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

Re:Protect IP Author Senator Patrick Leahy Says 'Further Stu... by phil on Thursday January 12, 2012 @09:17PM (#3458885)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Protect IP Author Senator Patrick Leahy Says 'Further Stu... by frankydp on Thursday January 12, 2012 @10:42PM (#3459091)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Protect IP Author Senator Patrick Leahy Says 'Further Stu... by phil on Thursday January 12, 2012 @10:57PM (#3459122)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Protect IP Author Senator Patrick Leahy Says 'Further Stu... by frankydp on Friday January 13, 2012 @12:02PM (#3461326)

Comment was sarcastic.

[ Parent | on HN ]