House Bill 2666 threatens Net Nutrality

[goodtofufriday]

Earlier today this email blast was sent out by battleofthenet.com. in short this bill is ambiguous that it would prevent the FCC from being able to investigate or even take action against any claim that a cable company is violating net neutrality rules. Which in turn completely defeats the purpose of any net neutrality bills that have been passed.  

The number of the bill is fitting. And this one unfortunately seems to have traction. Not that this is shocking, but I'm surprised Ive heard nothing of it till now. Likely its being kept as hush as possible so that there isnt yet another public backlash that would get it insta-denied. 

 

Quote

This Friday Congress will vote on whether or not to gut Net Neutrality. They’re considering House bill 2666, which is so vague that it would let Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T violate Net Neutrality and gouge consumers without any fear of recourse by the FCC. There are simple fixes to the bill, but every single one of them was refused because Big Cable companies and their allies in Congress think this bill is their best bet to undermine Net Neutrality before anyone notices. Here’s the rundown: when the FCC passed the strongest-ever protections for the open Internet last year, Chairman Wheeler promised to never use the rules to regulate broadband rates. Congress doesn’t believe him, so they’re passing a law to ensure that the FCC never regulates broadband rates. There’s just one MASSIVE problem: the bill uses such overly broad and unclear definitions [2] that it puts the Net Neutrality protections we won last year in serious jeopardy. If this bill passes, it’ll be a signal to Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T that they can violate Net Neutrality, and that the FCC is powerless to stop them. The FCC would lose the power to: Review unfair billing practices — the FCC would never be able to investigate monopoly rates, data caps, or any other unfair billing practices, leaving consumers without recourse or protection. Address zero-rating schemes — In the Open Internet Order, the FCC decided to assess on a case-by-case basis whether new zero-rating programs violate net neutrality principles. H.R. 2666 could prevent the FCC investigating the impact of these programs on consumers entirely. Enforce almost any Net Neutrality protection — Because the language in HR 2666 is so vague, broadband providers could try to characterize and legally challenge any and every determination the FCC makes as rate regulation — tying the FCC’s hands, and potentially locking up any enforcement action in the courts for years. If Congress actually wanted to just ban rate regulation, it could have used a simple definition that was just affirmed by the Supreme Court: that rate regulation means, unsurprisingly and very simply, “to set a rate.” [3] Instead, Congress is trying to pass a bill to define rate regulation this way: “The term ‘regulation’ or ‘regulate’ means, with respect to a rate, the use by the Commission of rulemaking or enforcement authority to establish, declare, or review the reasonableness of such rate.” That is a lot of words to say very little — and that’s on purpose. The problems with that overly vague definition of rate regulation were brought up multiple times in committee only to be completely ignored. In reality this bill is a underhanded attempt by lawmakers who serve the cable industry to gut Net Neutrality, not just ban rate regulation. Thanks for all you do, ~ Charlie P.S. One of the best ways to pressure your legislator is to let them know publicly that you expect them to vote no on HR 2666. Click here to tweet at your representative and demand they protect the open Internet!

Source site: https://www.battleforthenet.com/

Quote pulled directly from email blast.

[GoZone]

2 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

The number of the bill is fitting. And this one unfortunately seems to have traction. Not that this is shocking, but I'm surprised Ive heard nothing of it till now. 

 

Source: https://www.battleforthenet.com/

I am not surprised that they are still doing this again, but the law I hopefully think that will never pass, history will repeat itself like this again.

[Dr_Pleeper]

Execute order 2666

 

Sorry, that was awful.

[Howlingwolf101]

Wouldn't it be in our best interest for the FCC to regulate rates this way they can't charge an obscene amount for something simple? So by passing this law, they would be able to do just that and the FCC wouldn't be able to do anything about it? I just need this clairfied.

[Dr_Pleeper]

When you're reading black letters in dark theme.

[straight_stewie]

Net neutrality has been passed and the companies are still pretty much doing all three things net neutrality says they shouldn't do...

[Kobathor]

Why is the U.S. so far behind in terms of Net Neutrality? I know there's some pretty bad countries for the Internet out there (ones with no NN,) but for such a big, modern country, we're pretty lacking. 

