Republican Mike Coffman joins push to restore net neutrality
Colorado Representative Mike Coffman on Tuesday became the first Republican to demonstrate support for U.S. House efforts to force a vote on net neutrality protections, undone earlier this year by a 3-2 vote at the Federal Communications Commission.
Coffman has also introduced a bill that would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require net neutrality. So far, the petition to force a vote has only had the support of 176 Democrats, Reuters noted -- a problem given that the House has 435 members in all. A majority must sign for the vote to take place.
The Coffman bill would ban measures like throttling, blocking, and paid prioritization by internet service providers, but if passed would also block the FCC from setting service rates. At present, it is not clear if the bill as it stands will even make it to a vote.
During the Obama administration, a 2015 order placed ISPs under Title II regulations treating them as utilities, enshrining net neutrality. In December however the FCC under Republican chairman Ajit Pai voted to overturn net neutrality, which officially expired on June 11.
Pai has largely dismissed fears that his campaign could lead to things like tiered website access and an uphill battle for startups. He has also downplayed accusations that many of the 22 million public comments submitted to the FCC were submitted multiple times, and/or that millions of them were faked.
An undercurrent of resistance has existed within the U.S. government. On May 16 the Senate voted 52 to 47 to reverse the FCC's decision, and a collection of 22 states has sued the FCC. The cause is also believed to have broad public support, but opposition from major ISPs like Verizon.
AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon have vowed not to engage in unfair discrimination, but the companies are no longer legally bound to do so.
Apple has been a vocal backer of net neutrality. Throttling, blocking, or prioritization could potentially interfere with services like Apple Music and iTunes, and the company depends on smooth internet in general to make its hardware appealing.
Coffman has also introduced a bill that would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require net neutrality. So far, the petition to force a vote has only had the support of 176 Democrats, Reuters noted -- a problem given that the House has 435 members in all. A majority must sign for the vote to take place.
The Coffman bill would ban measures like throttling, blocking, and paid prioritization by internet service providers, but if passed would also block the FCC from setting service rates. At present, it is not clear if the bill as it stands will even make it to a vote.
During the Obama administration, a 2015 order placed ISPs under Title II regulations treating them as utilities, enshrining net neutrality. In December however the FCC under Republican chairman Ajit Pai voted to overturn net neutrality, which officially expired on June 11.
Pai has largely dismissed fears that his campaign could lead to things like tiered website access and an uphill battle for startups. He has also downplayed accusations that many of the 22 million public comments submitted to the FCC were submitted multiple times, and/or that millions of them were faked.
An undercurrent of resistance has existed within the U.S. government. On May 16 the Senate voted 52 to 47 to reverse the FCC's decision, and a collection of 22 states has sued the FCC. The cause is also believed to have broad public support, but opposition from major ISPs like Verizon.
AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon have vowed not to engage in unfair discrimination, but the companies are no longer legally bound to do so.
Apple has been a vocal backer of net neutrality. Throttling, blocking, or prioritization could potentially interfere with services like Apple Music and iTunes, and the company depends on smooth internet in general to make its hardware appealing.
Final Text Coffman Net Neutrality Bill by Mike Wuerthele on Scribd
Comments
People at tech companies like Apple certainly aren't dumb -- you can't say they don't understand the technology issues in play (which you could say about politicians or others from outside of tech).
And while the people at the telecom companies understand the technical issues, they clearly have a massive conflict of interest here, making their input almost useless.
I'm not suggesting that people at Apple, Netflix, etc are more virtuous. But in this case, their interests are better aligned with consumers than the interests of the telecoms are.
So.... I'm happy to hear that there's now a hint of bipartisan support for net neutrality.
Societies that exist for human benefit always require a balance between public and private interests. There will always be essential services that aren't in the best financial interests of private for-profit organizations to deliver across the broader society. That's where the public sector has to step up and fill the gaps and do things that don't make financial sense for the private sector. Broadband internet service is now a utility service that must be available for all members of society.
This is a job for the legislature, not the executive or judicial branches.
Good to hear, though.
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00024753&cycle=2018&type=C
I can remember when a certain fruit company tried to set up its own, special internet for its customers called eWorld, a kind of walled garden if you will. It failed. Anyone trying to quarantine the intertube pipes for exclusive services including performance would have just as much trouble. Some sociopathic MBA weenie might try it on, and in the early days rabbit on about its success etc, but it will ultimately fail.
I can see see there is a risk here, but I can also see that an unencumbered market will be more efficient, cheaper and would likely punish those that tried any funny business pretty quick, and more effectively than a juicy fat government bureaucracy. A bureaucracy run by people who actually know nothing except how to plan the next step in their career path that could be anywhere, completely unrelated to the task at hand. It disturbs me these days how freely people, young people in particular, run to nanny government as a first option to solve all their problems, realised or, as in this case, a future risk.
What should happen as a general rule, is there is no regulation until there is evidence of nefarious activity. Only then do you impose regulation, and then with as light a hand as possible. Even the possible threat of regulation can help what the market will do to them anyway. Regulation always has unintended consequences. I know this because I have been writing and critiquing legislation for 35 years, and part of the art is remembering how important it is to do no harm. Always remember, when focussed on one risk there is always a tendency to forget the risk that the cure is worse than the disease.
The only regulation in this area I think is needed right now is enforcement of existing anti competition provisions that could stop mergers like AT&T and Time Warner. You don’t need new Regs to do that.
Capitalism is really about one group of people buying stuff from another group of people to varying degrees of mutual benefit which changes every day. Corporatism is about using the power of regulation to more permanently rig the buying and selling in your favour.