Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government Technology

Chile First To Approve Net Neutrality Law 293

Posted by kdawson
from the pathbreaker dept.
Sir Mal Fet writes "Chile has become the first country in the world to approve, by 100 votes in favor and one abstention, a law guaranteeing net neutrality (Google translation; Spanish original). The law states [submitter's translation]: 'No [ISP] can block, interfere with, discriminate, hinder, nor restrict the right of any Internet user of using, send, receive or offer any content, application, or legitimate service through the Internet, as well as any activity or legitimate use conducted through the Internet.' The law also has articles that force ISPs to provide parental control tools, clarify contracts, guarantee users' privacy and safety when surfing, and forbids them to restrict any liberty whatsoever. This is a major advance in the legislation of the country regarding the Web, when until last year almost anything that was performed online was considered illegal."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chile First To Approve Net Neutrality Law

Comments Filter:
  • by pecosdave (536896) * on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:20PM (#32893682) Homepage Journal

    The "send" part eludes most U.S. discussions. Most major ISPs in the US block many outgoing ports to prevent you from running a server. What I do with my bandwidth is my business thank you very much, including serving up HTML.

  • OK (Score:5, Insightful)

    by koan (80826) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:23PM (#32893700)

    What Chile does: (what looks like) Decent Net Neutrality
    What America does: Massachusetts Bids To Restrict Internet Indecency

  • by pecosdave (536896) * on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:28PM (#32893750) Homepage Journal

    Do you work for Verizon?

  • Re:OK (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bsDaemon (87307) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:29PM (#32893764)

    From the Nixon administration through the first half of Bush 41's term, Chile had Augusto Pinochet, a military dictator. They might tend to look at freedom with slightly less jaded eyes than Americans who have had it "too good for too long." Small things like that can tend to have major effects on perspective. Just saying.

  • by rmaureira (1414691) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:29PM (#32893780)
    There's a catch in the project tho', in one of the paragraphs says: "May not limit the right of a user to enter or use any class of instruments, devices or appliances on the network, provided they are legal and that they do not damage or harm the network or service quality." The last line can be used by ISPs saying that you're "damaging the network" with your computer. Now we need to wait for the government to pass the law, and then enforce it.
  • Key Fickle Phrase (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Aldanga (1757414) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:29PM (#32893782)
    "No [ISP] can block... legitimate use conducted through the Internet."

    Anybody else see the problem here?
  • by pecosdave (536896) * on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:31PM (#32893806) Homepage Journal

    You work for Comcast don't you?

    I ran my own server off of SouthWestern Bell then later Time Warner for years with not a single spam message bounced off my server, nor issue from it. Seriously, hosting the occasional Fark photoshop pic and having a photo album hosted on my own equipment with passwords for my family along with a small vanity site, where's the problem with that? I did it for years and find it nearly impossible to do now because of people with your mindset.

    I know a lot of people abuse it and run porn sites and push malware, but I shouldn't have to pay the price for them.

  • Re:OK (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:35PM (#32893858) Journal

    Chile is a Thirld world country, silly.

  • by Barrinmw (1791848) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:38PM (#32893886)
    So you are saying that the people in areas with 1-2 ISPs will be able to switch to a different ISP that doesn't restrict traffic? Have you ever noticed how when one gas station raises their prices, the one directly across the street raises theirs to the same? Its not collusion but its price fixing. ISPs will do the same exact thing. Comcast goes, hey Wave Broadband is filtering out Torrents, we are gonna do it too to save money, people can complain but where they gonna go?
  • by Baseclass (785652) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:41PM (#32893910)
    Why must I be a business to need a web server? I'm a hobbyist.
    I'm paying for bandwidth, it's really none of their business how I utilize said bandwidth.
  • by rsborg (111459) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:44PM (#32893936) Homepage

    Its not collusion but its price fixing.

    Totally agreed. Any of you foolish libertarians who believe in "free markets" should recognize that Telecom/Cable has basically never been "free". It's been a (somewhat regulated) monopoly at local levels since pretty much day one. Those who would revoke those regulations without forcing open the market (ie, forcing resale of bandwidth/service etc) are basically allowing the telecoms to have their cake and eat it too. Net Neutrality is an attempt at strengthening regulations. In the absence of a free market, I'm all for it.

