Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government Technology Your Rights Online

Network Neutrality Is Law In Chile 180

Posted by timothy
from the muy-bien-tal-vez dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Chile is the first country of the world to guarantee by law the principle of network neutrality, according to the Teleccomunications Market Comission's Blog from Spain. The official newspaper of the Chilean Republic published yesterday a Law that guarantees that any Internet user will be able to use, send, receive or offer any content, applications or legal services over the Internet, without arbitrary or discriminatory blocking."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Network Neutrality Is Law In Chile

Comments Filter:
  • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Sunday August 29, 2010 @07:28PM (#33411314)

    a Law that guarantees that any Internet user will be able to use, send, receive or offer any content, applications or legal services over the Internet, without arbitrary or discriminatory blocking

    In Chile. If the servers are not in Chile then this law doesn't apply.

    • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Sunday August 29, 2010 @07:30PM (#33411324)

      In Chile. If the servers are not in Chile then this law doesn't apply.

      That was worded poorly. If the traffic doesn't originate in Chile then it is subject to arbitrary and/or discriminatory blocking or throttling before it gets to Chile.

      • by cappp (1822388) on Sunday August 29, 2010 @07:41PM (#33411376)
        Google and I have joined forces to provide the following [google.com] description of what the law seems to cover:

        1Prohibition for ISPs (those that provide Internet access) to interfere with, discriminate or interfere in any way the content, applications or services unless measures to ensure the privacy of users, virus protection and security the network;
        2.It requires ISPs to provide parental control services;
        3.Forces to provide clients with a series of written evidence for it to correctly identify the contracted service;
        4.Forces to ensure the privacy of users, virus protection and network security, and
        5.Forces to ensure access to all types of content, services or applications available on the network and offer a service that does not distinguish content, applications or services, based on the source of it or their property. Also prohibits activities that restrict users' freedom to use the content or services unless the specific request of users.

        • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

          by OeLeWaPpErKe (412765)

          So it's basically totally different from "network neutrality" as proposed in the US ? In the US network neutrality is not about blocking, but about QOS applied on a "discriminatory" basis*.

          Not that I usually expect more from slashdot articles.

          * note that applying QOS in a non-discriminatory way will still cause an ISP's own destinations to be better handled, for obvious reasons.

          • by Tacvek (948259) on Sunday August 29, 2010 @10:37PM (#33412050) Journal

            I believe the part that said "interfere with, discriminate or interfere in any way" forbids both blocking and discriminatory QOS.

            Also see the phase "and offer a service that does not distinguish content, applications or services, based on the source of it or their property", which also implies discriminatory QOS is forbidden.

        • by Laxori666 (748529)

          1Prohibition for ISPs (those that provide Internet access) to interfere with, discriminate or interfere in any way the content, applications or services unless measures to ensure the privacy of users, virus protection and security the network;

          Am I the only one that thinks this, or isn't #1 a bit ominous sounding? On the face of it, it sounds great - ISPs are not allowed to discriminate between traffic, ensuring that all traffic will be "equal"/"free" etc. But isn't all an ISP does "interfere" with the traffic? Traffic goes along their wires, and they direct it and route it (ideally) according to what they think is most efficient. That might mean giving some packets precedence over others. But that's a violation of #1. Also, who decides what is a

        • 4.Forces to ensure the privacy of users, virus protection and network security, and

          LMAO

          Maybe they should force their equivalent of the DOT and any toll road operators to make sure every car on the road is in perfect shape, never speeds, never transports contraband and never gets into a crash.

          Without violating the driver's privacy of course. XD

      • by sjames (1099) on Sunday August 29, 2010 @07:46PM (#33411402) Homepage

        Only because of less progressive jurisdictions. However, most of the non-neutral routing is on the client ISP side which IS in Chile.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by shoehornjob (1632387)

        If the traffic doesn't originate in Chile then it is subject to arbitrary and/or discriminatory blocking or throttling before it gets to Chile.

        You would pretty much expect that your packets are at the mercy of whomever is routing them anyway so this is no big deal. At least they are taking a step in the right direction. In this country (USA) that'll never happen because there's either too much consumer apathy or excessive control by those who have the most to lose. Sad but true.

