US Senator vows to introduce legislation restoring net neutrality

[The Buzz]

The Federal Communications Commission is once again defending its decision to repeal net neutrality rules put in place by the Obama administration.

In December 2017, the FCC voted 3-2 to reclassify broadband as an “information” service and revoke the prohibitions on blocking, throttling and paid prioritization. When the FCC voted to revoke the rules, it also voted to prohibit states from passing or enforcing their own net neutrality laws.

Last year, the Senate voted 52-47 to restore the Obama-era rules. But the resolution failed to gain traction in the House, which was then controlled by Republicans.

Late last week a Senate Democrat vowed to introduce legislation restoring the net neutrality rules.

From MediaPost.com

“We will soon lay down a legislative marker in the Senate in support of net neutrality to show the American people that we are on their side in ... supporting a free and open internet,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) stated.

His comments came the same day that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments about the legality of the Federal Communications Commission's decision to repeal the Obama-era net neutrality rules.

Those regulations classified broadband access as a utility service and imposed some common carrier rules -- including prohibitions on blocking or throttling traffic, and on charging higher fees for prioritized delivery.

Markey, who has long advocated for open internet rules, said Friday that the FCC “ignored” the Communications Act and Congress's intent when it repealed the rules. “They are on the wrong side of history, and I believe the court will find in our favor,” he stated.

Read more here: https://www.mediapost.com/publicatio...lity-bill.html

[allfreechips]

Wow they just need to have their hands on everything

[Cash Bonus]

This would be good in the favour of our industry. Way too many restrictions put in place against online gambling.

[allfreechips]

No, this is more restrictions and government control, not good at all.

[econfox]

When looking at US legislation. You always have to remember that a lot of what is said has to do with campaign contributions. One of the biggest campaign contributors is Indian Gaming and they need federal legislation to expand. The corporate gaming is usually on the other side of issues than the Indian tribes. Unfortunately, congress likes to play one side against the other to keep the contributions rolling in.

[sweetbet]

When looking at US legislation. You always have to remember that a lot of what is said has to do with campaign contributions.

That explains it. It's not because this is what the lawmakers think is best for the people, but it's always about who paid who how much money to do what.

[Integrity]

No, this is more restrictions and government control, not good at all.

Actually, I am very much IN FAVOR of the restoration of the Net Neutrality rules. It seem like governmental controls... and it might be, in a sense... but it's control of CORPORATIONS... not people. Think of Net Neutrality as the Bill of Rights for the Internet.

I am not one to self promote on here, but my player focused videos deal extensively with this topic and are a good crash course:

[Integrity]

[Integrity]

[Integrity]

[allfreechips]

People act like the internet was un usable before net neutrality lol, its simply a power grab by the gov.. what internet provider is going to force its customers away, and with speeds increasing yearly why would any of them throttle

More government is BAD, I cant think of any situation where it was ever good other than running the Military

[universal4]

There can be some problems with net neutrality, although I am in favor of some portions of it.

Possible problem, why should internet traffic priority go to Joe Public watching a movie at 8:30 pm (providing Netflix higher bandwith) and less priority given to Fred public viewing a website, or the servers serving the websites others are viewing (slowing their connections down since Netflix takes priority).

Rick
Universal4

[allfreechips]

I guess my faith in internet traffic is better than most, I don't think bandwidth is an issue anymore. And if a company if found to throttle things they dont like people will drop them, capitalism works

[universal4]

ISP's can and DO throttle bandwith, and the net neutrality rules allow them more freedom to do so with less repercussions.

Netflix is mentioned in almost all discussions of such, since they stand to benefit the most.

It will be interesting to see how Century Link handles it and what they may do different moving forward, since they acquired Level 3 at the end of 2017.

This created a much different landscape since Century Link has so much more marketshare in the consumer space, which was not the focus of Level 3 previously.

Rick
Universal4

[Integrity]

...its simply a power grab by the gov....

How is passing a law to force corporations to treat all data the same(whether yours or Googles) a power grab by the government?

...what internet provider is going to force its customers away, and with speeds increasing yearly why would any of them throttle...

Why would a cable company create tiers of service at different prices for television?
Why would they force their customers away by restricting available channels unless customers pay more?
Why would a wireless service restrict customers data based on how paid per month?

The very fact that companies like Verizon provide cable, phone and Internet should give you some pause. Do you actually believe a company is happy making less money when they can find ways to further monetize their services? Do you think that a company that has structured it's other services into more profitable tiers would not do the exact same thing with Internet once given the opportunity?

More government is BAD, I cant think of any situation where it was ever good other than running the Military

Not all government is bad. The Bill of Rights is government. So are laws that prevent people from driving 100 in your neighborhood. Government involvement makes travel safer and inspects our food. It may not perfect, but consider the alternatives.

You want the airlines inspecting their own planes to "insure" safety? You want to take restaurants at their word that the food is what they say it is and cooked in a clean environment? Cross our fingers that the gas stations liter is really a liter? Trust casinos to set a fair payout rate and that their games are fair?

How would you feel about a more government if they formed an agency that protected affiliates the same way the gaming commissions protect players? So why do ISP's get a pass when they have already been caught slowing peoples service down and lying about it?

