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This discussion has been archived.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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by trancemission (823050)

      Most major ISPs in the US block many outgoing ports to prevent you from running a server

      Unless you pay them [more]

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rmaureira (1414691)
      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.
      • 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 wall0159 (881759)

          "illegal" means "against the law", not "against the terms and service" set by the ISP. The law restricts the restrictions that can be imposed by ISPs. What you're saying is that the government could make a law saying that (eg) only a single PC can use an connection? So what?
          Or are you writing from a US perspective where the comms carriers own the government through lobbying?

    • att DSL lets you have them!them

    • 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

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by maxwell demon (590494)

        Downloading nude women

        You can download the women themselves?

        SCNR

      • by Kjella (173770)

        I wouldn't get too paranoid. I think there's a similar clause in my terms of service, which is usually meant to say that I should use the Internet for "normal" traffic. If I'm instead trying to run a denial of service attack, sending malformed packets, attempting to hack or otherwise trying to disrupt the network or other servers, they have grounds to shut me off. I would imagine the law is worded so that they can continue to shut off users for those reasons, combined with privacy protection this seems like

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by oddTodd123 (1806894)

        And I love when someone nitpicks legislative language from an unofficial translation.

        Considering your feelings, it's a good thing they don't actually use the word "legitimate" in the law. They use the Spanish word "legal". Now, IANACL (I am not a Chilean Lawyer), but I'm pretty sure "legal" means something like "allowed by law", or, more accurately, "not explicitly disallowed elsewhere in our laws".

        Now, if you are concerned that they may, at a future date, make it illegal to use P2P (or, for you Spanish spe

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Burdell (228580)

      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 wil

      • by pecosdave (536896) *

        They sure as to fuck don't advertise limited access. They advertise Internet access.

        If the ISP's went around advertising "Browse only access" instead of "Internet access" I probably wouldn't have such a strong opinion on the matter.

        To continue your road analogy we don't pay taxes to maintain a road system that's mostly toll roads.

  • 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

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Barrinmw (1791848)
      I love how a second world nation is further ahead with ensuring the freedoms of its people then the United States. How about we just add an amendment to the constitution that replaces all references of "people" to "corporations".
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Chile is a Thirld world country, silly.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by pjt33 (739471)

          To the person who moderated PP troll: Chilean isn't closely linked to NATO (First World) or the Warsaw Pact (Second World), and is by definition a Third World country. The designation is political, not economic.

    • 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 koan (80826)

        Good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.

        Maybe this country needs another depression, might slap that jade out of our eyes, to bad we would probably lose everything we worked for for 200 years.

      • by aaandre (526056)

        For the last 10 years, USFreedom--

        Most of the rest of the world is not turning into a faschist state, so the contrast seems obvious.

        • by bsDaemon (87307)

          Most of the rest of the world can already say "been there, done that." We haven't fought foreign troops on US soil since 1815, except a brief issue in the Aleutian Islands during WWII. Most of Europe was taken over by the Nazis and/or their allies (for the sake of argument, we'll include Franco even though this isn't strictly true... he did tolerate and leverage Primo de Rivera well after he was killed by Republicans), or the Soviet Union. Soviet Communism controlled the Eastern Bloc and Central Asia, w

          • Re:OK (Score:4, Informative)