      • Meaning people in Chile can throttle and/or block anyone/thing coming from outside their country?
        Or just that Chile does not plan to (because it cannot) make other countries follow its examples and therefor cannot guarantee net neutrality from outside the country?

      • by rtb61 (674572) on Monday August 30, 2010 @04:43AM (#33413128) Homepage

        Does that really matter. A slow down of foreign content will simply drive the production of local content. Plus network neutrality is all about open politics, maintaining an equally accessible public discourse, about gutting the ability of mass media to dominate public consciousness. That needs to work on a national level before you push it on an international level.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 29, 2010 @07:34PM (#33411346)

      In Chile. If the servers are not in Chile then this law doesn't apply.

      You expect Chile to enforce its will on foreign countries?

      What do you think they are, AMERICA?

      • by LiquidPaper (69881) on Sunday August 29, 2010 @07:45PM (#33411396)

        Well, yes. We are part of America. I believe you are thinking of USA.

        • by AP31R0N (723649)

          Between English speakers, America refers to the United States of America. Chile is part of The Americas. Spanish speakers can call it whatever.

          -1 Overated. Not insightful. This is being obtuse to whore karma from the boys trying to impress the girl at the campus bookstore. Grown-ups know better.

    • by AmigaMMC (1103025)
      I foresee a lot of servers being moved to Chile. Plus it's cheaper there.
  • Chile (Score:5, Funny)

    by MarkRose (820682) on Sunday August 29, 2010 @07:29PM (#33411320) Homepage
    That makes sense. When I eat chile, I never have trouble with traffic flow or port blocking.
  • by LinearBob (258695) on Sunday August 29, 2010 @07:31PM (#33411334)

    In one word -- GREED!

    • by MarkRose (820682) on Sunday August 29, 2010 @07:37PM (#33411356) Homepage

      Greed and monopoly. If competitors were permitted in cities, I bet you'd see a return to unrestricted access. Where I have my hosting, I get transfer for under $0.01/GB. A TB of transfer is less than $10. Bandwidth is no longer a major cost of doing the ISP business. So why can't I get that at home? Lack of competition. Cities get fat checks for restricting competition, and we all pay for it.

      • by stinerman (812158)

        If there were "unrestricted access" in place in a major American city like, lets say, Columbus, OH, how many cable companies do you believe would be in operation?

        Protip: We do have unrestricted access in Columbus, and there are 2.

        • So, you have two cable companies and FIOS. That means you have three choices for High Speed Internet. If more cities had unrestricted access, there would be more players. Actually, I did a little research and Columbus does not have unrestricted access. Any company that wishes to provide cable video service in Columbus, OH, must get authorization from the Ohio Department of Commerce ( http://www.puco.ohio.gov/PUCO/Consumer/Information.cfm?id=8306 [ohio.gov] ). Additionally, since the elimination of local franchise in O
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by stinerman (812158)

            Three! All you need is three and you've got a well-functioning free market! And do you know how difficult it is to get authorization? Very, very easy.

            I used to be part of an advisory board that dealt with the local charters back when we did have local franchise agreements. In Fairborn, OH all you had to do was negotiate a deal with the city to use their rights-of-way and you could offer service. We still had one cable company. There simply weren't enough people in Fairborn (about 30,000) to keep two f

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Urza9814 (883915)

        Um...I agree with you that lack of competition probably has a lot to do with it...but they don't just throw a datacenter at some random place. One of the key things they would look for is cheap bandwidth. Plus, when you're moving huge quantities of data, it's easier to get a good deal. It's like anything else.

        I once had a girlfriend whose mother was a regional manager for a restaurant chain. She got hundreds of dollars of free food every month. Does that mean that, if there was more competition in the resta

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Klinky (636952)

          Bandwidth for the ISP should be even cheaper for the ISP than what the OP pays for it. Where do you think your home connection ends up going to? A large datacenter run by your ISP that is located strategically to allow for the ISP to reap cheap bandwidth. On top of that, they possibly don't even pay for much bandwidth at all & instead setup peering agreements with backbone providers. Yet broadband prices keep going up. The last mile is not cheap to maintain, but a lot of the intiail costs have already b

          • by Urza9814 (883915)

            The last mile is not cheap to maintain

            Exactly the point I was thinking about. Yes, competition could drive down prices immensely, but that last mile isn't cheap, and if you aren't paying for your part of it, you're probably paying for somebody else's. Again, prices could go down a lot, but those last mile connections will cost a hell of a lot more to maintain than a single (well, a few) large pipe(s) to a datacenter, and that's really where the cost comes from. They don't really charge you for bandwidth, they charge you for the connection and bandwidth and service (well, some service) all in one price.

