Republican Congressman Mike Coffman introduces '21st Century Internet Act' pro-net neutrality...

[Polycount]

Recap: Net neutrality refers to a set of 2015 rules that prevented ISPs from throttling user connections or blocking websites. The FCC under President Trump opted to roll back these rulings in a controversial December 14 vote. While Democrats attempt to kill the vote with the Congressional Review Act, Republican Congressman Mike Coffman has taken matters into his own hands.

If you thought Democrats were the only ones fighting for net neutrality, Republican Congressman Mike Coffman is looking to prove you wrong now.

Coffman on Tuesday published a press release outlining new pro-net neutrality legislation; a bill dubbed the "21st Century Internet Act." The bill seeks to "permanently codify" into law the four main tenants of net neutrality - no paid prioritization, no website blocking, no throttling, and federal oversight of "interconnection."

The bill would also seek to create a "new title" for broadband, to take advantage of additional consumer protections detailed in 1934's Communications Act.

In the release, Coffman elaborates on his reason for introducing the bill:

"The fight to keep the internet open belongs in Congress, not at the Federal Communications Commission,"

"The fight to keep the internet open belongs in Congress, not at the Federal Communications Commission," he said in a statement. "The American people deserve to know that their elected officials, not unelected bureaucrats, are fighting for their interest. That fight begins with my bill, which will create an ‘internet constitution’ with the foundational elements of net neutrality."

Coffman certainly makes a sound point here - the FCC's December 14 vote to roll back 2015's net neutrality protections was hotly contested by the public, on both sides of the political aisle. Even if this bill fails, consumers would likely feel better knowing representatives they voted into office made the final call.

At any rate, only time will tell if Coffman's 21st Century Internet Act will work out. It still needs to make its way past quite a few other Republican Congress members, many of whom do not share the same sentiments Coffman does.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/75540-republican-congressman-mike-coffman-introduces-21st-century-internet.html

 

[Uncle Al]

Great news! He needs to also include a provision that prevents the FCC from charging the public for submitting complaints or inquiries too!

 

[psycros]

There has been a small but vocal minority of Republicans who see NN (Net Neutrality) as a free speech and free market issue for a long time now - "free market" meaning that the big players aren't allowed to lock out competition. I don't know anything about Coffman's record but I suspect he's among this cadre of rebels. Frankly, anyone with an iota of personal integrity should have a serious problem with AT&T and Verizon being allowed to essentially write their own net neutrality legislation. That's what we've been getting from the corporatist Republicans so far. The big ISPs are saying they should be allowed to provide superior bandwidth and availability for services they own or those content creators who pay extra. In the case of Comcast this would include everything Dreamworks and NBC creates, and that's a lot. For AT&T it would mean all Time Warner and Turner Broadcasting content, DirecTV streaming and a number of other properties. But it doesn't stop with preferred access. The ISP-media complex ALSO wants the ability to offer preferred treatment to their internet service customers, I.e. next level "bundling". Think about this for a moment: what if you had to pay a huge premium for NBC content if Comcast wasn't your ISP? That's the future they want for us. Not only will the consumers get screwed but so will any up-and-coming content creators who can't afford to pay an ISP's "tax" to carry the creator's data. Streaming services won't get around this tax either because Netflix, Hulu and the rest of them will be charged much higher fees for their traffic. We're looking at the full-on Balkanization of the web and an endless series of new paywalls. Content providers will fold as consumers make piracy their new service of choice. Heck, I already see it happening..and all thanks to boundless corporate greed. Too bad our officials, both elected and otherwise, can not only own stock in the companies whose fortunes they help decide but sit on their BoDs as well. Even if they don't you know they'll have a job waiting for them when they leave office.

 

[CBTex]

Net neutrality really is something that comes from legislation. Trying to force application of laws meant for other utilities never was the best solution.

 

[Danny101]

Another break up if the Bells is due again. At&t is vying for a monopoly with it's attempted purchase of Time Warner and should be thwarted.

 

[audioman83]

If telecoms were deregulated you'd have competition and thus no need to "protect fair access to the internet." It's just another "I'm the govt and I'm here to help" scam. It's a neutral environment if the govt is only there to enforce contracts and prosecute crime, but not if they play like mobsters and "fix our issues." Band aids on band aids. (Which are a symptom of telecom regulation. The people should be crying for free market, not the "fixed market." Screws em every time.)

Lobby written fixed pricing is a bad idea for the same reason that having a "fixed" ANYTHING is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different than others. This is a healthy thing. Forcing a one-size-fits-all solution on the Internet stifles innovation and freedom.

Enforcing net neutrality effectively picks winners and losers. The regulation will have the same effect on the internet as banking, housing, and auto regulation has, everything melds in the middle and the big companies gobble the little companies until you have a so few that then you have a new problem (that the govt made) and it has to "step in and protect consumers" again with antitrust.

Blocking market innovation blocks business models, thus market health, and stops any possible innovation that might emerge if given the option of seeking differential access to bandwidth.

If you use more, you should pay more. It's the building block of resource conservation, resource allocation, and efficiency.

You get to vote everyday with your dollars, why ask the only true monopoly to block voluntary contracts and transactions??? Because you want to hurt the competition. Thats why the already established orgs will line up in support, and most likely help write the new regulation.

 

[gamerk2]

Net neutrality really is something that comes from legislation. Trying to force application of laws meant for other utilities never was the best solution.

I point out that ISPs were regulated as a utility until the 2nd Bush administration. All the FCC did under Obama was re-classify them as they were for the majority of their existence.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Think about this for a moment: what if you had to pay a huge premium for NBC content if Comcast wasn't your ISP? That's the future they want for us. .

They can want it all they want - there are already laws on the books that prevent this sort of thing. Can you think of any industry where what you're describing happens? Making laws to solve hypothetical problems won't fly. It's why NN is such a hoax. NN protects Netflix and Google from being charged more by Comcast because they use a million percent more bandwidth then anyone else. If you want to protect them because you're worried about your Netflix bill going up, fine... but to say the Republicans are just protecting Verizon and AT&T isn't accurate.

NN is the govt picking sides - they're picking the sides of the huge content providers. Not having NN isn't picking the other side - it's staying out of the fight. Republicans almost always prefer to stay out of the fight and not pick winners and losers in business.

The only reason NN is in the news today is because video streaming is now a thing. It has nothing to do with fairness. It's Google/Netflix pushing it's weight around.

This is a political stunt. Is Trump really going to sign a bill that reverses what his personally appointed FCC chairmen just put in place? Zero chance of that.