GOP Congressman Introduces Bill To Reinstate Net Neutrality Rules (theverge.com) 120
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) today announced his support for a bill that would institute the basic outlines of the FCC's 2015 Open Internet order, which banned the throttling and blocking of content as well as harmful paid prioritization practices. He is also the first Republican to sign on to the Democrat-led discharge petition, which aims to force a vote on the House floor to roll back the FCC's December decision to repeal net neutrality. The Verge reports: The 21st Century Internet Act aims to restructure the current framework by which the internet has been governed since the '90s. Coffman's bill moves past this argument by amending the 1934 Telecommunications Act and adding the new Title VIII. This new classification would "permanently codify into law the 'four corners' of net neutrality" by banning providers from controlling traffic quality and speed and forbidding them from participating in paid prioritization programs or charging access fees from edge providers.
On top of providing stable ground for net neutrality rules to be upheld in the future, the legislation also makes it illegal for providers to participate in "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." It directs the FCC to investigate claims of anticompetitive behavior on behalf of consumers after receiving their complaints. Transparency requirements are heightened for providers as well, as companies must publicly disclose information regarding their network practices to allow consumers to "make informed choices regarding use of such services."
On top of providing stable ground for net neutrality rules to be upheld in the future, the legislation also makes it illegal for providers to participate in "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." It directs the FCC to investigate claims of anticompetitive behavior on behalf of consumers after receiving their complaints. Transparency requirements are heightened for providers as well, as companies must publicly disclose information regarding their network practices to allow consumers to "make informed choices regarding use of such services."
Re:His turn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The GOP has not been on the right side of this issue, but attacking any of them regardless of what they do (right or wrong) is both typical and sad.
Random comments on the Internet are not an attack on this guy. The primary challenge he's going to face for failing to toe the party line is the attack he should watch out for.
Re: (Score:2)
Example, Sen John McCain elected for 34 years (Score:2)
An example would be GOP Senator John McCain. He was elected over and over again for more than 30 years. He 's said some pretty bad things about Trump, and certainly doesn't tow the party line.
There are quite a few Republicans whose views and understanding of the issues go well beyond the "us vs them" you get from Bill Maher and many liberal figures.
Re: (Score:2)
An example would be GOP Senator John McCain. He was elected over and over again for more than 30 years. He 's said some pretty bad things about Trump, and certainly doesn't tow the party line.
There are quite a few Republicans whose views and understanding of the issues go well beyond the "us vs them" you get from Bill Maher and many liberal figures.
John McCain is one; Lindsay Graham is another. What I think of as common-sense politicians (not that I always think they're right). I respect a politician who will vote in opposition to his party when it makes obvious sense. I don't respect politicians who just follow a partial line and don't use common sense or realize that their party might not always be 100% correct on every issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
it seems hypocritical and counter productive for them to then criticize someone who shares their own views
EVIL. They're all evil, all of them. They eat babies, rape women (or men, Equal Opportunities you know), kick dogs, and step on ants. They hate their neighbors -- they're not even HUMAN. They should all be destroyed.
Pick a side, that's the rhetoric being applied to (one of) the OTHER side. If they're not human it's easy to ignore them and dismiss the bastards. FAR be it to imagine that they're actually thinking people with concerns and a different point of view. The world is black and white; it's
Fool me once (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, I'd like to make the point that while the Democratic Party has a wing that refuses corporate PAC money [justicedemocrats.com] forget a wing, I don't know of a single GOP politician who does.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but actions speak louder than words. The Republican party have done a lot of bad to me and mine. They're currently working on eliminating the protections for pre-existing conditions for Obamacare and argue that we should end Social Security & Medicare for people under 55 (they're careful not to piss off their base of older voters until it's too late). Their tax cut is causing out of control inflation and interest rate hikes. They just repealed Dodd-Frank (albeit with the help of several right wing Democrats). They cut funding to my kid's schools. They tried to take away my Type-I diabetic buddies insulin for christ's sake (seriously, I'm not even exaggerating here, the ACA and Obama made them back down when he threatened to pull Medicare for the old folks in my red state). I can go on and on.
When I see real, positive actions from them I'll give credit where it's due. But after 40 years of policy that has a demonstratively negative impact on my life you'll forgive me if I'm just a wee bit distrustful.
Hey look (Score:2)
This is what should have been done in the first place.
Re:Hey look (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. All the hissy fits from people the last two years has been annoying. Here's a tip, rather than pass executive orders left and right and try to govern like a fucking monarchy, try following the system and pass some fucking laws properly for a change.
Re: (Score:1)
Because it wasn't possible until events of the last few days made a lot of GOP legislators anxious to distance themselves from Trump.
Re: Hey look (Score:1)
Or maybe it took some time to write a thoughtful and thorough law that incoprorated some sort of market analysis and theory of governance. Having watched a crappy healthcare law get slapped togethet and negotiated language and provisions as the roll call went down the list, I much prefer this. Rule of law is way bettet than rule by decree.
Re: (Score:3)
And it just happened to get done right as GOP representatives became anxious to distance themselves from Trump?
Don't get me wrong, I think the bill is a good thing. I'm just answering the question "why wasn't this done in the first place?".
As for the ACA, you do realize it was implemented legislatively, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
yep, let the congress pass the laws, the president enforce them and the courts do there level best to interpret them to mean what they meant at the time they were passed. If someone doesn't like the way things are 'rinse and repeat'. We seriously need to start finding ways to take the president to task for not enforcing the laws ( like ignoring immigration law -Obama ) or ( ignoring health car laws - Trump) , we seriously need to take the judiciary to task for 'finding' new 'rights' in the law that the p
Re: (Score:2)
The President executes the law. That's a lot more than simple enforcement.
As for immigration law, the provisions give the power to take action against an offense. They don't give the mandate. That gives the executive flexibility: we can put you in prison, fine you, or whatnot, but we might put you on probation. In the case of immigration, the executive can choose to monitor: so long as you don't cause too much trouble, we take normal action to keep the situation stable, and make sure you pay taxes.
Re: Hey look (Score:2)
Correct and until they do one can expect the excessive ambiguity to be abused by the executive
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that this is how things should happen, but what executive orders are you talking about in this context? To my knowledge, there haven't been any. It's just been the FCC overturning its own orders, which it is doing via the authority granted it by Congress in the Telecommunications Act and subsequent amendments to the Act.
Codifying important matters like these into law is certainly the way that things should work if we want them to have any permanence, but broadly speaking, it's not a bad thing for Co
Re: Hey look (Score:5, Insightful)
Never forget that elections have consequences, and the consequences of the Democratic ramming through of the ACA was handing the speaker's gavel to the GOP and a whole bunch of Tea Party douches being given an outsized influence over budget bills and "social issues" that the government shouldn't be within 200 miles of. The consequences of the administration attempting to usurp power from a gridlocked Congress by way of signing statements and executive orders / memos is the Senate and the White House being given to the GOP. And now we end up with a steaming heap of douche at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mitch McConnell may be an obstructionist jackass, but don't forget the obstructionism of Harry Reid - NEITHER of these guys would work with the other to craft legislation the country needed, in favor of pounding each other through sound bites on cable news and horse shit headlines on Drudge and The Huffington Post. They are / were both more concerned with holding on to a majority and squeaking in unpopular riders onto first-class legislation in order to advance a massively partisan agenda, or be a poison pill to block the other party from getting a win at all costs.
Remember the 1980s when we had a "reactionary GOP president" (who looks more and more like a moderate Democrat each day in comparison to today's GOP), and a DNC-controlled House, but shit still got done? That's because the cameras turned off and they could sit down and talk, and work out compromises that moved the country forward. Today everyone is so afraid that if they try to compromise even a little, it turns into a hashtag internet meme that a primary challenger will beat them to death with from their own party's flank, and the seat goes to some even-more-extreme shithead who thinks running for Congress (and taking fat checks from monies special interests) is a good gig, not because they actually have any good ideas or burning desire to make a difference.