            • by Klinky (636952)

              It certainly doesn't help when a new company or a town wants to build new infrastructure, but the old communications company either has an exclusivity contract in place with the city or threatens to sue the city which would result in a protracted legal battle costing the citizens millions of dollars.

              You might even find this on a smaller scale where your apartment complex is locked into only one provider due to the contract they signed.

              The market is such that even if competition wants to come in and foot the

        • by MarkRose (820682)

          You make a good point. I would argue that ISPs in most places can get similar deals, at least in major cities. Most run their own backbones and peer when possible, so bandwidth usage still shouldn't be expensive. Either way, I think it really comes down to a lack of competition.

          That being said, I understand there is a cost to the last mile, so it's unlikely that at-home bandwidth will ever be as cheap as datacenter bandwidth. Still, the incidental cost of additional bandwidth should not be that much compare

    • by CAIMLAS (41445)

      It hasn't been proven one way or the other if "Chile" (or rather, the companies which operate within Chile) can "do it", whatever that means.

      It's quite possible it will not be feasible to do so without raising costs, cutting service in areas, or otherwise going out of business.

      Expect to see limited, "non-Internet" accounts pop up at lower (but inflated) prices, with the cost of standard Internet services going sky high.

      • by whoever57 (658626)

        It hasn't been proven one way or the other if "Chile" (or rather, the companies which operate within Chile) can "do it", whatever that means.

        It's quite possible it will not be feasible to do so without raising costs, cutting service in areas, or otherwise going out of business.

        Expect to see limited, "non-Internet" accounts pop up at lower (but inflated) prices, with the cost of standard Internet services going sky high.

        You appear to have difficulty distinguishing between bandwidth limits and network

    • They have everything to gain as a nation and move forward and prosper kinda like the first world countries did before them. Now that corporations run the governments and the people work for the government its all about the bottom line and now they can funnel your money into their pocket while restricting your access to information so that you don't wake up and smell the coffee one day.
  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Sunday August 29, 2010 @07:40PM (#33411372)

    So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked?

    And how long is it before that changes to "must be blocked" due to being a signatory on an international copyright treaty...

    Or does it mean companies can no longer filter websites they find inappropriate? They after all a form of ISP in a way.

    Any time you let the government decide what is permissible on your network you will be sorry in the end.

    All this to solve a problem that doesn't even exist. The only time we saw torrent throttling (not even blocking!!) in the U.S. was Comcast, and they got smacked down for it. The market worked, why do we need regulation when there is no problem?

    "Network Neutrality" sounds so happy and awesome at first, but it hides a greater problem than you'll ever see from throttling.

    • He explained that suppliers must provide a service "which makes no distinction arbitrary content, applications or services based on the source of their origin or ownership."

      In other words - no VOIP traffic prioritizing or in fact traffic shaping of any kind. Sorry Skype users, you'll have to stick with the big business telcos!

      • by Sigma 7 (266129) on Sunday August 29, 2010 @08:24PM (#33411548)

        He explained that suppliers must provide a service "which makes no distinction arbitrary content, applications or services based on the source of their origin or ownership."

        In other words - no VOIP traffic prioritizing or in fact traffic shaping of any kind. Sorry Skype users, you'll have to stick with the big business telcos!

        There's a set of bits in IP meant to adjust QoS, which is a non-arbitrary way of handling things. Thus, Bittorrent can claim itself to a minimal QoS, which is announcing to nearby routers that they're the first ones to go if there's a problem. Likewise, an RSS feed may declare it to be a low QoS, and defer to a normal QoS (such as from an HTTP browser), or a high QoS (such as real-time video conferencing or telephony.)

        In this case, it's the applications themselves that volunteer to be dropped as issues arise from QoS, rather than being arbitrary.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Burdell (228580)

          The standard QoS bits are basically useless across any administrative boundary (such as the connection between you and your ISP, or your ISP and their upstreams/peers). Otherwise, you very quickly get people realizing they can just set all of their traffic to the "high priority" class. The only way an ISP could reasonably do QoS is by port or packet inspection.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            derp.

