Colorado's 'Open Internet' Bill Would Punish Internet-Providing Violators By Taking Their Grant Money Away (coloradosun.com) 85
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Colorado Sun: Now that Democrats are in charge, Colorado's second attempt at its own version of a net neutrality law passed the General Assembly and now heads to Gov. Jared Polis for his certain signature. Keeping internet speeds consistent regardless of whether a customer is streaming video from Comcast or Netflix wasn't the only intent of the Senate Bill 78. The bill also makes internet service providers pay back state grants to build broadband infrastructure if those companies use paid prioritization to favor some internet traffic over others, or slow down speeds for some users.
The Colorado law is similar to the former federal one in that it would prohibit ISPs from prioritizing certain content. It would also force violating ISPs that benefited from state broadband grants to refund all money received in the previous 24 months. After the governor signs the bill into law, Colorado's attorney general would by Oct. 1 create guidelines on how consumers can file complaints about net neutrality violations. "What I was really looking for in this year's bill was the appropriate nexus of action. A lot of the bills we saw getting in trouble in other states, or bills that were facing a lot of opposition, were more about sending a message of net neutrality instead of looking for a fulcrum point for state action," said Sen. Kerry Donovan, a Democrat from Vail who sponsored last year's bill and wrote this year's bill. "This bill says that if you're going to ask to be funded by the people in Colorado directly out of their paycheck then you need to adhere to these principles."
The Colorado law is similar to the former federal one in that it would prohibit ISPs from prioritizing certain content. It would also force violating ISPs that benefited from state broadband grants to refund all money received in the previous 24 months. After the governor signs the bill into law, Colorado's attorney general would by Oct. 1 create guidelines on how consumers can file complaints about net neutrality violations. "What I was really looking for in this year's bill was the appropriate nexus of action. A lot of the bills we saw getting in trouble in other states, or bills that were facing a lot of opposition, were more about sending a message of net neutrality instead of looking for a fulcrum point for state action," said Sen. Kerry Donovan, a Democrat from Vail who sponsored last year's bill and wrote this year's bill. "This bill says that if you're going to ask to be funded by the people in Colorado directly out of their paycheck then you need to adhere to these principles."
Re: (Score:3)
Companies that receive subsidies or grants from tax payers should lose some of their freedoms they would otherwise enjoy. Don’t like the rules, don’t take the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The mobile carriers typically aren’t regarded as ISPs.
That's because phones and cellular data don't support streaming.
And mobile carriers don't support streaming on tablets or desktops, especially through hotspots in the home that mobile carriers sell.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because phones and cellular data don't support streaming.
I have a teenage daughter, and she streams over cellular all the time ... in her room ... 10 feet from the router ... with WiFi disabled because she forgot to turn it on ... blowing through the family-plan data cap in the first week of the month.
How dare they! (Score:1)
Government money to corporations must be free and easy so they can use it best, unlike welfare to the poor which must be heavily restricted!
Re: Why are for-profit companies being funded? (Score:1)
Because people expect to be paid when the government wants something done.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly. Then who would pay their bribes?
Re:QoS is Critical (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
DirecTV to unload rural customers on Dish? (Score:2)
You think a customer on TMobile will be able to subscribe to Sling? Hell no! They're going to block every other streaming video service so you will take their Level3 or nothing.
That's not what T-Mobile has in place. The "Binge On" feature [t-mobile.com] of T-Mobile plans doesn't count video against subscribers' cap so long as it's 1.5 Mbps or lower. (The vast majority of 480p video using AVC or VP8 is lower than that.) Binge On is open to any video provider that's willing to join. And I see no reason for this to end any time soon, even with the Sprint merger, as it'd break the "we're not AT&T" draw of the T-Mobile brand.
hell...AT&T is already walking down the path of making DirecTV an exclusive product that will require their network. Sure, that's a few years down the road...but they've effectively launched the very last satellite. Once the current fleet is dead...they'll be streaming only.
Some rural customers have satellite television from DirecTV because they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DirecTV as a satellite service is basically dead. AT&T murdered it for the sake of taking it online where they can tighten the rains and extract more out of customers. It will in fact leave Dish
Re: (Score:3)
Firmware updates should not change settings.
Or better still, enforce antitrust laws and force the ISPs
Re: (Score:2)
We are literally going back to pre-Carterphone Ma Bell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Congratulations Colorado just made it illegal for ISPs to prioritize streaming video from search and rescue drones over someone streaming PewDiePie. Good job.
Re: (Score:2)
It does not matter what traffic I use, fairness is effectively maintained per f
Re: (Score:1)
Having shitty internet to own the libs. Brilliant strategy, you knob.
Keeping internet speeds consistent (Score:1)
What would big gov see as slowing down speeds for some users?
Is that an old network with way, way too many users always slow? An active new attempt to slow down speeds for "some" users?
Your ISP is now going to have to make you pay for their negotiations with big gov over day to day network conditions.
Who is going to invest if big gov wants to see how "some" users are doing?
Can an ISP prove "some" users are getting the same speeds as all user
I love America! (Score:3, Insightful)
When the goddam federal government is a fucking loony bin, the states step up and say, "Hold my beer."
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes the states step in and do the right thing when the feds do stupid things. And sometimes the states step in and do stupid things when the feds are doing the right thing. It varies wildly.
Re:I love America! (Score:5, Insightful)
If the looniness gets too bad, it is a lot easier to move to a different state than a different country.
Looniness is better when it is local.
Re: (Score:1)
Honestly (I am a republican saying this), they need to lose this grant money. They have done jack fucking squat with it for the past 30 years.
The gov did it backwards. Here is a pile of money to build something. "Oh OK". Nothing built. "well we did not get to it this year but we are in the planning stages" for 30 fucking years. Instead it should be "build X, we can see X, we help fund it but you need to go get a loan or something, until then fuck off".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Progress!
Lawful (Score:2)
"Blocking *lawful* internet content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices unless such blocking is conducted in a manner consistent with reasonable network management practices"
"Regulating network traffic by throttling bandwidth or otherwise impairing or degrading *lawful* internet traffic on the basis of internet content"
Emphasis mine. How are they going to tell what constitutes lawful or unlawful content? I guess they'll just have to snoop on everything you do, log it and report back to the author
Unconstitutional (Score:1)
I'll believe it when I see it. (Score:2)
Laws aren't worth the paper they're written on unless they are enforced in a method that actually has a punishing effect on the violator.
Too many corporate regulations have fines so low the companies will happily ignore them and then write off the fines as a "cost of doing business".
What this bill WONT do (Score:2)
Nothing in the article prevents ISPs, who typically use throttling as a means of cost control, from having to charge the consumer MORE for their service. If the average colorado resident is paying $65/mo for 100mbps service; my prediction is that within two years of this legislation passing, they will be paying at least $120/mo for the same service and you will have fewer options. The same shit happened when they started forcing insurances to cover stuff. First rates went up, and then companies started pull
Re: (Score:2)
What it won't do is anything about the duopoly I have to choose from and since Comcast couldn't provide reliable service in my area I effectively have a choice of CLink or nothing (or satellite I guess - screw that; maybe Verizon? I've resorted to them before when my own ISP was down - it's not ideal).
There are very few scenarios where this would decrease my options. Is Century Link going to go out of business because of this? Will Comcast?
And I wish I paid $65 a month for 100 mbps. It's more like $85