[Admiral Naismith]

20 minutes ago, Kobathor said:

Why is the U.S. so far behind in terms of Net Neutrality? I know there's some pretty bad countries for the Internet out there (ones with no NN,) but for such a big, modern country, we're pretty lacking. 

100% because of public apathy and lobbying. Then again 99.97% of all the U.S.'s problems are because of lobbying and public apathy.... So it's really only fitting that this be an issue as well.

[SurvivorNVL]

49 minutes ago, Howlingwolf101 said:

Wouldn't it be in our best interest for the FCC to regulate rates this way they can't charge an obscene amount for something simple? So by passing this law, they would be able to do just that and the FCC wouldn't be able to do anything about it? I just need this clairfied.

It's not in the best interest, because it's government oversight, open to abuse by future administrations of the FCC and executive branch.  While now it is the cable-companies raising rates and threatening NN, eventually it could be the government itself as some politicians have wanted to introduce an internet tax once before, and the FCC is the perfect venue for that.

It's in our best interest for the FCC to have classified them as common carriers, that was sort of a soft-regulation in my book, and now there's competition popping up across the country in terms of Muni internet, new companies, old companies, and Google's fast growing expansion.  Muni internet is often not blocked as much as it is expanding.  The FCC -should- have made a rule against data-caps as they're moronic, but they didn't, so until more and more services from local governments for gigabit and utilizing their dark fiber pop-up, data caps are to stay.  

Sometimes regulation is a requirement, but the rates will lower through rising competition and customers getting more and more options / city governments realizing it is cheaper to run their own(and rent to citizens) than to pay the companies prices.  It may not be in all areas, but in many it's beginning.  Mostly the South, oddly enough.  Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, crap ton in Virginia, and also Florida has had BHN looking in to Central and North getting gigabit up and running, no data-caps, and free gigabit public wifi.  They're testing that with some communities.  Comcast has 2 and 10Gbps down where I used to live in South Florida now, but that's still capped at around a terabyte, and most people report only 400mbps average.  Centurylink is testing out gigabit and ten gigabit in Orlando, rolling it out one step at a time.

 It'll happen slowly over the next few years all around the country.  We'll eventually be where we should be internet wise.  Just takes some growing pains.

 

[Howlingwolf101]

9 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Spoiler

It's not in the best interest, because it's government oversight, open to abuse by future administrations of the FCC and executive branch.  While now it is the cable-companies raising rates and threatening NN, eventually it could be the government itself as some politicians have wanted to introduce an internet tax once before, and the FCC is the perfect venue for that.

It's in our best interest for the FCC to have classified them as common carriers, that was sort of a soft-regulation in my book, and now there's competition popping up across the country in terms of Muni internet, new companies, old companies, and Google's fast growing expansion.  Muni internet is often not blocked as much as it is expanding.  The FCC -should- have made a rule against data-caps as they're moronic, but they didn't, so until more and more services from local governments for gigabit and utilizing their dark fiber pop-up, data caps are to stay.  

Sometimes regulation is a requirement, but the rates will lower through rising competition and customers getting more and more options / city governments realizing it is cheaper to run their own(and rent to citizens) than to pay the companies prices.  It may not be in all areas, but in many it's beginning.  Mostly the South, oddly enough.  Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, crap ton in Virginia, and also Florida has had BHN looking in to Central and North getting gigabit up and running, no data-caps, and free gigabit public wifi.  They're testing that with some communities.  Comcast has 2 and 10Gbps down where I used to live in South Florida now, but that's still capped at around a terabyte, and most people report only 400mbps average.  Centurylink is testing out gigabit and ten gigabit in Orlando, rolling it out one step at a time.

 It'll happen slowly over the next few years all around the country.  We'll eventually be where we should be internet wise.  Just takes some growing pains.

Thanks for the clarification, you actually really helped me understand this a bit more.

 

 

[shermantanker]

As much as I don't like the guy, or his politics... I hope Obama vetos this crap.

[GoodBytes]

This Tech News does not meet the posting guidelines

 

[goodtofufriday]

24 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

This Tech News does not meet the posting guidelines

 

Other than maybe a stronger self comment what else am.I missing?

If it's the quote then that's taken from the email blast the site sent out.  

[GoodBytes]

Be sure to mention and make it clear that it is from an e-mail from them, and explain the news.

Provide context.