            QoS isn't "I want to go faster" or "I want to go slower". It's "I care about bandwidth" and "I care about latency".

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        He explained that suppliers must provide a service "which makes no distinction arbitrary content, applications or services based on the source of their origin or ownership."

        In other words - no VOIP traffic prioritizing or in fact traffic shaping of any kind. Sorry Skype users, you'll have to stick with the big business telcos!

        What is the matter with you? Read the text you quoted yourself. VOIP is a traffic type. It is not a "source of origin or ownership". So yes, they can prioritize VOIP. They just can't prioritize Company A's VOIP while not prioritizing Company B's VOIP.

        Reading comprehension is important. Not important to you, apparently, but it is important. Really man, the text you quoted yourself answered the question you are asking. You deserve to be called out on that.

      • by timeOday (582209)
        I use an ooma device for VOIP; as far as I know, Comcast doesn't prioritize that, and it works OK.
      • Funny. The way I read that wording - mangled translation though it is - is that ISPs cannot make distinction based on source of origin. There's nothing there that will stop them from prioritizing _all_ VOIP traffic. They just can't prioritize their own VOIP service, but leave Skype at the bottom of the heap.

        • There's nothing there that will stop them from prioritizing _all_ VOIP traffic.

          There is - because it will provide no benefit for them.

          As long as they are not slowing down other traffic arbitrarily, I have no problem with a company choosing to prioritize certain traffic on behalf of the user that the user pays for specifically.

          In short, I would love to be able to pay for a high quality VOIP stream that would work well with video. But regulations like this will ensure a company cannot offer this service, be

    • by sjames (1099) on Sunday August 29, 2010 @08:10PM (#33411488) Homepage

      All this to solve a problem that doesn't even exist. The only time we saw torrent throttling (not even blocking!!) in the U.S. was Comcast, and they got smacked down for it. The market worked, why do we need regulation when there is no problem?

      REALLY?

      You seem to forgotten that there was a lot of complaining and a lot of people finding no competition to turn to and then the FCC smacked Comcast for throttling torrents.

      In other words, exactly the opposite of what you said.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I disagree, strongly. As one of the unlucky comcast customers who was caught up by their throttling for months, its very much a big deal to me. Especially when they kept insisting they weren't doing any of the kind of shit they eventually got caught doing, and to this day they still lie about the crap they were pulling. "Reasonable network management", my ass! Comcast claimed they weren't blocking anything, but when I had a torrent going (of ANYTHING) my downloads (on ANYTHING) dropped to almost nothing wit

      • "It's either that, or force comcast, the bells, and any other company that's ever been given tax breaks and subsidized land from the city for their equipment and for their lines to force them to provide wholesale access to their wires to other isps. That way, consumers really do have a choice on who they can get internet from and whether they are going to put up with this kind of crap or not."

        A. The ILECs (monopoly phone companies) generally do have to sell wholesale and ISPs use this. They just price thei

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ScrewMaster (602015)

        They are NOT welcome to start throttling my fucking connection 5 minutes into a LEGAL BSD ISO download and turn the torrent

        I agree, but I ask: why should it matter if it's a "legal" download ... or otherwise? I don't expect my telephone company to censor my speech if I say things that someone else doesn't like (although that would certainly be possible from a technical perspective.) Likewise, I don't expect a company that I pay to transmit packetized data from here to there and back again to be in any way involved in determining the legality of said communications.

        • by butlerm (3112)

          The telephone company doesn't want to care whether it is a legal download. Common carriers are insulated from liability for the traffic that goes across the network. Even common carriers can refuse to provide service for blatantly illegal activity, and on occasion may be required by the government to do so.

          Under normal conditions they just have no incentive to do so, in part because the burden of proof is on them instead of the other way around. Nobody who is largely insulated from legal liability wants t

          • Common carriers are insulated from liability for the traffic that goes across the network.

            Internet providers (even those such as the Baby Bells and AT&T/SBC) received an exemption for their data services. Contrary to popular belief, they are not common carriers for the purposes of their data services, even if they also provide telephony service. Consequently, they are not largely insulated from legal liability.

