Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Republican Lawmaker Introduces Net Neutrality Legislation (variety.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the my-way-or-the-highway dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Variety: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced net neutrality legislation on Tuesday that prohibits internet providers from blocking and throttling content, but does not address whether ISPs can create so-called "fast lanes" of traffic for sites willing to pay for it. The legislation also would require that ISPs disclose their terms of service, and ensure that federal law preempts any state efforts to establish rules of the road for internet traffic. "A lot of our innovators are saying, 'Let's go with things we have agreement on, and other things can be addressed later,'" Blackburn told Variety. She said that she was "very hopeful" about the prospects for the legislation because "an open internet and preserving that open internet is what people want to see happen. Let's preserve it. Let's nail it down. Let's stop the ping-ponging from one FCC commission to another. This is something where the Congress should act." Blackburn chairs a House subcommittee on communications and technology.

16 of 350 comments (clear)

  1. It will get changed by thaylin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They will keep the preemption rules and gut the rest making it so there is no NN

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
    1. Re:It will get changed by MangoCats · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm missing the distinction between throttling and fast-lanes?

      Will there be a guaranteed minimum bandwidth? If not, then anyone not in the fast-lanes is effectively being throttled.

  2. The right way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Passing a law is the right way to do it. This way we'll have a stable requirement and not some 'regulation' that can be changed at the whim of any given administration. We don't need ISP to be regulated as utilities, we simply need the right neutrality laws. If this happens, we'll all be in a better place.

    1. Re:The right way by zifn4b · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We don't need ISP to be regulated as utilities

      I disagree. The internet is a critical part of the backbone of our consumption-based economy. If there are not safe guards in place for the internet as a public utility to protect the market then we are at risk of damaging the entire economic market (possibly causing yet another recession) in order to provide special treatment to a small amount of participants namely Comcast, AT&T and Time Warner.

      This IS a public concern over the general welfare for all people and all businesses the same as clean drinking water and electricity is. It must be protected to provide for the general welfare of everyone not just a few special interests.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    2. Re:The right way by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The Internet" does not need to be regulated as a utility. Heck, "the Internet" shouldn't be regulated at all. None of the reasons you give justify making Internet service a utility. In fact, contrary to your rationale, the reason that there are so few participants is entirely the fault of local governments awarding local monopolies to a select few companies.

      The cable carrying information into your house should be regulated as a utility. This covers cable TV, phone service, Internet service. It should be regulated not because of the Internet or TV channels or phone services. It should be regulated because the lines for these services have to pass through public easements, and it's in The Public's best interest to have as few physical lines as possible on telephone poles, in underground easements, and leading up to their home. The optimal solution to this problem is a single line leading to each home which carries all these services.

      As such the contract to install and maintain this line should be awarded to a single company, which due to its monopolistic nature should be regulated as a utility and prohibited from providing service over the line. Companies wishing to provide service, be it Internet, TV channels, phone service, alarm monitoring, or whatever future information transmission application (holovision, smellovision, whatever), should all be allowed to transmit that information over that line for a fixed, regulated fee, but the company maintaining the line is prohibited from providing any of these services so there is no conflict of interest. This is how we do electric, gas, and long distance phone service. One company maintains all the lines and pipes in an area, but you can buy your electricity, gas, and long distance phone service from hundreds if not thousands of different suppliers.

      The fact that (1) there will be a monopoly contract to maintain the line to each home, and (2) that line will pass through public easements is enough to justify regulating it as a utility.

    3. Re:The right way by MangoCats · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ISPs are the new interstate highway system. I don't think the progress in commerce since Eisenhower was attributable to the toll roads that are a part of our highway system, it was the free access high speed long distance arteries.

  3. It'll never pass. by Nutria · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's go with things we have agreement on, and other things can be addressed later is too rational, and Democrats will block it because it was introduced by a Republican.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  4. Our ISP's best buddy by sasparillascott · · Score: 5, Informative

    This lady introduced the bill in the Senate that blew away the Internet privacy protections from our ISP's (so they couldn't monitor, catalog and monetize what you do on the internet) - which was the 1st thing the Trump Admin did after getting into office. I believe her state is the home of some big ISP. I.E. this is something the big ISP's want.

    The process was, the FCC (led by former Verizon corporate lawyer Ajit Pai) throws away the Net Neutrality - causing fear and some panic. Marsha and the other lobbied Republican members of congress ride to the rescue with new "Net Neutrality" legislation - which is anything but. And gets us maybe a little ways back towards Net Neutrality, but outlaws states doing their own Net Neutrality etc. (biggest threats to this huge new profit center for Comcast), they declare victory and we're screwed.

    This needs to be blocked and let the FCC's recent changes get slapped down in court.

  5. Re:Fast lanes are okay, with a caveat... by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then government also shouldn't make it artificially hard, or even impossible, for other providers to offer competing services, which is what they are doing now.

    If Acme ISP is the only providers that is legally allowed to operate in your neighborhood, then government should butt in to ensure they don't abuse their government-provided artificial monopoly.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  6. Fake Net Neutrality according to dslreports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Tennessee-Rep-Marsha-Blackburn-Unveils-Fake-Net-Neutrality-Law-140921

    Enter Marsha Blackburn, who for years has rubber stamped every whim of sector giants like AT&T and Comcast.

    Blackburn has consistently fought against net neutrality. She has also vigorously defended protectionist state laws, written by companies like AT&T and Verizon, that restrict towns and cities from building their own broadband infrastructure (or in some cases striking public/private partnerships). Even in locations these incumbent ISPs refuse to serve (such as her home state of Tennessee, one of the least connected states in the nation). Such laws have one function: protecting incumbent ISP revenues from consumers tired of entrenched duopolies.

    Yet now she insists her Open Internet Preservation Act (pdf) will help protect the open internet, despite the fact it blatantly ignores all manner of potential violations, from zero rating and interconnection to paid prioritization deals. The bill also attempts to pre-empt state efforts to protect net neutrality, since again, the real goal is to prevent tougher rules -- not protect consumers.

  7. Re:Fast lanes are okay, with a caveat... by zifn4b · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here we go again. Trying to tell people how to run their companies, and whom they can do business with.

    Absolutely no. We are supporting a level playing field for all businesses to have the same opportunities to grow and thrive not just the few people that had cash to buy politicians to create legal precedent for their special interest.

    --
    We'll make great pets
  8. Don't trust her... by The-Forge · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't trust Blackburn. It's already leaking out that Comcast's lawyers are the ones writing this legislation. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qvw8k5/comcast-fcc-net-neutrality-law

  9. Re: Fast lanes are okay, with a caveat... by kenh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Then government also shouldn't make it artificially hard, or even impossible, for other providers to offer competing services, which is what they are doing now.

    Try to differentiate between local government and the federal government - it is your local government that awarded cable companies and telcos monopolies on providing service in an area to encourage them to invest in infrastructure to provide those services.

    If Acme ISP is the only providers that is legally allowed to operate in your neighborhood, then government should butt in to ensure they don't abuse their government-provided artificial monopoly.

    A regulation that prohibits blocking or throttling of any traffic is fine, few would object to that regulation.

    Allowing Netflix to pay my isp to zero rate their traffic does nothing to speed up or slow down competitors traffic, it is purely a billing/accounting issue.

    Allowing Netflix to park a caching server at my ISPs head office to provide better service to Netflix customers does nothing to speed up or slow down competitors traffic.

    Depending on the implementation, allowing Netflix to pay for 'priority' service could lead to effectively throttling competitors service, but it would also throttle every other service equally as the priority service 'steals' available bandwidth from all other services.

    --
    Ken
  10. Oh, GOP... by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Republican party is in a bad place. After a disastrous year, they are desperate for a win... any win. It's why they are pushing so strongly for the tax bill, even though many of them recognize how terribly flawed it is - not only from an social and economic perspective, but also from a political one: the tax plan will cost them votes. But, they fear, not having passed any significant legislation will cost them more. So we get the this tax plan.

    And yet, here we have a perfect opportunity for them to pass some major legislation that would not only be incredibly popular (some 70% of the country support Net Neutrality) but would be fairly easy to get through Congress. It has support on both sides of the aisle. It wouldn't even require much work: just enshrine the already-written pre-Ajit Pai rules as law. It is quite possible that they could have gotten this law passed in mere days.

    The Republican party would have been seen as working for the people, standing up against huge telecoms, and able to work and lead the country as a whole rather than satisfying a small base. It would have been a home-run, a Christmas Miracle. It would have been that desperately needed success the GOP has been selling its soul for.

    And then they go and do this.

    Oh, GOP.

  11. Re:Keep the bad parts by nucrash · · Score: 3, Informative

    You would think so, but reality is often far more convoluted than theory. Theories are nice and clean until you start building in exceptions. This is no different that a program. You code based on a simple function, but as you add features, exceptions, business logic, and error handling; your code becomes this monstrosity where you begin to wonder what the original intent was in the first place.

    Net Neutrality is in the same way not as clear cut as you might think. That's not to say that I am not in favor of Net Neutrality. I am. Yet there are some things that clearly benefit from lower latency such as voice communications or video to video conversations or even remotely controlling devices from afar. Even electronic gaming and our own stock market would pay for a lower level ping if given the opportunity.

    --
    Place something witty here
  12. The only regs needed on this by laurencetux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1 whenever there is not a signed SLA in effect and as a minimum an ISP must provide not less than 75% of advertised speed/bandwidth 90% of the time or better (so if you advertise up to 20MPS speed 90% of the time all of your users should have not less than 15MPS available all the way to the next peer)

    2 any bandwidth shaping or service restrictions must be part of a signed and notarized contract (copies to be on file in the local office and original STAMPED copy to be on file at the corporate office).

    3 any ISP that owns directly or indirectly any content service may only promote said content as part of a "bonus"
    where any future charges for said service must require an affirmative action on the part of the client to begin (any free %service% package must automatically cancel at the end of the promo period unless the client performs a clear action like checking a box on a physical bill or checking a box in an electronically presented bill)