 

If you edit your thread and fix it up, I'll quickly move it back to Tech News section.

[typographie]

2 hours ago, Kobathor said:

Why is the U.S. so far behind in terms of Net Neutrality? I know there's some pretty bad countries for the Internet out there (ones with no NN,) but for such a big, modern country, we're pretty lacking. 

The net neutrality stuff that keeps popping up is just a symptom of where American politics in general are at this point in time. I'll be vague as to avoid a thread derail, but I'll just say that a bill like this coming out of the House is not a surprising development to me. I don't think it can even pass the Senate, and it would certainly be vetoed if it did.

[goodtofufriday]

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Be sure to mention and make it clear that it is from an e-mail from them, and explain the news.

Provide context.

 

If you edit your thread and fix it up, I'll quickly move it back to Tech News section.

Done. Thanks

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, goodtofufriday said:

Done. Thanks

Moved back.

Thanks!

[BuckGup]

666? Hmmmm interesting 

[Doobeedoo]

Again this shit. 

[Yog]

All the bill says is the FCC can't force internet companies to charge a certain amount of money. You realize if the FCC has the power to regulate rates it means they can RAISE them, as well as lower them (i.e, they can determine that maybe Google isn't charging enough so they tell them to charge equal amount to comcast). The terminology is way too broad and is better off not existing at all. And before you say "the FCC would never do that"...that might be true now, MAYBE, but can you say that this will always be true no matter who is in charge? You have to think about that sort of thing when you give the government new abilities.

 

Quote

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Communications Commission may not regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet access service.

That's literally all the bill changes.

 

Here's a link to the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2666/text

 

 

Let's say they set a ceiling on the price of internet...internet providers already VERY slowly upgrade their services...why do they want to now that they're getting less money? Very rarely do economists like price controls, if often leads to exactly the opposite the governing body was hoping. Here's something to think about:

It doesn't relate to the internet so much but it at least gets you thinking about the unintended consequences of price controls.

[exyia]

they repeatedly complain that the bill is so vague, yet they never bother quoting what it actually says. seems like they're just overblowing the situation

 

(I'm all for Net Neutrality, but I don't see anything to argue for or against here)

[GoZone]

23 hours ago, huilun02 said:

"Make America great again"

Please no... we don't need "him" here.

[Trik'Stari]

For fucks sake congress, STAHP.

[dragosudeki]

2 hours ago, exyia said:

they repeatedly complain that the bill is so vague, yet they never bother quoting what it actually says. seems like they're just overblowing the situation

 

(I'm all for Net Neutrality, but I don't see anything to argue for or against here)

It says that the FCC cannot do any form of rate regulation, yet what "rate regulation" is defined as is not stated in the bill. Therefore, companies can get away with anything since they can simply label any action that the FCC does as a form of rate regulation.

[exyia]

1 hour ago, dragosudeki said:

It says that the FCC cannot do any form of rate regulation, yet what "rate regulation" is defined as is not stated in the bill. Therefore, companies can get away with anything since they can simply label any action that the FCC does as a form of rate regulation.

If it's that "vague", then why couldn't they directly quote it?

 

---

 

OH LOOK, I SPENT 5 MINUTES TO GO RESEARCH MYSELF LOOK WHAT I FOUND

 

SECTION 3 - EXCEPTIONS

NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO---

 

...

 

3. ENFORCE SECTION 8.9 OF TITLE 47, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 9 RELATING TO PAID PRIORITIZATION).

 

 

 

Yet again, oblivious people on the internet just blindly believing what they read and grabbing pitchforks.

 

This post REEKED of foul logic and just stupid pitchforking.

"BILL SO VAGUE!!!" yet doesn't bother to quote it. And when asked, they just spout the same nonsense.

 

This bill is nothing more than establishing that the government cannot dictate what prices ISPs can and can not charge, which is PERFECTLY FINE. This is a matter of governments overstepping boundaries into free market business. As long as ISP's are still a business and not a utility, they are free to charge whatever they want.

 

This bill was so short there are more lines in the EXCEPTIONS clauses - which explicitly state that this can't be used to circumvent "Net Neutrality" - than the actual proposition of the bill, yet it was all hilariously just skipped over.

 

Yeah mang....this bill is SO VAGUE