Democrats try to reinstate net neutrality rules struck down by court

Rules preventing Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against content were vacated last month because the Federal Communications Commission did not properly justify its authority to implement them.

US Reps. Henry Waxman and Anna Eshoo (both D-CA) submitted legislation today to reinstate the net neutrality rules recently struck down by a court decision.

Democrats try to reinstate net neutrality rules struck down by court

Well, as the legal maneuvering takes place, someone appears to be taking a swipe at those pesky "neutrality rules" which were rendered impotent when a court recently decided that the FCC's authority did not include the power to require such restrictions on ISPs (Internet Service Providers) who by extension, now have the option to 'discriminate' or 'apply bias' to access to the internet for their 'consumers.'

While the management of traffic is the norm, it seems spurious to allow someone no responsibility for 'deciding' how to dole out bandwidth. There is a terrible opportunity there to create a hazard for people who are increasingly dependent on the internet for everything from commerce to healthcare and personal safety.

The Open Internet Preservation Act proposed by Waxman and Eshoo, both members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, would put those rules back in effect "until the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) takes new final action in the Open Internet proceeding," a bill description says.

Heh..., first of all - personally, I don't care who introduces the bill anymore. The more important issue is the authorship. Why do we need to know which clown rolled the barrel of monkeys into the ring? "The proof is in the pudding," is the old phrase...

HR 3982..., The anti-Verizon/anti-Republican bill.... (my words, not theirs)

You see, it was the fact that Verizon won their suit challenging FCC authority to regulate an ISP's management of bandwidth that makes this the 'political' ball to play with. The only problem is, when the right to choke a certain user profile out of decent bandwidth cannot be questioned... the FCC can order it done - they are, after all, a non-elect conglomeration of 'experts' gathered from the very companies they now regulate... and some will likely join their former ranks when the administration changes.

reply to post by Maxmars


I just hate it when my right to information and life is turned into a political football.

Protect our net neutrality.

F&S&

The only kind of people ISP's want are little old ladies who use their 'internets' to check their email.

The rest of us, and us power users, are not welcome.

That is the cost of coming from analog to digital. They want analog control to a digital world.

I am dependent upon the net most people are today. Some for fun, Some for work, and Some to spy.

I actually got a letter from my Isp once upon a time in Amerika, telling me I was using it too much!

LOL.

neo96
I actually got a letter from my Isp once upon a time in Amerika, telling me I was using it too much!

I recieved a couple of notices about a year ago from my provider saying the same thing. Along with the caveat that if I upgraded my router and paid a small increase in the monthly bill for it, then I would be ok.

I didn't pay them squat and even talked to a manager about it. He told me that they are targeting those who only have cable internet in their homes and not TV or other services to drive up their revenue. It was suprising talking to a manager who told the truth. Chances are he doesn't work there anymore.

reply to post by neo96


You got one too?! Must be a conspiracy... -_-

-SAP-

reply to post by TDawgRex


In the spirit of full disclosure, I have had to resort to paying a "premium" fee to accommodate my family's "modern" internet needs. I winced a bit, at the irony of falling to the exact commercial trap their 'freedom to manage' represented - as so many of us predicted.

Oh for the old days, when modems connect to a phone line (which, at the time, remained the worlds only telecommunication system to be regulated to 99.9% reliability* (Hence old hardline phone that worked when the power went out, amongst other old-fashioned needs.)

* - I'm being hyperbolic here.

It irks me that this 'global connectivity' now depends on some 'economic' metric... they now make billions whenever we want to gather and speak, using the infrastructure our tax-dollars payed for. That absurd nonsense about 'the ISP's investment is laughable .. once the profit scheme is exposed, and the stakeholders are identified. The internet has made us able to understand things much better than back in the 70's and 80's when big shots could b/s their way into getting money - as long as they asked the right people, added the appropriate political "flavor" to it, etc.

I think it's high time we should reevaluate the true "cost" of the citizens' investment, which seems to have been grossly undervalued, enough to challenge by measure of results. Of course, the "lion's share" of any of their proceeds goes into a black hole of interlinked corporate 'entities.' I just don't understand when we, the American people forgot that the idiots playing town hall, and popularity contest can't possibly "lead" us anywhere. All they do is perform. It is important, I think, to make the distinction that in reality, whether conservatives or liberals, republicans, or democrats; what does it matter... they are supposed to do as they are told.... what's up with that?

Frankly, since the nation's cyber-security is a mission of the DHLS I would expect them to weigh in..., but then, for them it's a win-win anyway, so why waste the political currency?