  • by tofubeer (1746800) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:44PM (#32893938)

    Net neutrality doesn't prevent charging based on usage (which is what they should be doing). Note that that is different than charging based on sites accessed or protocols used. ISPs should not be degrading P2P traffic, or restricting access to sites, what they should be doing is charging users based on their consumption.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:48PM (#32893966)

    Residential customers don't need a web server, though.

    You are not competent to decide that for me, and neither is my ISP.

  • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:49PM (#32893986) Journal

    >>>legitimate service through the Internet

    I worry about this part of the law. The word legitimate will eventually be used by follow-up laws (or overzealous police) to exclude:

    - Peer-2-Peer
    - Nudist websites
    - Photos of your kids
    - Hate websites like KKK.org
    - So-called hate site like Teaparty.org
    -
    - Downloading software to emulate ancient Atari or Sega or NES games
    - Sites that don't adhere to the new Internet Fairness Doctrine (don't present both sides of a story)
    - Downloading nude women that APPEAR to be younger than 18 (see Australia where 20-something women can't post photos, because they have A-sized breasts)
    - Downloading women who actually are younger than 18, but not committing any crime (such as topless photos from Brazilian or European beaches)
    - And so on.

    Government regulation brings *chains* not freedom

  • by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:51PM (#32894006) Journal

    If net neutrality was implemented it WILL WITH CERTAINTY increase internet costs for all users

    Did it ever occur to you that some of us would be willing to pay more for untampered internet?

    And it's not just about peer2peer tampering. It's about all traffic shaping - streaming videos, playing video games, etc. Some of us would like to have unrestricted access. We already put up with the bandwidth issues during high traffic times - but you'll still be shaped in low traffic times. (Which, we might add, there is more low and mid-low traffic times then there are high and mid-high traffic times).

    You mention how Net Neutrality will offer more choices (those with tampering and those without). Currently, for most people, there are two options, Suck and suck harder.

    How could more options be worse?

  • by turbidostato (878842) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:57PM (#32894056)

    "if, say, port 80 traffic were completely unfettered in a bi-directional manner and incomming connections were allowed without a previously established outgoing connection, chances are quite high that would be abused by malware authors for command-and-control and botnet node intercommunication."

    Still *my* problem, neither yours nor the ISP's.

    "I don't think that's much of a stretch at all, and its not as if the typical end user is going to know or care to secure their node."

    Why he should? What are the consecuences of his malpractices? If you fuck it up you pay for the mop seems a sensible policy. But even then, still my f* problem, neither yours nor the ISP's.

  • by turbidostato (878842) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @07:01PM (#32894084)

    "The last line can be used by ISPs saying that you're "damaging the network""

    And they previous one can be used by any lobbying party to get off with whatever they want.

    ""May not limit the right of a user to enter or use any class of instruments, devices or appliances on the network, provided they are legal"

    So they just need to, say, declare illegal connecting more than one computer to a "single computer" connection and there you go.

    "and that they do not damage or harm the network or service quality"

    Oh, and by they way, trying to use 100% of bandwith as shown in the contract terms harms the service quality since we oversell it 100 to 1.

  • by Flyerman (1728812) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @07:05PM (#32894134) Journal
    So Net Neutrality only extends as far as having an outside blacklist identify an IP and then you cut them off? In b4 ISP's secretly pay blacklists to hit their neediest customers.
  • by Burdell (228580) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @07:06PM (#32894142)

    You aren't paying for the bandwidth, you are paying for limited use of the bandwidth. You wouldn't like your bill if you had to pay the full cost of the bandwidth (yet most also complain at the mere mention of metered access). Also, I see many people demanding that ISPs block certain ports for abuse reasons (e.g. outbound SMTP to reduce spam, except of course, everybody wants all users but themselves blocked).

    Paying taxes doesn't guarantee you 100% utilization of the highways; there are many times you will be unable to drive 100% of the posted speed limit due to other users of the road. Usage is unlimited (you can drive as many miles on as many public roads as you like), but you might not get to drive the speed you like.

  • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @07:07PM (#32894150) Journal

    I agree:

    The problem is not neutrality. The problem is the monopoly (or duopoly) that government granted these businesses. It's equivalent to if government suddenly announced, "You will no longer have a choice in grocery stores. Only Comcast Grocery will be allowed to operate within this city." Don't be surprised if the cost of food doubles or even triples as a result (no instantly but over a time).

