U.S. Democrats Propose Legislation To Ban Internet Fast Lanes

An anonymous reader writes: A proposal from Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate would require the FCC to stop ISPs from creating "internet fast lanes." Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said, "Americans are speaking loud and clear. They want an Internet that is a platform for free expression and innovation, where the best ideas and services can reach consumers based on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider." Representative Doris Matsui (D-CA) added, "A free and open Internet is essential for consumers. Our country cannot afford 'pay-for-play' schemes that divide our Internet into tiers based on who has the deepest pockets." Unfortunately, this is only half a solution — the bill doesn't actually add to the FCC's authority. It only requires them to use the authority they currently have, which is questionable at best.

Comments

Just do SOMETHING

[BrennanPratt]

The Republican bill that would remove ISPs from FCC regulation would allow states to regulate. It would make rent seeking a lot more difficult for ISPs. This bill would do the obvious thing that the Fourth Branch has failed to do. It's a sign that the FCC is entirely pointless if Congress has to order it to do every little thing. This wouldn't address the paid prioritization problem, but seems like it would give consumers more rights against ISPs in re traffic shaping, etc.

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[gstoddart]

It's a sign that the FCC is entirely pointless if Congress has to order it to do every little thing

Making a former lobbyist for wireless and Cable the head of the FCC is a sign the FCC is entirely pointless.

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[compro01]

The Republican bill that would remove ISPs from FCC regulation would allow states to regulate. It would make rent seeking a lot more difficult for ISPs.

Not bloody likely. States are already busy shutting down competition for the incumbent ISPs.

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[drakaan]

No, the problem is that the judicial branch told the FCC that *until* they classify ISPs as common carriers, they don't have the authority to mandate anything with regards to paid prioritization or de-prioritization.

With Mr. Wheeler in charge, there doesn't seem to be much impetus to reclassify the ISPs in that way.

I am an independent who often votes republican, and I believe that the republican bill as currently laid out is a bad plan. Internet service is a utility in the 21st century, and should be treated that way.

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[arth1]

The Republican bill that would remove ISPs from FCC regulation would allow states to regulate.

That would be useless, given that most internet traffic is interstate or international. It's enough that one hop is in a state that hasn't forbidden slow lanes, and it's defeated.

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[Em Adespoton]

It's a sign that the FCC is entirely pointless if Congress has to order it to do every little thing

Making a former lobbyist for wireless and Cable the head of the FCC is a sign the FCC is entirely pointless.

Not necessarily -- such a person knows all the tricks, and is in a good position to smack current lobbyists down.

However, in THIS case, his cultural bias is pretty obvious, and it seems that his reason for leaving the lobby was not "I became disillusioned with the whole racket."

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[mellon]

So our choices are (1) an industry shill or (2) someone with no experience in the industry?

I beg to differ.

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[mellon]

So what you're saying is that we can have a monopoly of greedy corporate bastards, or we can have a government-run monopoly that charges a price that's regulated by voters. And out of these two choices, you are selecting the former, because boo-hoo, the voters will set the price at cost, and the corporations want to make a profit, and that's not fair. Well fuck their profit. They want to own our eyeballs and sell them to the highest bidder. Fuck that.

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[thule]

Did I say I didn't want *any* oversight? I'm not an anarchist. I just want it easier. End exclusive franchises. Open things up. This has to happen at the local level. So, yes, let the *local* voters decide.

BTW, many people already have microwave transmitters in their house. It's called a cell phone. Also, WiFi is microwave. The FCC allows license free use of some frequencies. For all you know, you may already have a dish pointed at your house.

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[spire3661]

This is a shitty argument. I want someone with a SCIENTIFIC background to run our communications, not a lobbyist.

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[harlows_monkeys]

He was a cable lobbyist (sort of--he was head of the largest cable trade association, and that association did do lobbying among other things) 30 years ago, when cable was the underdog trying to provide an alternative to the big broadcasters, and there was no such thing as a cable ISP because the public internet did not exist yet.

He worked for the wireless trade group 10 years ago.

Also in there he founded or was a heavy investor in several companies that were more on the content provider side of things, and would be hurt by a lack of net neutrality. There is no evidence that he is any more influenced by his very old (and irrelevant to internet) cable association or his more recent but still old wireless association than by his association with those other companies that were on the content side of things.

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[rahvin112]

If you think handing regulation to state government will result in less corruption and a fairer playing field you have no experience with or understanding of state government. Local government is better for some things but state governments are historically and currently the easiest for those with deep pockets to buy regulations and laws they want. I've got dozens of examples in my own state and you could undoubtedly find dozens in your own. Such things do occasionally make the national press such as the Texas car dealers association getting the state of Texas to ban the direct sale of Tesla cars. A key example of an entrenched interest with deep pockets being able to directly control the state government into passing patently anti-competition laws.

Although I don't like the new FCC run by lobbyists and prefer the version from the 50's that was run by engineers. They are at least less corruptible than local politics. If FCC duties are handed to the states we'll have state legislatures writing laws that favor local large businesses in a heart beat. We already have dozens of incumbent written state laws around the nation baring local governments from wiring themselves when the incumbent refuses. I can't even imagine the horror state governments would cause.

Re:Just do SOMETHING

[visualight]

For a moment, let go of the myth that inefficient government is some kind of natural law and not propaganda, and read this:
http://www.muninetworks.org/co...

Market

[ZombieBraintrust]

This doesn't fix the root cause. I have 1 ISP in my region that provides cable internet. As long as they have monopoly power they will abuse it. Fix the monopoly issue and the federal goverment might not need to regulate the internet like this.

And the Telco response

[zeroryoko1974]

Here, Mr. Congressman have some money, we don't need no silly neutrality. How about free HBO for your family instead?

Re:just label ISP's as common carriers already

[Aryden]

common carriers just says they have to carry all traffic equally and without discrimination.

You answered your own question.

Re:just label ISP's as common carriers already

[mellon]

The difference is that provisioning the last mile is what's expensive. Running fiber to the point of presence is easy. So if you regulate telcos as common carriers, suddenly you have competition between ISPs again, and so they can't pull that crap.