US Senate votes to overturn rule that would have required ISPs to get permission before...

[Shawn Knight]

The Federal Communications Commission last October ruled that Internet service providers would need to gain consent from customers before being allowed to share (sell) personal information regarding their browsing history to third parties.

On Thursday, the US Senate voted to overturn that ruling by a narrow party-line vote of 50-48.

As The Hill points out, the vote comes courtesy of an obscure law called the Congressional Review Act (CRA) which can be used to eliminate rules before they go into effect. The next step is for the bill to head to the House. If passed there and signed by President Trump, the FCC’s attempt would successfully be struck down.

The publication adds that the CRA also prevents the FCC from passing “substantially similar” regulations in the future.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the regulation would have made the Internet an uneven playing field and increased complexity while discouraging competition, innovation and infrastructure investment. Senator Jeff Flake said it would have placed an unfair burden on service providers as websites like Facebook and Google collect user data (but wouldn’t have been subjected to the same restrictions).

Democratic Senator Ed Markey, meanwhile, said Republicans have just made it easier for sensitive information about the health, finances and families of Americans to be used, shared and sold to the highest bidder without their permission.

Today’s vote is viewed as a huge win for Internet providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, all of which had strongly opposed the rules.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/68639-us-senate-votes-overturn-rule-would-have-required.html

 

[psycros]

How about NOBODY is allowed to do it, for any reason? Would that be so terrible?

 

[Evernessince]

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the regulation would have made the Internet an uneven playing field and increased complexity while discouraging competition, innovation and infrastructure investment."

That's bribe money at work. If they aren't investing in innovation and infrastructure now, how exactly is this rule going to stifle something that isn't occurring? I'm all for the free market idea that the republican's preach but they have to institute rules to ensure that competition ensues in a market. A capitalist market with zero competition means companies have no reason to innovate and all the reasons to increase profit margins without advantaging the customer.

Right now, the market consists of Three large companies and a few very restricted smaller companies. You have Charter / Time Warner, Verison, and Comcast and then you have a bunch of regional ISPs (and google / AT&T in a limited area). None of the three Major ISPs compete on price and have very little network overlap, meaning that for all intents and purposes that they have divided the market up into their own little areas and can charge customers what they want without fear of competition.

In addition to the big 3 blatantly going out of their way to avoid competition with each other, they also engage in significant legal activity to keep grassroot competition out of the market and to prevent other small to medium businesses from competing in their area. Heck, if google is having issues getting access to PUBLIC telephone poles, I can imagine that for smaller entities it is a significant battle. To add to that, there have been numerous examples where the big 3 have lobbied local governments to sign exclusivity agreements so that only they may operate in the area. It is literally granting them a regional monopoly.

But this is nothing new. Getting rid of market regulations almost always favors big business. It makes it easier for them to throw their weight around and reduces the protection smaller businesses and the average american receives.

So we have to ask ourselves: do we trust big cable, unshackled, to be fair to customers with their data and pricing even with fewer regulations? If we are to continue the current status quo, the answer is obvious: these companies have already been caught abusing their regional monopoly statues to increase profit through not only through conventional means but though backhanded means like data collection. The last time companies had such control over a necessary utility was the Bell company and I would easily argue that internet is far more vital than telephone (aside from the fact that internet can also do VoIP).

 

[seeprime]

Remember what these fools are doing to us and vote every last one of them out. I don't care what party they're in. They all sell their souls and our livelihoods for a buck.

 

[Uncle Al]

Just another good example of our elected representatives selling out to corporate giants .....

 

[stewi0001]

My economics professor from college always said, "By the people, for the special interest groups." aka big businesses.

 

[deemon]

How about NOT TRACKING AND COLLECTING MY BROWSING HISTORY IN THE FIRST PLACE?! How is this selling even possible, when it's ILLEGAL for them to even collect it in the first place in normal countries. At least around here the ISP would face criminal lawsuit for illegal surveillance for collecting and storing such data - as they should everywhere IMHO.

 

[OutlawCecil]

Corporate giants win again. *sigh*

 

[treetops]

The true root of Republican politicians, helping out any corporation who will throw them some money.