            You have it somewhat backwards (assuming you're talking about the U.S.) in that these big companies simply do not want to be considered common carriers when it comes to providing In

        • by perlchild (582235)

          If you expect to be able to sue someone for NOT carrying traffic, you can't really expect them NOT to care if their carrying traffic gets them sued for a bigger amount, by someone else.

          What you seem to want is immunity for the carrier, in exchange for not analyzing the traffic. There's very few countries that would consider "opaque" traffic as desirable public policy after 9/11, your feelings on that aside.

      • when I had a torrent going (of ANYTHING) my downloads (on ANYTHING) dropped to almost nothing within 5 minutes, even at 3am!

        I can almost certainly guarantee that within four years of a network neutrality regulation being passed that at 3am your torrents would not slow - they would stop, at any time, because your ISP will be required by the FCC to not pass BitTorrent traffic from RIAA blacklisted sites.

        Do not give them the very foothold they can use to get in your door.

        I am a Comcast customer too. I had the

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kjella (173770)

      So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked?

      Perhaps, but before it could be any arbitrary block. Now there's a law that specifically says you can not unless it meets some exception, so I don't see how it could possibly be worse than before.

      And how long is it before that changes to "must be blocked" due to being a signatory on an international copyright treaty...

      The day YouTube has to shut down because *one* pirated clip is found on their service is the day all sanity has left the Internet anyway.

      Or does it mean companies can no longer filter websites they find inappropriate? They after all a form of ISP in a way.

      Only if they resell access to individuals or other companies, I would think. An employee is more like a child in your household, I doubt your teenage son can demand you give him u

      • by mdmkolbe (944892)

        So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked?

        Perhaps, but before it could be any arbitrary block. Now there's a law that specifically says you can not unless it meets some exception, so I don't see how it could possibly be worse than before.

        Unless companies view this law as saying how much they can get away with and still be legal. I don't know why but it seems like whenever a new law says "don't do X", companies take it as license to do anything that is not X even if before the law they wouldn't have done them. (There is probably some psychological/sociological phenomenon that explains this but that isn't my area.)

      • Perhaps, but before it could be any arbitrary block. Now there's a law that specifically says you can not unless it meets some exception

        The exception being the only thing people are actually worried about being blocked.

        I don't see how it could possibly be worse than before.

        Not had to deal with government regulations I see. The worse part is that instead of media companies going to each and every ISP and attempting to get them to piss off customers, instead they simply have to convince a handful of regulato

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked

      Yes. Just like they were before.

      And how long is it before that changes to "must be blocked" due to being a signatory on an international copyright treaty...

      No shorter (if ever) than before the law.

      Or does it mean companies can no longer filter websites they find inappropriate? They after all a form of ISP in a way.

      Certainly not by any sane legal definition.

      Any time you let the government decide what is permissible on y

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by beakerMeep (716990)

      So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked?

      Well, what do you think? Were illegal services all fine and dandy beforehand? Use your brain.

      And how long is it before that changes to "must be blocked" due to being a signatory on an international copyright treaty...

      OK, so throw out the baby with the bathwater. Also, that's pretty off-topic.

      Or does it mean companies can no longer filter websites they find inappropriate? They after all a form of ISP in a way.

      Huh? Are employees consumers?

      Any time you let the government decide what is permissible on your network you will be sorry in the end.

      This isn't the great firewall of China, in fact it's quite the opposite but "government bad! government will make you sorry!" is not a compelling argument.

      All this to solve a problem that doesn't even exist. The only time we saw torrent throttling (not even blocking!!) in the U.S. was Comcast, and they got smacked down for it. The market worked, why do we need regulation when there is no problem?

      Comcast won in the end in case you forgot here's a link [businessweek.com], and they were resetting traffic with RST packets. If you dont think that was a test of what they

      • by butlerm (3112)

        Comcast won in the end in case you forgot

        The only reason why Comcast won is that the FCC was trying to regulate the Internet under a section of the law that gave them absolutely no power to do so. The FCC is in a position to fix that problem, by regulating Internet access providers under Title II.

