Dems Push For Stronger Net Neutrality Rules

January 27, 2011 -

While conservatives complain that the FCC and the Obama administration have gone too far with net neutrality (with some, like Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), going so far as to sponsor a bill to strip the FCC of any authority to regulate Internet access), Democrats have veered off into another direction. Democrats like Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) think that the FCC has not gone far enough.

This week the Senators introduced a billed called the "Internet Freedom, Broadband Promotion, and Consumer Protection Act of 2011." The bill would extend net neutrality rules to wireless networks. In light of consumer complaints and Verizon and MetroPCS already filing lawsuits, politicians believe that more is needed to combat practices that negatively impact consumers' rights.

"The recent FCC ruling on net neutrality does not do nearly enough to protect consumers, and this bill is designed to maintain a free and open Internet," Franken said in a statement. Last week, during a speech Franken said that net neutrality is the "free speech issue of our time" and that the new FCC rules "will create essentially two Internets."

The new bill bans ISPs from doing a number of things including charging content or application providers access fees, prioritizing content, and "refusing to interconnect on just and reasonable terms and conditions." The bill also makes it clear that all of these rules apply to all forms of Internet access.

The chances of this bill passing in the senate are debatable, and in the House the chances are somewhere between slim and none.

Source: Ars Technica


Comments

Re: Dems Push For Stronger Net Neutrality Rules

Forget NN, treat ISPs as commen carriers and force line shareing, that will fix alot of things.


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

Patreon

Deviantart

Re: Dems Push For Stronger Net Neutrality Rules

The problem is, that they were common carriers at one time, but they managed to get that changed. I don't think a simple re-classification will solve the problem if it can be changed back as easily. I think any network access provider that transmits data to any and every peer/node on the network should be held as a common carrier without exception. I also think that ISPs should not be allowed to merge with content companies as it should be considered consipiracy to create an illegal monopoly.

Man, I wish we could go back to the days when it was illegal for corporations to buy, or merge with, other corporations. They claim to be legal persons, but can buy and sell these "persons" despite ownership of another person being illegal. Which is it? Are they persons or a thing that can be bought and sold? You can't have both. Well, apparently they can...

-Greevar

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Dems Push For Stronger Net Neutrality Rules

Well, if you want to be technical, SOME were common carriers while others were not.  Dial-up and DSL was covered, but Cable was not, which gave the cable providers a huge advantage (which is one of the reasons you see so many more people on cable modems despite it being an inferior technology) and let them pull ahead.... DSL providers complained but did so during republican dominance so rather then leveling the playing field in terms of everyone having to play fair, they deregulated the DSL providers (but dial-up is still covered).

 

Re: Dems Push For Stronger Net Neutrality Rules

That was what I was thinking with 'simple solution'.  If people have hundreds of ISPs to choose from (again), competition will sort things out pretty quickly... but this requires decoupling ISPs from the physical lines again and that doesn't even seem to be on the table anymore.

Re: Dems Push For Stronger Net Neutrality Rules

I have a feeling that no matter what outcome we have with NN, it will be the wrong one.

The best solution (IMHO) is a pretty simple framework.... but regulators LOVE complex solutions with lots of wiggle room to embed carrots and sticks to specific groups... so whatever we end up with will probably be a convoluted mess...

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
IronPatriotWhat I don't get is why anyone wants to be part of the private online army for a stalker.08/04/2015 - 2:32am
IronPatriotYes, it's pretty sad that even after GG has been exposed as a fraud designed to harass Sarkeesian, they still want to attack her. Do facts even matter anymore?08/04/2015 - 2:30am
Andrew EisenDammit. For context's sake, I watched that one Chris Ray Gun video Matt linked to and now my recommends are chockful of anti-Sarkeesian crap from the usual suspects. ARGH!08/04/2015 - 2:27am
Andrew EisenIP - Now you just essentially asked Matt the same question twice in a row. Seriously, once is enough.08/04/2015 - 2:11am
IronPatriotMattsworkname, do you have any actual evidence for your "complete bollocks" claim? Or are you making up more "facts08/04/2015 - 2:11am
IronPatriotMattswork, prove your claim that the article is "based on complete bollocks"08/04/2015 - 2:08am
Andrew EisenIP - Stop asking me the same question over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. It's super annoying. Especially when I've already addressed it.08/04/2015 - 2:07am
Andrew EisenMatt - How? Set aside half an hour. It's not hard if you know your history. It's just time consuming.08/04/2015 - 2:06am
IronPatriotAndrew, so you agree about the lying fraudulent nature of gamergate's origins? So supporting gamergate when it is clearly a fraud deserves to be called what it is, right?08/04/2015 - 2:06am
Andrew EisenFrom an ethics standpoint, there's nothing wrong with that article or posting news on subjects that are of interest.08/04/2015 - 2:05am
MattsworknameAndrew: the toughest thing about Gamergate is that it lacked any form of directed leadership or oganizaotion, How do you really explain something so amourphous that it leterally took months and moths to gain any real shape?08/04/2015 - 2:05am
Andrew EisenIP - A metric crap ton of history and context. GamerGate isn't hard to explain, it just takes a while.08/04/2015 - 2:01am
MattsworknameAnd ip wonders why gamergate went after sites like ARS and kotaku08/04/2015 - 2:00am
MattsworknameWow, its like ARS posted an intentially controversial article based on complete bollocks to get clicks, Imagine that?08/04/2015 - 1:58am
Mattsworknamehttp://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/arstechnica.com08/04/2015 - 1:58am
MattsworknameWait, wrong link, damn copy function08/04/2015 - 1:57am
IronPatriotAndrew, the logs show the harassing nature of gamergate's creation and the facts show the fraudulent nature of gamergate's ethics claims. What is left to make it hard to explain Gamergate?08/04/2015 - 1:57am
Mattsworknamedont belive me? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhYQBPFub5M08/04/2015 - 1:57am
MattsworknameAlso, ARS? That webpage that was suffering signigant traffic decrease before the gamergate event and thatt suddenly saw a huge jump. almost like they posted it intentionally to get clicks?08/04/2015 - 1:57am
Andrew EisenTrust me, I'm well versed with GamerGate's history. I was there.08/04/2015 - 1:56am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician