Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) announces the "Open Internet Preservation Act"

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
This is horrifying. Putting text in this proposed bill that "prohibits blocking ... and to prohibit impairment or degradation of lawful Internet traffic" but then allow ISPs to create slow lanes and, if websites pay for such access, fast lanes is in fact explicitly allowing blocking and impairment of lawful Internet traffic. Have a competing site to one in your ISP-slash-media conglomerate that's getting a little too popular? Limit it to 200 KB/sec while your competing service (and claim it's costing you an arm and a leg) while your own service runs at full speed. Bye bye competitor.

You'd also slowly but steadily see to the end of Silicon Valley, with startups and full-size companies instead situating themselves in Canada or the EU where they have a chance in hell of competing with big established players.

From Ars Technica:

A Republican lawmaker is proposing a net neutrality law that would ban blocking and throttling, but the bill would allow ISPs to create paid fast lanes and prohibit state governments from enacting their own net neutrality laws. The bill would also prohibit the FCC from imposing any type of common carrier regulations on broadband providers.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) announced the "Open Internet Preservation Act" in a video posted to Twitter.

The bill text is available here. It would amend the Communications Act "to prohibit blocking of lawful content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices, [and] to prohibit impairment or degradation of lawful Internet traffic."

Unlike the net neutrality rules repealed by Pai's FCC last week, the bill would not prohibit ISPs from charging websites or online services for prioritization.

Blackburn's bill would define broadband Internet access as an "information service," preventing the FCC from ever regulating home and mobile Internet providers as common carriers. This prohibition would prevent the reinstatement of numerous consumer protections besides the net neutrality rules.

State governments would also be limited in their ability to regulate, as Blackburn's bill would preempt states from imposing "any law, rule, regulation, duty, requirement, standard, or other provision" related to net neutrality.

Blackburn's bill would let the FCC enforce the no-blocking and no-throttling rules, but it would forbid the commission from adding any new requirements to the rules. The FCC would be required to adopt formal complaint procedures to address alleged violations.

...

Blackburn's embrace of no-blocking and no-throttling rules is a change from 2015 when she authored the "Internet Freedom Act," a failed proposal that would have wiped out net neutrality rules entirely.​
 
Last edited:

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
How in the hell do you prevent throttling but then allow fast lanes? Are the 'fast lanes' faster than your purchased speed from the ISP?

In other words, if I have 100Mbps down, are the paid fast lanes faster than 100Mbps down? Otherwise, if they slow down anything, it's throttling.

Maybe she doesn't realize that 'slow lanes' are 'throttled lanes'?
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Geez guys, it says open internet right in the title, how can anyone oppose this?

How can anyone oppose the restore Internet FREEDOM act from the FCC then? I mean come on...put your patriotic underwear one and get with the times.....
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
How in the hell do you prevent throttling but then allow fast lanes? Are the 'fast lanes' faster than your purchased speed from the ISP?

In other words, if I have 100Mbps down, are the paid fast lanes faster than 100Mbps down? Otherwise, if they slow down anything, it's throttling.

Maybe she doesn't realize that 'slow lanes' are 'throttled lanes'?

She realizes she's fucking up the internet, she's one of the biggest prostitutes for the telecom industry, look it up.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
How can anyone oppose the restore Internet FREEDOM act from the FCC then? I mean come on...put your patriotic underwear one and get with the times.....

The Republicans appear really really anxious to ruin the internet. Net Neutrality was horrible enough but possibly reversible. Republicans realizing this, to this route to make it much harder to reverse and challenge.

Nothing enrages me more than when Republicans name a bill the exact opposite of what it actually does. Love the part where they go about stripping the protections your state may be providing.

The Republicans are turning into nothing more than a bunch of sociopathic trolls. Jesus we have to get some Democrats in there to stop these cheese dicks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wirelessenabled

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,254
55,808
136
The Republicans appear really really anxious to ruin the internet. Net Neutrality was horrible enough but possibly reversible. Got to make it much harder to reverse and challenge.

Nothing enrages me more than when Republicans name a bill the exact opposite of what it actually does. Love the part where they go about stripping the protections your state may be providing.

I don't think they want to ruin the internet in particular. If there was a way they could find to enable telecom companies to fuck you over without ruining the internet they would be fine with that but if the choice is between a well functioning internet and larger corporate profits well... sorry internet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
Jan 25, 2011
17,188
9,722
146
I miss the days when the GOP thought the internet was just a series of tubes. What a joke this is. Open internet, as long as they pay pay pay to get it to you fast enough to make the service palatable.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
I miss the days when the GOP thought the internet was just a series of tubes. What a joke this is. Open internet, as long as they pay pay pay to get it to you fast enough to make the service palatable.


Take NOTE:

Blackburn's bill would define broadband Internet access as an "information service," preventing the FCC from ever regulating home and mobile Internet providers as common carriers. This prohibition would prevent the reinstatement of numerous consumer protections besides the net neutrality rules.

Call it what you want, there is absolutely no justification for this mess and the voters know they are being harmed. There will be a consequence to Republican lawmakers in the next election.

Fucking ISPs, they are always two steps ahead. They have the money and they have the will, it appears they will get their way over the objections of the vast majority of Americans.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,360
126
How in the hell do you prevent throttling but then allow fast lanes? Are the 'fast lanes' faster than your purchased speed from the ISP?

In other words, if I have 100Mbps down, are the paid fast lanes faster than 100Mbps down? Otherwise, if they slow down anything, it's throttling.

Maybe she doesn't realize that 'slow lanes' are 'throttled lanes'?

My thoughts exactly. Just doesnt make any sense.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
The Republicans appear really really anxious to ruin the internet. Net Neutrality was horrible enough but possibly reversible. Got to make it much harder to reverse and challenge.

Nothing enrages me more than when Republicans name a bill the exact opposite of what it actually does. Love the part where they go about stripping the protections your state may be providing.
It makes sense from their point of view. The fewer independent voices the better; they can wield some level of control over the AT&Ts and Comcasts of the world through preferential or non-preferential regulatory action. Not so much the blog that's gotten traction lately and it starting to put together really professional and well-researched video and investigative content. Make putting that video online prohibitively expensive and hey, that's one more critical voice that's going unheard.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,359
4,640
136
People are stupid and the Republicans knows it. Give it a good name, tell people a few lies about how much better this is going to make things for them specifically, and they know most people won't bother to read the details.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv and DarthKyrie

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,290
352
126
Well I mean, technically it could work if they roll out speed increases to a few preferred content sources FIRST, then everybody else gets it after.

For example.

You have 100mbps internet, but now they have a speed increase where Netflix pays for all their stuff to be carried at 125mbps capacity. ISP gets money, Netflix spends to advertise faster connection to YOUR isp, even though you are only paying for 100mbps service.

This is similar to how wireless carriers are currently offering unlimited streaming to a few services "netflix, hulu, youtube" but not to all services.

Is it not fair to Netflix if they are basically paying for the backbone to get upgraded, to not enjoy some of the benefit exclusively before the rest of the content catches up to them? Sort of like patents to protect R&D development costs. Many people agree with that don't they?
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
People are stupid and the Republicans knows it. Give it a good name, tell people a few lies about how much better this is going to make things for them specifically, and they know most people won't bother to read the details.

FREEDOM FRIES!
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
30,321
31,376
136
I miss the days when the GOP thought the internet was just a series of tubes. What a joke this is. Open internet, as long as they pay pay pay to get it to you fast enough to make the service palatable.

Why do you hate giving businesses the freedom to screw you over? That's the only freedom that matters to the GOP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Republicans should start naming their bills the "Go fuck yourself America Act", at least it be truthful then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
This is similar to how wireless carriers are currently offering unlimited streaming to a few services "netflix, hulu, youtube" but not to all services.
We made that practice ("zero rating") illegal in Canada. It sounds good at its premise but is destructively anti-competitive. What happens when the next YouTube-esque startup takes shape and starts making waves? Zero rating and not paying for the fast lane is going to destroy them - or at least slow them down enough that Netflix, Hulu and YouTube copying enough of their innovative features that nobody but the big players who already exist today can truly compete.

This would be the end of innovation in Silicon Valley and yet greater centralization of power within a very few companies. I can't think of anything more destructive to the U.S. tech industry.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
How in the hell do you prevent throttling but then allow fast lanes? Are the 'fast lanes' faster than your purchased speed from the ISP?

In other words, if I have 100Mbps down, are the paid fast lanes faster than 100Mbps down? Otherwise, if they slow down anything, it's throttling.

Maybe she doesn't realize that 'slow lanes' are 'throttled lanes'?
If you have 100Mps down you must be paying for 1000Mps down 'cause I have never seen anyone get what they paid for from an internet provider, lot'O'hype but no delivery.