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.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

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.
ZippyDSMleeIf publishers didn't play the region lock game then it would not be an issue.Tho I have seen more russian/chec games than asia ones on ebay.If they do not like it then mabye lower thier region prices to make alitte vrs none.09/22/2014 - 9:54am
MaskedPixelantehttp://hexus.net/gaming/news/industry/74981-pc-game-code-stripping-widespread-says-report/ Thievery, or perhaps the very idea of capitalism? You decide!09/22/2014 - 9:47am
MaskedPixelantehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDPCmmZifE8 John Oliver exposes Miss America.09/22/2014 - 9:00am
james_fudgeI reiterate now - not one email to-date.09/22/2014 - 8:37am
james_fudgeAnd this: https://archive.today/uIjwE09/22/2014 - 8:37am
james_fudgeLet me put this here: https://archive.today/hbtQJ09/22/2014 - 8:35am
InfophileRelevant to this site: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/015984.html#015984 - Apparently allowing comments to be downvoted leads to worse behaviour09/22/2014 - 6:18am
Andrew EisenMP - I love that game but damn my squadmates are bozos.09/21/2014 - 10:05pm
MaskedPixelanteSWAT teams should be banned until they; 1. Learn not to walk into enemy fire, 2. Learn to throw the flashbang INTO the doorway, not the frame and 3. Stop complaining that I'm in their way.09/21/2014 - 9:53pm
Craig R.I'm getting of the opinion that SWAT teams nationwide should be banned. This probably isn't even the most absurd situation in which they've been used.09/21/2014 - 9:26pm
Andrew EisenAnd, predictably, it encouraged more parody accounts, having the exact opposite effect than what was intended.09/21/2014 - 7:07pm
E. Zachary KnightThis is called a police state people. When public officials can send SWAT raids after anyone for any offense, we are no longer free.09/21/2014 - 6:41pm
E. Zachary KnightJudge rules SWAT raid tageting parody Twitter account was justified. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/19/illinois-judge-swat-raid-parody-twitter-peoria-mayor09/21/2014 - 6:41pm
MechaTama31quik: But even if it did break, at worst it is only as bad as the powder. Even that is assuming that it is dangerous through skin contact, which is not a given if its delivery vehicle is a syringe.09/21/2014 - 4:30pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/09/20/isis-uses-gta-5-in-new-teen-recruitment-video/09/21/2014 - 4:25pm
quiknkoldSyringes can break. And in a transcontinental delivery, the glass could've broken when crushed. I work in a mail center. Shit like this is super serious09/21/2014 - 3:25pm
E. Zachary KnightIt doesn't matter what is inside the needle. As long as it requires him to take the step of purposefully injecting himself, the threat of the substance is as close to zero as you can get.09/21/2014 - 1:27pm
quiknkoldEzach: I'm not talking about the needle. I'm talking about what's inside. Geeze. Depending on what it is, the sender could be guilty of bioterrorism.09/21/2014 - 12:51pm
E. Zachary Knightquiknkold, No. That syringe is not worse than white powder or a bomb. The syringe requires the recipient to actually inject themselves. Not true for other mail threats.09/21/2014 - 12:49pm
Andrew EisenThe closest to a threat I ever received was a handwritten note slipped under my door that read "I KNOW it was you." Still no idea what that was about. I think the author must have got the wrong apartment.09/21/2014 - 12:28pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician