Republican Sponsored Bill to Kill Internet Neutrality...Again

a reply to: xuenchen



Glad to see someone is paying attention!!!

You gotta keep an eye on me sometimes!!

a reply to: xuenchen

This is the third time Blackburn has introduced the "Internet Freedom Act" (the name only is nauseatingly demeaning).

Text of the current bill is here in PDF format but it's short enough to post in its entirety:

A BILL
To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from
reclassifying broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications
service and from imposing certain regulations
on providers of such service.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Internet Freedom
5 Act’’.

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF FCC.
2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The rule adopted by the Federal
3 Communications Commission in GN Docket No. 14–28 on
4 February 26, 2015 (relating to broadband Internet access
5 service) shall have no force or effect, and the Commission
6 may not reissue such rule in substantially the same form,
7 or issue a new rule that is substantially the same as such
8 rule, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically author-
9 ized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of
10 this Act.

11 (b) EXCEPTION.—This section does not apply to any
12 rule that the Federal Communications Commission deter-
13 mines necessary—
14 (1) to prevent damage to the national security
15 of the United States;
16 (2) to ensure the public safety; or
17 (3) to assist or facilitate any actions taken by
18 a Federal or State law enforcement agency.
19 (c) RULE DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘rule’’
20 has the meaning given such term in section 804 of title
21 5, United States Code.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Definitely not IPv6. I was talking about the 'new Internet'. That capability which could blast the content of everything stored in data format from a location in Europe to the U.S. in less than a few hours. I don't know ... I've just watched this debate for a while and thought the bandwidth consumers use to watch NetFlix was nothing by comparison.

Seems to me that was a convenient argument no one chose to bring up. Figured I'd ask the knowledgeable denizens of ATS.

a reply to: theantediluvian

That can't be right, its only one page.

a reply to: Snarl

"Internet 2" and "Internet v2" have been applied to a few things, but mostly it's been used as reference to the transition to IPv6. Media attention has waxed and waned over the years as things like NAT have slowed address depletion. It's also been used in recent years in reference to specific sites/services (Svbtle, Medium, etc) but this more akin to usage of the term "Web 2.0."

Then there is the "Internet2" which is the closet thing to a second Internet with it's own legit backbone and IXPs (called "Gigapops"). However, it isn't actually a replacement for the Internet. This is a pretty concise summary.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yes it looks familiar.

And strange the one from last year never came out of committee.

Must be just some kind of bargaining chip.

a reply to: mOjOm

Net Neutrality is just another opportunity to have Government screw up something that was already working fine. I wish Congress would go through about 90% of the crap the Government has its grimy little hands in and give us our country back. There is NOTHING that Government gets involved in that doesn't turn to crap.

a reply to: Metallicus

I agree it should have been left alone but those days are gone. She's no longer a pure virgin internet anymore. Net neutrality is still better than the alternative, for now anyway.

But this battle still isn't over obviously. But you should be more concerned with Telecom control than Net Neutrality.

originally posted by: mOjOm
Anyone else besides me sick to death of the Right bullying and blaming their way into getting their way???

I definitely am, they have been using bullying tactics for a few years now, starting with the government shut-down. The thing about handing control of the internet over to the telecoms is that they have plans to destroy what we now take for granted, which is a free and open internet.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: mOjOm



Net Neutrality is just another opportunity to have Government screw up something that was already working fine.

Except it stopped "working fine".

The major telecoms in the US want to do for the Internet what they've done for cable television and cell phone service. Monopolies and maximum profits will rule the day. Meanwhile Europeans have to be laughing themselves silly at what a joke this country has become. Where's Teddy and his trust-busting Big Stick?

a reply to: Metallicus

Your tune will probably be different the day your internet provider sends you a mailer telling you about an exciting new "package" deal designed to save YOU money! For the low introductory price of 49.99 you can now have the "basic" internet package which gives you access to the most popular sites like facebook, twitter, etc. You also get FREE access to things like gmail and other webmail services! How exciting! And for only 20.00 more you can access the "Multimedia" package which gives you access to popular movie/TV streaming sites like Netflix and Hulu!

If you're feeling risque, you can pay another 15.00 to unlock access to Adult sites! You know, those site you wouldn't show your mother! This also includes access to sites like 4chan, ATS, motherless, suicide girls, etc.

Why, for only 120.99 a month, you can have unlimited* access to ALL of the internet, and at the BLAZING speed of 15 Mbps!


* Unlimited Access does not include access to Torrent trackers, Peer to Peer networks, Proxies, or IRCs.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

That's only the half of it - the major telecoms will also be sending bills to Web sites (like Hulu, or even ATS) charging them more money for "the big pipes" which they'll need if they want to keep their customers happy, otherwise they'll get throttled back on bandwidth (and watch their customers flee for the big-telecom sponsored Web sites).

The little Web sites won't have a chance to compete because the big dogs will own the pipes.

Net neutrality is designed to protect how we access the Web, both as a customer-at-home and as a provider-of-services.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Oh I know, websites will get the very same mailer, only with tiers based on the amount traffic they send.

The funniest part of the bill is that it contradicts itself in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE.

To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from
reclassifying broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications
service and from imposing certain regulations
on providers of such service.

One: The Internet was built AS a telecommunications device. In fact, the way computers first spoke to one another over ARPANET was via phone lines. A TELECOMMUNICATIONS medium. In fact, the very word "Telecommunications" means "To communicate at a distance" From the french word "Tele" which means "at a distance" and our shared word "Communication".

Hmm... seems like computers are talking to each other from a distance. Sounds a lot like... TELECOMMUNICATION!

Weird.

It continues to amaze me that so many of you have not a #ing clue as to what is really going on and continue to spout out such uninformed opinions, which are base on political basis or outright ignorance.

originally posted by: Snarl
Here's one for everyone. Why is it my standard Internet service in Korea ten times better than the best you can hope to get in America?

Two reasons.
#1. America is much more rural than Korea, across America population densities are extremely low, our most dense city is NYC and it has a population density half that of Seoul. This means it requires more infrastructure to service fewer people. Because of this, the US will never be a leader in internet speeds. Unless you see Agenda 21 happening.

#2. It's the same reason our cell phone options are so poor compared to Europe. Our companies don't want to spend the money to expand and offer better service. When they have such little competition why should they? In phone and internet the US has some of the least competitive markets available and that results in a worse product at a higher price. The companies in charge are perfectly happy to keep things like that because it means they get paid more for doing less.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: mOjOm

Net Neutrality is just another opportunity to have Government screw up something that was already working fine. I wish Congress would go through about 90% of the crap the Government has its grimy little hands in and give us our country back. There is NOTHING that Government gets involved in that doesn't turn to crap.

Except it wasn't working fine. Were you at all paying attention to what was going on in December of 2013?

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: mOjOm

Net Neutrality is just another opportunity to have Government screw up something that was already working fine. I wish Congress would go through about 90% of the crap the Government has its grimy little hands in and give us our country back. There is NOTHING that Government gets involved in that doesn't turn to crap.

you know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about. Net neutrality is designed to keep the Internet neutral, or how it is right now with no website receiving preferential treatment over another.

The republicans don't want this, they want to allow telecom companies to allow websites that pay more to load faster.

a reply to: JBRiddle

It's one thing to come here and make a claim like you just did. It's another to make that claim and then actually back it up with some kind of evidence for it.

Since we're all so ignorant and you know what's really going on, why don't you tell us??? Or are you simply blowing smoke???