest are not happy with the ideas of their multi-million dollar infrastructures made obsolete and have done everything in their power to stop it from happening. Now what they have done is legal, however in my opinion it is pretty low as far as ethics go. For example in the cities that already have some of the network up and running Comcast has cut their prices by over 50% for those that have access to the network and yet across the street they still charge full price for their services simply because those people just don't have the option yet to make use of the fiber network. Qwest has filed motions preventing the network from using their existing telephone poles. Both companies have spent exorbitant amounts of money bribing individuals and paying lobbyists to do their bidding and push their views while claiming to represent the communities.
Now to be fair to Comcast and Qwest I can see why they would strongly oppose this as it threatens to obliterate this income source for them, and should the project prove to be successful it could cause them to face issues nation wide. However I am sick and tired of having to deal with overpriced shoddy connections that are constantly dropping for no real apparent reason. They wouldn't even have gotten into this mess if they had provided a decent service at a competitive price to begin with, and be able to address their customers concerns. But since they have been the only real options (until now) they kick back put up their heels and ignore all of the complaints and do not address any issues (or if they do it is aftery they get enough threats of service cancellation).
I really look forward to when I can get a relatively fast connection at a decent price. As things stand my family pays around $60 a month for a 6Mb/s down (supposedly) and 384Kb/s up (don't even ask what we are paying for television). Most of the companies offering services on the municipal network are offering internet services with 15Mb/s down and up for ~$40 a month.
Is it any wonder the US lags behind much of the modern world in so many things?
Eh, except, now you're getting it for free (stealing, technically, but I sympathize! just using the proper word), except, with municipal intarweb, you'll be paying for it in ultimately higher taxes. No free lunch!
TechDirt had something on municipal wifi/internet that was interesting the other day. Apparently, municipalities are providing access to the poles and covering some varied costs, but private industry is by and large coming in and setting everything up, paying for just about it all, and assuming almost all the risk associated with the project. Still a pseudo-monopoly, but not as bad as the local government building and operating it themselves, definitely!
They also said a much better idea would be municipal fiber. It's been done in a couple places with success and it sure beats waiting for Verizon to tunnel the fiber out here to the burbs. Unfortunately, fiber is one of those things that provide huge economic benefits yet is so expensive in the form of initial outlay of funds that only Verizon really here in the US does it and only then in the highest population density areas (exactly where a lot of us do not live). I'd hate to see it get outlawed entirely.
I didn't see any political bias though in the article.. just said "Here's the parties, here's the problems, let the games begin and may the force be with us all!"
Sounds like that is dark fiber or the owner simply doesn't want to use it.
Where as the UTOPIA project that is going on is really taking off in areas where it is accessibile.