If ISP's would never "force customers away" by slowing speeds, selecting which websites to prioritize and creating tiers of broadband, then why are they all fighting so hard to KILL the rules preventing it? So they can lower your rates? Does this not raise any red flags?

The head of the FCC was a lawyer for Verizon. He lied about the lack of support for Net Neutrality. He lied about the cyber attack which prevented public support from being considered. The promises he made about investment in broadband by ISP's were not true. And to top it all off, ISP's have selectively slowed people's Internet speeds in the past, and they continue to do so today.

These facts have all been heavily reported by respected news agencies and they easy to research and verify with minimal effort. I'm not here to debate what's already been documented, so look it up and make your own choices at your won peril. Feel free to trust Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and the bunch... I'm certain they only have your best interests at heart... lmao

ISP's can and DO throttle bandwith, and the net neutrality rules allow them more freedom to do so with less repercussions.

Actually, my friend, it's the opposite: Net Neutrality rules allow them LESS freedom to do so with MORE repercussions.

Netflix is mentioned in almost all discussions of such, since they stand to benefit the most.

It's true that Netflix is mentioned and has a lot to gain... and a lot to lose. ISP's have deliberately slowed Netflix traffic, and the concern is that ISP's will have the ability to make deals to favor the highest bidders in these situations. So if you prefer Netflix, but another service pays more to an ISP, you may not be able to stream Netflix as well as the service that paid to play.

Also, what if an ISP purchases a streaming service and gives it preferential treatment (think Google placing Google Maps and YouTube on top of every search)?

In close, I really do not have the time or energy to debate this further. It's very clear what's at stake so choose your side at your peril. If Net Neutrality remains dead then I don't think I will have to defend my statements 2 or 3 years from now.

[universal4]

An ISP and media company (CenturyLink) did make another purchase Level 3 so now one of the large media companies that is also one of the larger Internet providers to the consumer market also not owns much more copper/fiber in the ground (and under the ocean), giving them more control and power over companies and their datacenters such as Netflix and other similar service providers.

In fact Level connections to data centers have recently gone through a complete pricing overhaul, and the pricing trend was not downward. My guess is they did so since they feel confident they will get back to the feeling they can do what they want.

This in itself is less of a net neutrality issue, and more of a larger deeper issue, that maybe the anti-trust issues with the sale back in 2017 should have been looked at much more closely.

As I said before, there are some portions of net neutrality that made sense, but the government (as always) messed it up.

Rick
Universal4

[Muppet]

Net neutrality should be sacrosanct. A free and open internet is one of the huge drivers that have allowed it to grow into what it is today. But as usual everyone wants control and a finger in the pie so they can make more money off the lazy and/or ignorant. I don't want this to go down as no doubt the "all the way with the USA" idiots in charge of my country will probably follow suit in a few years.

Consider this feasible scenario that should concern affiliate webmasters: without net neutrality your competitor starts paying ISPs to prioritise their sites load speeds over yours. Yeah great, "capitalism works" ... for whoever has the most money.

In close, I really do not have the time or energy to debate this further. It's very clear what's at stake so choose your side at your peril. If Net Neutrality remains dead then I don't think I will have to defend my statements 2 or 3 years from now.

You are absolutely right but I would offer two things:

1. Most people don't even understand the issue, as evidenced by comments in this thread. Ajit Pai is a puppet put in place to force this through while making sure most people don't even realise what is at stake.

2. There is no use arguing with ideologues. It's like trying to point out flaws in religion or whichever political party the rusted-on die-hards support like a football team.

[Integrity]

Well said, Muppet. If you view any of the videos I posted you will see that I am well aware of who Ajit Pai is and why he was appointed. He has also forced out all opposition to his viewpoint at the FCC over the past year. He's a real piece of work for sure.

...CenturyLink did make another purchase Level 3 so now one of the large media companies that is also one of the larger Internet providers to the consumer market also not owns much more copper/fiber in the ground (and under the ocean), giving them more control and power over companies...4

This could be both an antitrust issue and a Net Neutrality issue. We know this move is to gain more influence and control over the market, and that will equate to more profits in the long run. It would become an antitrust issue if such a gain allows them exercise too much power and influence over the market... and Net Neutrality rules would make it unlawful to use that power to their advantage even if they had it. A good one, two punch Plus, antitrust laws are another great example of "good government" to protect citizens/consumers.

One thing I know for an absolute certainty is that no matter the arguments here... no matter the debates, the blogs, the articles or the videos... we matter very little in this fight. This issue will be played out by the big boys without much input from the public. So while I am passionate about it, I also understand this is like a roller coaster ride and we're all strapped it... and it's gonna run it's course no matter what we want or how loudly we scream.

[universal4]

I do think it is both an antitrust issue and a Net Neutrality issue.

If it creates more competition in the space, and smaller cable companies, small and mid tier satellite companies can once again compete and help keep pricing lower in both the consumer space as well as the isp's servicing the data centers not owned by the Netflix, AWS and Microsoft's of the data space, then it will be a good thing, but I am skeptical it will be structured properly, and Comcast, Century Link and larger providers will be able to squeeze their customers even more which may reflect much higher pricing for the same service levels we have today.

Rick
Universal4

[allfreechips]

Government involvement = more cost, more issues and lower satisfaction.. just look at Obamacare..

is internet access terrible now and last 10 years without the government involved???