Moderates are an endangered species on Capitol Hill, and they are the most effective legislators. I might be a bit cynical though.
Re: (Score:2)
We give the executive powers because he's fast. The Congress has all the power and passes it through law to the executive; the Congress actually can't execute, and so leaves some details open to the executive so as to tweak the implementation.
Down the line, the Congress can make more-specific instruction about how the executive may execute the powers of Congress.
I never heard of this guy (Score:2)
I'll believe he's sincere when there's a vote (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A vote, on the floor, by the entire House - that actually passes. Until then, this is nothing more to the Net Neutrality cause than fruitless posturing.
You are conflating the sincerity of an individual with the inertia of a legislative body. This individual Rep and others no doubt will look at this and sincerely believe it is the right thing to do. The challenge will be if enough them do that overcome the inertia of the status quo.
Besides this is already more than Democrats have done to try to fix immigration.
Re: (Score:2)
You and I both know there's no point in a democrat proposing immigration legislation until the dems have majority and a democrat president
You show the American people what is to be done and why it is not being done.
Re: (Score:2)
Posturing... to a party that's against net neutrality?
Do... does your brain activate your logical hemisphere before you post? Or does it just spew whatever random neurons fire off into key presses?
EVIL GOP (Score:2)
How dare they!!!
Not like they have a choice (Score:2)
WA, OR, and CA have already reinstated Net Neutrality, and we're half of the US GDP.
Re: (Score:2)
WA, OR, and CA... [are] half of the US GDP.
That's a negatory, [businessinsider.com] Ghostrider. [bea.gov]
Re: Not like they have a choice (Score:2)
That's adorable that Oregon thinks they matter because they are sandwiched between California and Seattle.
I grew up in Oregon and lived in Portland for 15 years. Oregon doesn't matter nearly as much as you think on a national stage.
Back to the net (Score:3)
Now with more federal paper work.
With some extra big federal rules.
No new network innovation for you.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The small guys haven't been able to compete in the ISP market since the 90's, back when we were all on dial-up and "the phone lines" didn't have to be provided by the same company as "the Internet service".
Ever since the advent of broadband, this separation has not usefully existed. We now have to get our service from the same companies that run wires to our houses, which tend to be gov't regulated/mandated monopolies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In 1992, when I first got on the Internet, I accessed it via a dial up modem which got it's feed over a Pacific Bell owned wire. There were, to my knowledge, ZERO alternatives.
Later in the 1990s I began to receive my Internet through a microwave connection offered by Sprint. At that time the cable companies probably had an offering somewhere, someway, but I did not have access.
Eventually I went to a DSL connection which utilized wires then owned by AT&T.
Today, I can get Internet via a satellite dish,
Re:The GOP always stands against the people. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Careful of that "broadband" term, it's widely misused.
That said, were those dozens of options distinct, or were a bunch of them channels for others?
Re: The GOP always stands against the people. (Score:3, Informative)
Your own argument is self defeating. The Satellite company (DirecTV) is owned by At&t, as is the DSL and cell services you mention. That's half of your options under one company. Plus, where I live (60 miles from DC) there is no fiber option, and satellite is too inconsistent + doesn't support VPN connections, DSL is too slow to be true Broadband, and cell services have data caps to make it not useful for home use. Guess what, in reality I only have 1 option, Comcast Cable, to get actually Broadband in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And that has what to do with them favoring Netflix over YouTube or some new guy?
Re: The GOP always stands against the people. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What net neutrality does though is stop Comcast from favoring its own services versus the services you actually want to use.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Net Neutrality laws are not supposed to give him more choice in ISPs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have very few options if I want broadband. So dialup and basic DSL are out. I have basically two choices - cable internet, AT&T u-verse internet. Satellite internet isn't very good, I don't know about any good or affordable cellular internet that I can get, certainly you can't get any Google fiber within 50 miles of Google's headquarters.
Re: The GOP always stands against the people. (Score:3)
Everyone doesn't live in the Bay Area.
