Internet Freedom Preservation Act would bar Internet traffic discrimination

“A Democratic lawmaker on Wednesday proposed legislation to stop network providers from playing traffic cop on the Internet,” The Associated Press reports.

“Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet, introduced the bill to promote the principle, known as “‘Net neutrality,’ of treating all Internet traffic equally,” AP reports.

“The Internet Freedom Preservation Act, which is co-sponsored by Rep. Chip Pickering, R-Miss., requires the Federal Communications Commission to assess whether broadband providers are ‘blocking, thwarting or unreasonably interfering’ with consumers’ rights to access, send, receive or offer content, applications and services over networks,” AP reports.

“The FCC would also be required to determine whether providers charge extra for certain services and if it’s lawful,” AP reports. “The bill was drafted in response to reports that some companies, including Comcast Corp., are unfairly stifling communications over the Internet.”

Full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Patricia D.” for the heads up.]

We urge careful consideration as legislation often produces unintended consequences.


  1. Agreed about legislation. However, another point about legislation is that it is usually brought about after someone abuses the current system. The legislation needed to be brought about only after Comcast and others decided that it was within their rights to play Internet Traffic Cop.

  2. Agree with the MDN take.
    With history as our teacher, this move will likely be a backdoor way for an unregulated communication network to come under someone’s control – government, industry, both.

    Be careful. You might get what you wish for.

  3. I am now Comcast Free!!!

    I wanted to drop my lousy Comcast cable TV service (42 shopping channels, 23 religious channels, and a collection of backwater UHF channels) and get Dish Network. Comcast said I could do that but my internet connection speed would be cut in half and cost an extra $10 per month. I told them “never mind until I find a total replacement for all of your services.” I then ran a test on my supposedly 7 Mbps Comcast broadband service and it came up 700 Kbps.

    I switched to Dish Network and got Verizon DSL (at a true 3Mbps). My cost is now $7 more per month than with Comcast, but my broadband is WAY faster and I have 100 extra channels of TV. Suck it, Comcast!!!!

  4. Hmm… government control, tiered internet. Sounds like some ‘socialist’ idea Canada would have interfered with, not the U.S. Between prosecuting people with illegal mp3s on their laptops and discriminating bandwidth, I feel safer watching my LOST torrents from a northerly perspective, thank-you-very-much.

  5. Guys, this is Ed Markey. I knew who was introducing it from the title. THis is the idiot who wanted to legislate limited volume on the Iphone. He is just looking for a way to find more government employees to appoint here. nobody likes the idea of tiered internet, but the idea of Ed Markey and Ted Stevens (“the internet is a series of tubes”) appointing people who dictate bandwidth ought to scare you.

  6. The minute they do that, all of the SPAMers will come out suing ISP that “filter” SPAM email messages declaring that they are doing the same thing. That is one of the “unintended consequences” that I can see right of the top of my head…

  7. So long as the SPAM filtering is (a) clearly defined, and (b) a positive opt-in rather than a default for all their users, the ISPs should be in the clear. Anyone can contract for any services they want, even if those services are provided at no cost.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.