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.

6 of 350 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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?
  3. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.