There are places where the only viable option is the cable company, and the cable company knows it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you can't. There are developed, populated areas that only have one possible broadband provider or 4G. Nothing else.
Amazing. Every single word of what you wrote is provably wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
No, there are large portions of the country, including in big cities like Houston, Dallas, that don't have any choice of provider.
https://arstechnica.com/inform... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Lucky you, I live in a non rural areas and I can get decent internet from cable (starting at $60/mo for 25/5).
I can get 25/? Satalite for $100
That's it for any reasonable definition of broadband
There also "up to 7mbps" DSL for $40/mo
Depending on the tree situation, some people in my area of the city can get 75/75 LoS wirekess for $55/mo
If you go to the burbs, there's about 1/5th covered by FiOS with better prices than the cable (and better prices for cable in that 1/5th
I suppose for $200/mo o could get cell
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to have missed the parent poster's point entirely.
While you only had access to one provider for your physical phone line, you almost certainly had access to many providers for internet access (local ISPs, Prodigy, AOL, etc).
In the early 90s (and before) I lived in tiny town in Northern California (6k people, 20+ miles to the closest real city) and had Pac Bell as well. However within my "local" calling distance I could reach several small ISPs and all of the major national ones.
Pac Bell only got p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
NN isn't about protecting other ISPs, it's a recognition of the fact that multiple runs of wire are not going to provide the most efficient solution, and therefore the industry needs regulation (similar to how utilities work).
It's to protect the consumer, since it's not practical to have competition.
Re: The GOP always stands against the people. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, wait; I know: because it's fucking retarded.
Re: (Score:1)
Trollololololol.
3/10 made me comment.
Now go back to http://boards.4chan.org/b/ [4chan.org] and STAY THERE.
Re:The GOP always stands against the people. (Score:5, Insightful)
Following some ground rules for being fair to your customers is probably far easier compared to competing with incumbent big name ISPs. Besides, I bet small ISPs don't do enough business to make screwing over customers a valid business strategy. I fail to see how it'd be overly demanding of a small company to expect them to provide their advertised speed and service quality, to not demand they pay extra to use certain websites, etc.
No, I think the companies that stand to lose the most are big ISPs. Perhaps they should have dealt more honestly [huffingtonpost.com] with the American people and we wouldn't need to legislate them into behaving.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The GOP always stands against the people. (Score:4, Insightful)
Back when DSL was the main option for those without cable, there were lots of DSL providers all sharing the same physical copper lines. It would be great if congress would declare that cable company cables were common carriers so we could get some real competition again
Re: (Score:1)
Been going on for a long time in lots of industries, cf. the 1948 Tucker.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Small ISPs (are there any now) don't even have the budget for the hardware required to violate net neutrality.
Re: (Score:1)
"... we spent six figures in lawyer fees ..."
You actually spent a lot more than that marketing and lobbying your lies.
Re: (Score:2)
NN makes it harder for the small guys to compete since it adds so many rules and laws that ISPs must follow.
As with most laws, Acts, etc etc from Congress, the devil is in the details including but not limited to the implementation & enforcement.
I'll reserve judgement on it until I have more detailed information. On the surface it sounds good. I don't want shady shit going on by/with backbone providers/ISPs or Netflix, Amazon, etc etc any more than anyone else does.
Even if this bill is not what it touts and gets tossed, at least this is the proper way to go about putting these kinds of rules in place...by Con
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Right ... like that law about how everyone should have a right to vote. ...
Oh, and don't forget all those laws about making sure people get fed so they don't starve on tax money
and those horrible laws that stop 'the little guy' from selling tainted meat and medicine that poisons people.
I got you, every law is against the little guy, he never gets a fair shake , we need to go out and pull down those ivory towers comrade.
Just remember what happens to the horse in the end of animal farm.
https://simple.wikiped [wikipedia.org]
Re: The GOP always stands against the people. (Score:2)
Interesting theory. How do you define right? Legal rights come from the law. If other rights exist independent of the law how do we know what they are and everest do they come from?;
Re: (Score:1)
How much do they pay you, anonymous POS, to repeat the same lie again and again ?