Quote:
|
Network Management: Broadband Internet access service providers are permitted to engage in reasonable network management. Reasonable network management includes any technically sound practice: to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network; to ensure network security or integrity; to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider’s network, or the Internet; to ensure service quality to a subscriber; to provide services or capabilities consistent with a consumer’s choices; that is consistent with the technical requirements, standards, or best practices adopted by an independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiative or standard-setting organization; to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network.
|
I'm not comfortable with what I put in bold text there. I know it defines that it can only do those things based on "technically sound practice", but who determines which practices are sound and unsound? There's no definition of that proposed in this document, which means that it's up to the interpretation of the service providers unless otherwise defined. That can be bad. If the network slows down due to congestion, would they be able to pick and choose who gets connection, and thereby eliminate those taking up more traffic (read: people who actually use the internet)?
Sound silly? Here's another excerpt from earlier:
Quote:
|
Non-Discrimination Requirement: In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users. Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted.
|
Essentially, this means that although it technically is against this clause to prioritize the internet, they can still do it anyway. So what I pinpointed out earlier and the scenario that is possible under this bill actually would be legally sound practice. I'm not comfortable with that, I doubt any of you are either.
This needs improvements before I even come close to considering it.