5 ms·

Protect IP Author Senator Patrick Leahy Says 'Further Study' is Needed

45 points by hornokplease 15y ago

squeee 15y ago
So lets go ahead and pass the bill as is, with an amendment that requires us to study the potential affects of the bill at a later time before enacting the bill. I'm sorry but no thank you. I don't trust you money grubbing ass hats to enact the bill properly; I'm not going to trust you to study the already passed bill properly.
- talos 15y ago
  Yup, this is BS. On the other hand, it looks like all this pressure is having (at least a little) effect.
rhizome 15y ago
Just reading the first few sentences it's apparent that the author is 70+ years old.
- ori_b 15y ago
  The word "senator" is usually a strong hint. Incumbent politicians tend not to be young.
  - phil 15y ago
    I read your comment and thought "surely that's changing over time and we're trending towards younger legislators." So I went looking and it turns out I'm completely wrong. Check it out -- the WSJ did this interactive chart that shows Congress hit a low in the early '80s and has been aging ever since: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-CONGRESS_AGES_1009.html http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-CONGRE...
phil 15y ago
This rings true: I worked closely with the ISPs in drafting this provision to ensure they were comfortable with how it would work This sounds like BS: I remain confident that the ISPs – including the cable industry, which is the largest association of ISPs – would not support the legislation if its enactment created the problems that opponents of this provision suggest. At best, that second quote reflects a real misunderstanding of the big ISPs and their interests.
- frankydp 15y ago
  Limiting the growth of a disruptive competitor isn't any motivation to support this bill. i.e. the entire internet on the internet means not bumping ratings
  - phil 15y ago
    It is. The biggest ISPs in the US (like Time Warner Cable and Comcast) also own media properties. Raising transactional costs for new sites is good for them. It keeps the media properties more valuable, and it raises the percentage of their traffic they can monetize. Roughly the same payoff as in a non-net neutrality world.
    - frankydp 15y ago
      Comment was sarcastic.
Joakal 15y ago
If there was Internet Freedom bills proposed, there would be discussion on Internet Freedom instead of these discussions of compromise and feasibility for the anti-Internet activists. This appears to be a stalling tactic to more anti-Internet measures, or promoting anti-Internet measures. They have introduced similar bills after it failed before. "Hey, a lot of people don't want more Internet controls. So lets get them involved in the Internet control discussion by playing on their hopes of less Internet control. Their supporters will lose momentum as people say 'discussions are ongoing'. We can then easily pass more anti-Internet stuff when we can as we have done in the past. It's brilliant."
ascendant 15y ago
I know I'm being bitter and jaded, but I assume they're just gonna put it on the shelf for a few months, hope everyone forgets about it and then try to get it through quietly attached to some other giant spending bill or something.
jarin 15y ago
You'd think there'd be some "study" involved when authoring the bill, except I have my doubts that he wrote even a single line of it.
SoftwareMaven 15y ago
Am I the only one more concerned about furthering the "guilty until proven innocent" than I am about the DNS? Of course the DNS issue is huge, but not nearly as large (IMO, bviously) as "prove you are innocent from behind bars".

45 points by hornokplease 15y ago

So lets go ahead and pass the bill as is, with an amendment that requires us to study the potential affects of the bill at a later time before enacting the bill. I'm sorry but no thank you. I don't trust you money grubbing ass hats to enact the bill properly; I'm not going to trust you to study the already passed bill properly.

talos 15y ago
Yup, this is BS. On the other hand, it looks like all this pressure is having (at least a little) effect.

rhizome 15y ago

Just reading the first few sentences it's apparent that the author is 70+ years old.

ori_b 15y ago
The word "senator" is usually a strong hint. Incumbent politicians tend not to be young.
- phil 15y ago
  I read your comment and thought "surely that's changing over time and we're trending towards younger legislators." So I went looking and it turns out I'm completely wrong. Check it out -- the WSJ did this interactive chart that shows Congress hit a low in the early '80s and has been aging ever since: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-CONGRESS_AGES_1009.html http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-CONGRE...

phil 15y ago

This rings true: I worked closely with the ISPs in drafting this provision to ensure they were comfortable with how it would work This sounds like BS: I remain confident that the ISPs – including the cable industry, which is the largest association of ISPs – would not support the legislation if its enactment created the problems that opponents of this provision suggest. At best, that second quote reflects a real misunderstanding of the big ISPs and their interests.

frankydp 15y ago
Limiting the growth of a disruptive competitor isn't any motivation to support this bill. i.e. the entire internet on the internet means not bumping ratings
- phil 15y ago
  It is. The biggest ISPs in the US (like Time Warner Cable and Comcast) also own media properties. Raising transactional costs for new sites is good for them. It keeps the media properties more valuable, and it raises the percentage of their traffic they can monetize. Roughly the same payoff as in a non-net neutrality world.
  - frankydp 15y ago
    Comment was sarcastic.

Joakal 15y ago

If there was Internet Freedom bills proposed, there would be discussion on Internet Freedom instead of these discussions of compromise and feasibility for the anti-Internet activists. This appears to be a stalling tactic to more anti-Internet measures, or promoting anti-Internet measures. They have introduced similar bills after it failed before. "Hey, a lot of people don't want more Internet controls. So lets get them involved in the Internet control discussion by playing on their hopes of less Internet control. Their supporters will lose momentum as people say 'discussions are ongoing'. We can then easily pass more anti-Internet stuff when we can as we have done in the past. It's brilliant."

ascendant 15y ago

I know I'm being bitter and jaded, but I assume they're just gonna put it on the shelf for a few months, hope everyone forgets about it and then try to get it through quietly attached to some other giant spending bill or something.

jarin 15y ago

You'd think there'd be some "study" involved when authoring the bill, except I have my doubts that he wrote even a single line of it.

SoftwareMaven 15y ago

Am I the only one more concerned about furthering the "guilty until proven innocent" than I am about the DNS? Of course the DNS issue is huge, but not nearly as large (IMO, bviously) as "prove you are innocent from behind bars".