“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.
I like how it only points out Comcast. So true XD
I would hate to see internet providers creating a tiered internet, but I am not sure how much I trust our government to keep this from happening.
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.
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.
This is actually an area I would welcome government oversight. Net Neutrality is going to be THE issue for internet business and personal access in the future.
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!!!!
Good idea, but only if the bill has a $2 million rider for funding for the Museum of First Ladies Teapots in Bumfart, Oklahoma.
Ampar – providing an invaluable contribution as ever.
Well if you stick in the word “freedom” or other similar words (like ‘patriot’) Americans are sure to think it’s a good thing.
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.
Thanks, Eddie. I appreciate the positive feedback.
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.
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…
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.
Let’s profit from EVERYTHING! ONLY the “Big Boys” should get full speed connections.
Sounds like a liberal plot to me.
Markey may have taken a bad stance before, but he seems to have learned from his mistake.
Rep. Markey has been a friend of the internet and consumers of the ISP’s for a long time. All politics aside, he has stood for a neutral and universal internet when it was popular and when it wasn’t.
A certain post above derided him with unfounded spin similar to the made up claim about the Internet attributed to Al Gore. It’s called disinformation.
Charge for GB throughput and the bandwidth hogs will discover that ‘free’ movies and music aren’t free after all. The “all you can eat” for one price approach is not appropriate for all services. In the case of the internet, a minority of users consume a majority of the bandwidth and the rest of us subsidize their mega-net-meals.
This subject reminds me of the story last year about the woman who received a 300-page iPhone bill because each of her 30,000 or so (forgot the exact number) text messages was itemized. So, for example, when you have contracts for 200, 500 and unlimited text messages, the unlimited plan may result in 1500 times the usage of the low end plan for the three-sigma consumer. Why should we facilitate and subsidize that type of behavior?
@ One Of The Good Guys,
But without AlGore there would BE no Internet.
Sigh. This “government can do no right” attitude promulgated by the right chooses to ignore facts like the performance of the carriers over the last decade when they promised to extend the internet to give high speed access to nearly all – rural included – in exchange for DEregulation and being allowed to INcrease rates and tariffs charged. Now, after 10 years, we are an order of magnitude * behind* Japan, a factor of 8 *behind* Korea, a factor of 4 *behind* France and most of the EU in both access and bandwidth.
Of course, if the powers stack the agencies with political-payback appointees (“Heck of a job, Brownie!”), then yes, the gov can’t succeed at anything becomes a truism. But recognize it for what it is: a deliberate attempt to bring down the structure.
Yeah, but who will deal with COMCAST’s draconian, stupid spam filters? Anyone on comcast should consider finding a better ISP. I can’t email any of them…even after proper requests. Fidiots!
> But without AlGore there would BE no Internet.
Are we still with this one?
a) He was misquoted by the press
b) He did play a part early in the process