My country's net neutrality law seems to be a great blueprint, and something that can be easily understood. No need for all the "bytes" and "throttling" terminology:
"ARTICLE 56. - Network Neutrality. Each user shall be guaranteed the right to access, use, send, receive or offer any content, application, service or protocol through the Internet without any type of restriction, discrimination, distinction, blocking, interference, hindrance or degradation.
a) Block, interfere, discriminate, hinder, degrade or restrict the use, sending, reception, offering or access to any content, application, service or protocol except by court order or explicit request of the user.
b) Fix the price of Internet access by virtue of the contents, services, protocols or applications to be used or offered through the respective contracts.
c) Arbitrarily limit the right of a user to use any hardware or software to access the Internet, as long as they do not damage or harm the network."
3. Some sort of device /software you can install to do stuff like you can do to an electrical network like overload and circuit breaker bypass? Can those things be done to a fiber network? Beyond congestion, what'd the worst you can do to a ISP?
Then the regulator will take them to court and case law will disambiguate the boundaries. Counterintuitively it’s the very prescriptive laws that allow companies to more easily come up with loopholes because legislators can’t possibly conceive of every scenario in advance, whereas the vague laws allow the courts to decide each new situation case by case as it arises.
> Counterintuitively it’s the very prescriptive laws that allow companies to more easily come up with loopholes because legislators can’t possibly conceive of every scenario in advance, whereas the vague laws allow the courts to decide each new situation case by case as it arises.
If the law uses the words "purposely harm the network" instead of "harm the network" then it's harder to claim it applies to services that e.g. increase congestion by sending a lot of legitimate data. Being clearer narrows the scope of the excuses their lawyers can emit.
I'm not sure it should just be 3! ISPs should be held responsible (and able to) selectively block DDoS traffic originating from their customers. Especially with the proliferation of symmetric gigabit+ connections...
Last mile ISPs are the wrong place to do anything like that. The middle of the network is no place for traffic mangling because it already requires state of the art equipment to transfer that much data whatsoever, much less do packet inspection on it to try to guess what's a DDoS and what's just a lot of real traffic, and then get it wrong and block legitimate flows or new applications.
What's needed is a way for recipient endpoints to tell upstream networks that they (temporarily) don't want traffic from particular sources. But that requires a new network protocol, not some arbitrary policy judgement on the part of random ISPs.
"ARTICLE 56. - Network Neutrality. Each user shall be guaranteed the right to access, use, send, receive or offer any content, application, service or protocol through the Internet without any type of restriction, discrimination, distinction, blocking, interference, hindrance or degradation.
ARTICLE 57. - Network neutrality. Prohibitions. ICT Service Providers shall not:
a) Block, interfere, discriminate, hinder, degrade or restrict the use, sending, reception, offering or access to any content, application, service or protocol except by court order or explicit request of the user.
b) Fix the price of Internet access by virtue of the contents, services, protocols or applications to be used or offered through the respective contracts.
c) Arbitrarily limit the right of a user to use any hardware or software to access the Internet, as long as they do not damage or harm the network."