        Avoiding Title II was criminally irresponsible on the part of the FCC in the first place, they got smacked down for it and now we all suffer the consequences of the FCC's previous decision to operate under a purel

  • by DynaSoar (714234) on Sunday August 29, 2010 @07:42PM (#33411380) Journal

    "Chile is the first country of the world to guarantee by law the principle of network neutrality,"

    Isn't passing a law that makes something originally outside the law to remain outside the law rather oxymoronic? It's like the US requiring members of sovereign nations that exist within its own borders prove to the US that they are valid members of said nation before the US will recognize them as such; such is the requirement for tribal membership for Native Americans. To pass such a law Chile only proves that it an make laws regarding net neutrality. If it can make them, it can remake them. If net neutrality were an objective fact, no country's laws would matter. Since they obviously do, even a 100% granting of neutrality by all concerned is no more than lip service. And being international, such a law would require a treaty. Check out for yourself how many treaties get signed by all involved, and how few of those actually get honored. TFA is the appropriate first step, but unless it's followed with some far more powerful and reaching reforms, say, putting worldwide network administration under a UN component with the power to actually act, it's strictly superficial regardless of intentions.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jedi Alec (258881)

      Isn't passing a law that makes something originally outside the law to remain outside the law rather oxymoronic?

      Hmm, is it? I vaguely recall a set of laws that certain things shall remain outside the law to be rather highly thought of somewhere...

      "Congress shall make no law" sound familiar?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wisnoskij (1206448)

      countries can make laws about anything they want to.
      and their are lots of laws that exist to make other laws illegal.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Yeah that's a great idea, put enforcing network administration of the Internet under the UN, then they can set up a commission to oversee it. I figure the Chairperson of that committee will be from Iran or China, countries known far and wide for their dedication to open and free exchange of knowledge.
      • by DynaSoar (714234)

        The topic is neutrality, not administration.

        Better to have committee members from problem child countries trying and failing to make everyone go along with them in public than each of them going their own way in private.

        • Do you really believe that a UN commission tasked with oversight of the Internet would limit itself to enforcing net neutrality? Even if that was its mandate?
  • If this works out and their internet access appears to have been improved as a result, then I will support the concept of net neutrality. However, I doubt I will support and US implementation of it. I don't like the FCC. Anyone know anything about the regulatory commission that enforces net neutrality in Chile? Hopefully they are less political than our FCC.

    • The entity in charge of regulating this is probably the SUBTEL,(Subsecretaría de Telecomunicaciones, subsecretary of telecommunications perhaps is the translation?). I don't know if you have any idea about politics in Chile, but we have several political parties over there, not only two. Yeah, there are like 3 or 4 that are bigger and with more power than the others, but they don't get to bend government entities the same way political parties in the US do. So in a way, by being more political (more parties), they are less political (the power is more spread). I don't know if that makes sense, but it sounds pretty haha.

      Chile doesn't have states like the US. The main divisions are regions. They have their own governmental entities but they're all controlled by the central ones in Santiago, the capital. So regions don't get to do whatever they want either, meaning that if the government creates a law, all the rest of the regions have to follow, and individual regions can't make their own laws.

      I hope that helped somewhat to understand a bit how Chile works. Of course, the real question is if the SUBTEL is going to care enough to reinforce the law in all its extent. That's a completely different deal.
  • by Strange Ranger (454494) on Sunday August 29, 2010 @08:52PM (#33411668)
    Zoidberg aside, this IS great news. Despite the "free from government" leanings here on slashdot, because of the way the market and the legal system works (despite our ideals), this is great news.

    It's regulations like this that keep free markets free.
    • Yes, the legal aspect is important. The judiciary in Chile now have a solid guideline on how they should interpret the law (which is, in the interests of Net Neutrality).
    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      Zoidberg aside, this IS great news.

      /Zoidberg voice
      Why is everyone always pushing Zoidberg aside!
      /sobs and scuttles away

  • I wonder about an unintended side effect.

    If a forum site blocks valid outgoing traffic to given IP address/block, serving "Your IP has been banned" page instead, isn't it in violation of this law?

    What if an IRC user is unable to access a channel due to ban?

  • Bad translation (Score:5, Informative)

    by dolmen.fr (583400) on Monday August 30, 2010 @04:03AM (#33413036) Homepage

    The diario oficial [anfitrion.cl] is not "the official newspaper". It is in fact the public journal [wikipedia.org] of the country, where laws are published.

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

Working...