    I remember when Comcast was $30. That wasn't great but it was reasonable. Now it would cost me $80 ($85 with tax) to get equivalent service to what I had in 1997. They get away with it because they have a government-granted monopoly.

  • by aaandre (526056) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @07:09PM (#32894170)

    The term used to be associated with "impoverished." Now it is more like "laws not yet fully rewritten by and for corporations."

  • by pecosdave (536896) * on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @07:09PM (#32894174) Homepage Journal

    LOL wut?

    I'm trying to translate what you've said and I've failed so I'm going to offer my own translation.

    You get net neutrality. If you fuck up and don't secure your machine and you get pwned the life guard makes you sit on the side of the pool for 15 minutes until you get your problem fixed. Then you get to jump back in the pool.

    It's neutrality, but if you're doing harm by attacking others (by being pwned yourself) you get cut off all together and they can call you and tell you why.

  • by Architect_sasyr (938685) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @07:13PM (#32894196)
    So... "Don't filter me bro... except you can filter him because he's not doing something I like"? Seems kind of stupid to want to have full and complete access to your 65536/tcp ports to do with as you wish, but if someone happens to be running a botnet (intentionally or not), you're ok with having them filtered.

    This is pretty much the entire reason these debates come up... one rule for you, one rule for the rest of us.
  • by pecosdave (536896) * on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @07:24PM (#32894274) Homepage Journal

    Listen in many countries we have laws protecting our freedom to do as we please. Yes, it's debatable rather we really have those freedoms or not, but that's beside the point.

    One thing that we generally have laws about is our personal freedoms end at the point that we utilize them to restrict someone else's freedom.

    If you're botnet infested you are out there doing denial of service attacks and trying to hack other systems into joining your bot net. At this point your freedom is being used in an attempt to restrict someone else's freedom.

    That's what jails are for, or in this case being cut off until you fix it.

    I see no "one rule for you, one for the rest of us" as you say. I see "don't attack someone else". Don't attack someone else is a pretty good rule I think.

  • by PaulBu (473180) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @07:24PM (#32894276) Homepage

    And good luck to your country! ;-) I like Chilean wines anyway, maybe I should look into moving there!

    Paul B.

  • by icebraining (1313345) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @07:45PM (#32894394) Homepage

    What's the problem with open proxies? Tor is an open proxy, do you want to ban it too?

  • by maxwell demon (590494) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @07:54PM (#32894420) Journal

    Or what about an user-configurable firewall at the ISP? Have it block port 80 by default, but any user who wants to use it can simply go to the web site and enable the port.

  • by c6gunner (950153) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @09:15PM (#32894880)

    Still *my* problem, neither yours nor the ISP's.

    Uh, no. Your individual computer getting infected might be your problem - 2 million other retards getting infected and becoming part of the same botnet is a much bigger, much different problem. Just like you personally not getting vaccinated for a highly contagious disease is mainly your problem, but if a significant portion of the population refuses vaccination it becomes a societal problem.

  • by Dunbal (464142) * on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @09:53PM (#32895076)

    Key weasel word inserted: legitimate.

    Laws (or even worse regulations) listing what content is "legitimate" soon to follow. This is not a victory, it's the first step to an erosion of freedom.

  • by FutureDomain (1073116) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @10:17PM (#32895218)
    Ah! Someone who actually gets the concept of "liberty" and successfully applies it to the Internet.
    Mod parent up!
  • Re:OK (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mqduck (232646) <mqduck@mqduck.QUOTEnet minus punct> on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @11:25PM (#32895624)

    You can agree or disagree with Chavez, but he's not "drunk on power". He's been pushing for years now to create a system and culture of direct democracy. Indeed, the greatest threat to his socialist program is how much it is still "his" program, rather than a popular ("grass-roots") one, and Chavez knows it.

  • by Barrinmw (1791848) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @01:41AM (#32896294)
    If you don't understand why more gas companies can't enter the market, then god help you. Most gas companies make money hand over fist, moreso then other markets, so you would think more gas companies would be sprouting up all the time until they were equal to what other markets make in profits.

I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ... -- F. H. Wales (1936)

Working...