Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Democrats Introduce Bill To Restore Net Neutrality

Posted by Soulskill on from the doubtful-prospects dept.

New submitter litehacksaur111 writes "Lawmakers are introducing the Open Internet Preservation Act (PDF) which aims to restore net neutrality rules enforced by the FCC before being struck down by the DC appeals court. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) said, 'The Internet is an engine of economic growth because it has always been an open platform for competition and innovation. Our bill very simply ensures that consumers can continue to access the content and applications of their choosing online.' Unfortunately, it looks unlikely the bill will make it through Congress. 'Republicans are almost entirely united in opposition to the Internet rules, meaning the bill is unlikely to ever receive a vote in the GOP-controlled House.'"

10 of 535 comments (clear)

  1. It's incredibly frustrating... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...to see just how in the pocket of huge corporations the GOP is, and yet people continue to vote for them, against their own interests.

    What will it take to wake people up? I fear it may not happen until it's too late, if not already.

    1. Re:It's incredibly frustrating... by Carcass666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...to see just how in the pocket of huge corporations the GOP is, and yet people continue to vote for them, against their own interests.

      What will it take to wake people up? I fear it may not happen until it's too late, if not already.

      I don't buy that the GOP is necessarily in bed with corporations any more than the Democrats, it's just more of a position of political posture. The GOP takes care of their corporate masters by fighting against regulations, while the Democrats handle the tax breaks, subsidies and programs that ensure their campaign contributors are happy.

      The anti-regulation dogma of the GOP is disheartening because while I agree with a decent number of GOP principles around spending restraint, tax reform, etc.; I don't agree that the free market can be trusted to handle finite public resources like spectrum and last-mile connectivity. This is especially troubling given the nature of the last-mile providers (COX, Time Warner, AT&T, etc.) who have vested commercial interests in maximizing their bandwidth performance at the expense of others (Netflix). It's too simplistic to say that all regulation is "bad", just as it's too simplistic to say that any social or green energy program is "good".

    2. Re:It's incredibly frustrating... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

      ~ John Steinbeck

      --

      Technoli
    3. Re:It's incredibly frustrating... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, if you ask a Tea Party person, they would like government out of regulations to the point of letting the market decide. The fundamental problem is, Comcast wants to charge Netflix et. al. for carrying content on their network, simply because Netflix eats all their bandwidth.

      The real fix, is to allow competition for Comcast in your town/locality. Right now, Comcast, has a near monopoly to the home, so they think they are entitled to charging more than they should for a product that doesn't improve much over time.

      The problem isn't the free market, it is a closed (oligopoly) markets. My fix would require local municipalities to operate the Fiber to the home, and bring it all into a COLO facility that provides Service Providers access to the FIOS lines. The COLO facility would be paid for by the Service Providers, based how many customers there were servicing.

      We wouldn't need legislation, and the competition would create an environment that would drive down prices or provide better service (options) to the end users. Imagine a service provider that operated all "on demand", instead of broadcast channels. Instead of searching through 356 channels of crap, you just search for the shows you want to see. Current Marketplace is being disrupted by technology, and should be. We don't need legislation to protect the current formula, we need legislation that gives new players opportunity to create new markets, that users are demanding.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:It's incredibly frustrating... by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fundamental problem is, Comcast wants to charge Netflix et. al. for carrying content on their network, simply because Netflix eats all their bandwidth.

      No. technology innovation over time results in more bandwidth for less money. Netflix et al do not eat "all their bandwidth". However, Netflix, Amazon Prime, et al are competing services for Comcast's movies on demand and specifically, Streampix. The real fix is to prevent ISPs from also being content service providers.

  2. Wrong fight by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not Net Neutrality, but "Republicans want to take away your Netflix..." People dislike losing something tangible much more than gaining some important, but hard to quantify item. Change the debate; just like the natural food industry who says "The government wants to take away your vitamins..." to the opposing argument of "We want to be sure you aren't getting ripped off by spurious claims..." Guess which one wins?

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  3. There's no need for a new bill ... by DeadDecoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just reclassify ISPs as common carriers. Creating a separate bill would probably open up the doors for more abuse, not less.

  4. Needed by JWW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is needed is not a reestablishment of the "rules" the FCC set up for what they called "net neutrality", what we need is for the FCC to declare the internet common carrier and to make all ISP's honor that.

    This bill not that. When these policies were in place at the FCC before being struck down, there were huge loopholes that companies (especially wireless) could drive giant trucks full of money through.

    We need the internet classified common carrier now!

  5. Whitehouse petition by TopSpin · · Score: 5, Informative

    A petition of the White House to `Restore Net Neutrality By Directing the FCC to Classify Internet Providers as "Common Carriers" just attained the 100k signatures required for a response.

    I'm sure a number of you would have liked to have known about that and signed it at the time... but the story submission was declined. Guess there were too many terribly important climate change stories or something.

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
  6. Re:ah, yes by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't understand why people support the republican agenda.

    I understand your frustration, but both parties seem pretty bad in their own ways. I suspect most Republicans are actually just anti-Democrats, and vice versa.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.