Net neutrality is the principle that governments should mandate Internet service providers to treat all data on the Internet the same, and not have the ability to run their businesses as they choose or charge differently by the type of application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content even though they may slow down usage for other customers on the same service.
Chicago Tribune
Sept 2, 2019
The phrase was opaque but vaguely appealing. Why would anyone want to repeal something called “net neutrality”? Neutral is inoffensive, right? So when the Federal Communications Commission debated whether to ditch the policy, many Americans joined in the energetic protests.
(more…)Dems introducing new legislation this week. Well, that’s redundant and you knew that but this time it has to do with telling Internet companies what to do.
The House Energy & Commerce Committee has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, March 12, on net neutrality legislation.
Democrats plan to introduce legislation this week, the Save the Internet Act, whose title suggests it might not be the bipartisan middle ground that will be necessary to pass both, currently divided, Houses of Congress.
The description of the bill as “reversing the disastrous repeal by Trump’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in late 2017 of the critical net neutrality protections” further suggests it will not be welcomed by the other side with open arms. (more…)
Net Neutrality is such a joke. The Internet, E-Commerce, and providing bandwidth to the masses does fine until liberal bureaucrats step in to “fix it”. Consumers right now get more bandwidth at record low rates. Now, they’re even seeing free services and playing daily on platforms that are absolutely FREE. Liberals in California is now trying to put a stop to it in the name of fairness to all…but they miss the mark again.
California Democrats have drafted a bill to bar Internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon from playing favorites with online content. Mirroring the 2015 net neutrality rule enacted under President Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC), SB 822 was introduced in January, passed through three committees on strict party line votes with the unanimous support of Democrats, and was approved by the State Senate on May 30 on a 23-12 vote with all aye votes coming from Democrats and all nays from Republicans.
The bill’s author, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said, “States are still relevant. California has the right under its police powers to protect the health and safety of the public…” It’s hard to imagine, however, how continuing to allow AT&T the right to negotiate streaming content speeds with Netflix has any bearing at all on the “health and safety” of Californians.
Rather than interfere in the ability of private companies to negotiate contracts between themselves as they compete for customers in a heretofore lightly regulated industry—the Internet—California ought to follow the lead of Ajit Pai’s FCC and just leave the Internet alone.
As is typical for California, big labor unions and nonprofits that push for heavy government regulation under the guise of consumer protection are urging the bill’s passage. Google and Netflix are conspicuously absent from the list of the measure’s supporters, having confidence that their market share and loyal customer base would give them leverage in contract negotiations with the ISPs. Google, Netflix and other big tech firms were also absent during last year’s FCC deliberations that repealed net neutrality.
Arguing against the bill, the California Cable and Telecommunications Association, an ISP trade group, notes, “…state level policies regulating the Internet are pre-empted by federal regulations and are inappropriate for an inherently interstate service. It would most likely result in unnecessary and costly litigation.”
The Internet developed largely unhindered by federal or state regulations through the advent of net neutrality in 2015, providing increasing speeds and lower costs per bit of information transmitted. In this context, it is not surprising to see that the California State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has registered its concern that the bill’s provisions restricting interconnection and zero-rating agreements might result in “Ending free Internet data” which would disproportionately harm “younger, low-income, and minority Californians who are more dependent on their mobile devices to access the Internet.”
Sen. Wiener, supporters of his measure, and some analysts dismiss the idea that the bill might be successfully challenged in court under the basis that it violates the federal Constitution by interfering with interstate commerce. Instead, they cite the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this month, Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., that restored states’ powers under the Tenth Amendment by allowing them to legalize gambling on sports—other California legislators are looking into legalizing sports wagering—bolstering tax revenue would be the main interest of such a move.
However, proponents of regulating the Internet in California might want to take another look at the Supreme Court’s Murphy ruling that overturned the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). Rather than authorizing the states to regulate a vast industry, Murphy cited the federal anticommandeering rule that “Congress may not simply ‘commandeer the legislative process of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.’” Elaborating, the 7-2 majority high court majority noted, “Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures…”
Read more on Forbes.com.
States attempting to preserve net neutrality regulations will soon see challenges in court, according to a blog post from the leading lobbying firm for the telecom industry.
USTelecom, which represents major broadband providers, says it will fight current state-level net neutrality rules and any more that may come in the future.
The post, published Monday, is a response to states that have acted individually to govern internet traffic in a way similar to the Obama administration’s net neutrality rules, which the Trump administration rolled back recently. Five governors have issued executive orders that leverage the purchasing power of their states to force companies to adhere to net neutrality principles, and Washington and Oregon have passed laws explicitly establishing net neutrality as the status quo.
More than half of U.S. states are considering similar legislation. The Obama-era rules prevented internet service providers from giving priority access to particular content or services over any other. The Federal Communications Commission voted in December, however, to dismantle them.
Any effort to regulate should come from the top down, USTelecom said.
“We will aggressively challenge state or municipal attempts to fracture the federal regulatory structure that made all this progress possible,” the blog post says, referring to the “ever more sophisticated, faster and higher-capacity networks” installed across the U.S. as the progress that broadband providers have made over the last 20 years.
USTelecom counts AT&T, Oracle, Verizon and CenturyLink representatives on its board of directors and supports the interests of everything from the “nation’s largest telecom companies to small rural cooperatives.”
The post, authored by USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter, states the intention of broadband providers is to “uphold net neutrality protections for all” — but not through individual laws and orders at the state level.
“Protections should be no different for consumers in Minnesota or Iowa than they are in California or Florida. Equally true, consumers deserve consistent safeguards across the online world, whether engaging with Facebook, Google, AT&T or Comcast,” Spalter writes.
USTelecom and the companies it represents have played a large role the last three years in lobbying against the Obama-era rules.
When asked by StateScoop for additional clarification on the group’s position, a USTelecom spokesperson said the blog post is self-explanatory — when states act in contradiction to the FCC’s reversal on net neutrality, USTelecom will look for “legal opportunities.” The spokesperson said the group doesn’t yet have a specific legal strategy.
Read the rest: statescoop.com