            by andita (1855462) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @12:48AM (#32896078)
            ^.^Nice you point this topic. It is funny how this convo has turned up in a US's self talking..as usual. Please, i do not mean any offense with this, but it is just this thinking which kind of confuse me. I`m chilean. I have been in the states and i should say in many southamerican countries and it is so not like you imagine the rest of the world, specially southamerican countries. Why? because you live in fear. It is true that we had Pinochet 40 years ago, painful period of our lives, but eventhough we do not forget we can still forgive and start over. I`m not saying that everything is good, just saying that we move on. ... I as going to say many things, but i think you wont read them... While in US i was in a really nice place, there werent even afroamerican people, just native americans, still the way of comunicating with others was really different. I was treated like a princess, really good, and like if anything could happen to me at any moment (i should say overprotected since i was without my family there but i wasnt underage ) "Do not get out alone because someone can kidnap you" "Do not greet someone you dont know coz they can be a pervert or u wont be greeted back" "do not conect to internet in the pool of the place because someone can get into ur files through internet and get dome personal info from your computer" etc... i couldnt eve go to the club alone coz someone coul "put sth on my drinks" and do anything. It is a general fear in people that you cant see in any southamerican countries [excepting when u are a tourist in Favelas/brasil or amazonas /venezuela-colombia]. But in the rest of countries like Chile, argentina, peru, etc,you normally see children late at night playing, or in summer time people jst go to the beach at nigth and children, teenagers and people in general can walk at any time in the cities, go to dowtown alone, travel by public transportation from one city to another, or from home to the inner city or to anywhere without any problems... ["Never take a bus in the US" is what Americans told me] So, if we talk about freedom, i think that you should start thinking what "real" freedom is. I went backpacking last february with my best friend down to the south, 20 days in which we walked in the road, meet people, hitchhike from truck drivers to horse carts... and we finish our trip without even falling into the ground once. THAT isFREEDOM and safety. What we are getting with this new law is stating the bases to also give more security to people as well. After this law is completely updated and applied there will be improvements to it, such as grooming hunting, etc. Perhaps we are not as advance as US and not as fast developed since both US and Chile are 200 indepent countries, (We r kind of slow) but still we are trying to do our best. (Thanks Daemon) Sorry my poor english..it`s been a while since i dont practice writing or speaking.
      • http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8.htm [gwu.edu]

        Read from the bottom up for chronological order, which goes roughly like this:

        Pre election: Allende may align himself with the Communists, so prepare for divestment and possible action if he's elected. We cannot tolerate any example of an OAS country independent and working with Russia or Cuba, or in any way harming US interests.

        Post election: Now that Allende has been elected, here are the options for getting rid of him. Propaganda campaigns have alrea

      • We've got fairly sane copyright legislation from Brazil recently too. South America has been tooling under European and then American hegemony ever since the Spanish conquistadors. Brazil was the country that ensured sane prices for aids medications throughout the world by threatening to break American patents. China otoh does extreme long term harm by paying lip service while ignoring all the content. We'll all have better lives if South American, India, and Eastern Europe replace China for any given e

    • Well, its no surprise that Net Neutrality would be first to come in the country where Hacking is legal.

    • Re:OK (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:43PM (#32893930) Homepage Journal

      What Chile does: (what looks like) Decent Net Neutrality

      I'm telling you, there's a real progressive wind blowing through South America. Brazil, Chile, Argentina and others are moving to the Left and having great success. There economies are growing and it's not just the rich that are doing better. Socially, they've got a long way to go, but at least they're moving in the right direction, using the European socialist model as a starting point, not an end in itself.

      We're going to read a lot in the coming few years about the success stories in the Southern Hemisphere. They're going to be a shining example for what free societies can look like in the 21st century: prosperous, fair and free.

      Even Hugo Chavez, who has gone off the rails as is common among very strong politicians who have great success, did a great deal of good for his country before he got drunk on power. But he'll be gone soon and there's a healthy crop of decent leaders waiting to take over.

      Don't think for a second that the financial and social successes in South America don't scare the hell out of the USA.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        i'm chilean, chile isn't in the way of a welfare state (european model) that you are saying, currently we are beeing driven by a right goverment with strong individualist values ( i am fine with that) , argentina has big BIG problem on their laws bu brazil you're right they seems to be doing OK

        also mother is from venezuela , i had lived there for 6 months and i can tell you, chavez is a monkey, and thes rest of the politicians ain't any better, they don't have electricity even for the hospital , not even t

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mqduck (232646)

        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.

  • Almost there (Score:3, Informative)

    by pjt33 (739471) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:24PM (#32893714)

    It's not actually law yet. The last sentence of TFA states (my translation)

    The Chamber of Deputies sent the present bill to the Executive so that it might comment or proceed to promulgating it as a Law of the Republic.

    However, the Executive are quoted earlier as approving of it, so this should be a formality.

  • "guarantee users' privacy and safety when surfing, and forbids them to restrict any liberty whatsoever"

    These two conflict. establishing privacy and safety require the users behavior and software be carefully configured and updated, and that impedes on ones liberty to have absolute control over their own behavior and property.

    • by Barrinmw (1791848)
      Well, like most liberties you can wave them. If you choose to not be safe by not updating your software and such, that becomes your liability and not theirs.
    • by Mal-2 (675116)

      "guarantee users' privacy and safety when surfing, and forbids them to restrict any liberty whatsoever"

      These two conflict. establishing privacy and safety require the users behavior and software be carefully configured and updated, and that impedes on ones liberty to have absolute control over their own behavior and property.

      It probably means the ISP must not do anything to compromise the privacy and safety of the users. Not much can be done about the users being directly compromised. This is going to be a

  • 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 Barrinmw (1791848)
      You mean my illegal downloading of 1 million dollars worth of songs (Read: 5 songs) won't be protected?
    • Note that the phrase in question will be both translated and summarized from the text of the law. I wouldn't read too much into it without a look at the original.

      Also note: without some such clause, ISPs might be legally barred from useful and necessary activities such as addressing ongoing DDOS attacks.

    • It's not a fickle phrase, Read it over again slowly.

      'No [one] 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.

      (emphasis mine)

      It is basically saying
      No one can block/interfere/hinder/restrict anyone from using/sending/receiving/offering any content/application/legitimate-service/any-activity/

    • on everything, including you freedom

      when someone tries to block child pornography, for example, you are not witnessing some horrible slippery slope to fascism. no, really. to believe so is to be a hysterical twit and absolutely no credit whatsoever to an authentic fight for freedom

      "Anybody else see the problem here?"

      no, not at all. are you a paranoid schizophrenic?

      the fight for freedom must be patient, shrewd, and wise. not a bunch of halfcocked lightweights spazzing out at every wisp of smoke

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        >>>when someone tries to block child pornography, for example, you are not witnessing some horrible slippery slope to fascism

        (1) Possession of children having sex should be no more illegal than possession of murdered people. You did not commit the crime. The molester or murderer is the one who committed the crime and should be arrested, not you for mere possession of an image.

        (2) Neither should parents be arrested for posting photos of their family trip to the nudist or topless beach. But it has

        • (1) Possession of children having sex should be no more illegal than possession of murdered people.

          Bad analogy, if you are in possession of a body you could be tried as an accomplice.

    • Yes as I said in a previous post, the word "legitimate" will eventually be used by follow-up laws (or overzealous police)(or asshole ISPs to exclude:

      - Sites that don't adhere to the new Internet Fairness Doctrine (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

      • The government can run 50-fiber bundles under all the streets, and then lease each of those lines to a different company. The customers would be able to choose among multiple ISPs: Comcast, Cox, Time-warner, AppleTV, Verizon, Virgin, Mom&Pop Cable, whatever. If one ISP sucks or blocks a website you want, just switch to a different ISP. You'd have upto 50 to choose from.

        Why would 50 ISPs enter a small rural or suburban market of say 500 households - something to be split 50 ways?

        There is no profit in th

    • by jopsen (885607)

      "No [ISP] can block... legitimate use conducted through the Internet." Anybody else see the problem here?

      No... Do you seriously expect net neutrality laws to state that ISPs may not block illegal activities ?
      If so, wouldn't it make more sense to make the illegal activities legal...
      Note: I don't see how you can define p2p services as illegal, lot of legitimate content is distributed using p2p... If that's what you're worried about..

  • One Page bill (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @06:36PM (#32893872)
    I looked at the translation of the bill and it appears to be a one page bill. I only skimmed it, but I can support such a bill. There's no place to hide things in it. Unlike the "net neutrality" bills that have been introduced in the U.S. Congress.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by pjt33 (739471)

      It's more like 2.5 pages (official text in Spanish [camara.cl] - the document is 4 pages, but there's a lot of padding and some formalities at either end) but your point stands. The U.S. legislative system is insane.

      • The problem is that the U.S. legislative system isn't insane. They write the bills the way they do in order to hide stuff. The worst part is that there is stuff in most bills that even the guy who introduces it doesn't know is in there. And some of the stuff that is hidden from him, he would oppose if he knew it was there.
      • by stinerman (812158)

        The problem with our legislative system is that a good deal of our bills are diffs to laws that already exist. Any bill that deals with taxes almost certainly is a diff to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

        When people complain about the thousand page bills that come out of committee, the size is due to a good deal of the bill striking other provisions and re-designating paragraphs or other sections.

        That's a small reason why our processes are so opaque. Could you imagine if Linux Kernel updates were only r

  • 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."

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by maxwell demon (590494)

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

      That's still impoverished. See, the corporations there don't even have enough money to buy laws!

  • 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.

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Working...