New Net Neutrality Bill Introduced, Has No Chance Of Passing

from the this-is-not-the-solution-you're-looking-for dept

Mon, Feb 3rd 2014 8:07pm — Mike Masnick

Well, this was inevitable, but a group of Representatives have introduced a new net neutrality bill, called the Open Internet Preservation Act of 2014, which attempts to bring back the FCC's rules that an appeals court struck down. The bill is more PR than anything else. For whatever reason (actually no good reason at all), net neutrality has become a purely partisan issue in Congress (Democrats for, Republicans against) and based on the fact that this bill only has Democrat sponsors, it means, first off, that it's only going to rekindle the same old fight without solving anything and go nowhere. But, more importantly, it's still the same old situation trying to kludge together a temporary solution for the real problem, which is the lack of a competitive market.

Bill Text Waxman Eshoo Open Internet Preservation Act 2014 1 24 (PDF)Bill Text Waxman Eshoo Open Internet Preservation Act 2014 1 24 (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: anna eshoo, congress, ed markey, fcc, henry waxman, laws, net neutrality

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ysth (profile), 3 Feb 2014 @ 9:08pm

You've been listening to too much right-wing radio
"Democratic sponsors". The noun may be Democrat, but the adjective is Democratic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Feb 2014 @ 11:04pm
  
  Re: You've been listening to too much right-wing radio
  I don't listen to any radio but if I did the last thing it would be would be right wing talk radio.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
tek'a, 3 Feb 2014 @ 10:42pm

I love "if they say up we must say down!" politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CK20XX (profile), 3 Feb 2014 @ 11:35pm
  
  Re:
  I wonder if it wouldn't be erroneous to vote for politicians based on whether they put time into games like Minecraft or Sim City. You know, games where the focus is on building something grand and effective that people will love, not on petty bickering or going to war with others. How soon until we can expect people like that to come along?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2014 @ 12:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    There are lots of those, and there have always been. But the 'system' (eww I said the system) tends to give preference to the aggressive opposition-based politicians, for some reason.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 4 Feb 2014 @ 1:19am

Much like instead of going after the pedophiles they are trying to make the registrars/hosts liable or seizing the domains without actually solving the problem. I came to expect such bs from politicians. The surprise would be if they actually addressed the real issue behind the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2014 @ 1:45am
  
  Re:
  And who decides who is one? Hitler would have loved you
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greevar (profile), 4 Feb 2014 @ 6:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    Godwin would have loved you!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2014 @ 8:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I know... I had to do it
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - alan turing, 4 Feb 2014 @ 11:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        didn't work though
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2014 @ 1:59am

an entire world wide network of human beings and yet the well oiled merry-go-round of bs continues to spin in an undesired direction.

human beings that, nowadays are much more intelligent than the "generation" I grew up in. yet the "99%" are losing. I fear the direction we are headed... the majority of people fear it. yet, all we can do is complain. it's sad.

I'm not blaming anyone more than I blame myself though. we are all part of the reason things are so bad and worse yet we all fear the "big wigs" that we enable just by believing simultaneously that they are the "big wigs". worse yet some people actually choose it, thinking things are better than ever.

good night (morning actually) and good health to us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2014 @ 4:46am
  
  Re:
  "nowadays are much more intelligent than the "generation" I grew up in"
  
  I doubt that.
  
  " yet, all we can do is complain."
  
  Did you may miss the various news reports?
  
  "we are all part of the reason things are so bad "
  
  Speak for yourself dipshit
  
  " I fear the direction we are headed.. worse yet we all fear .. "
  
  You might want to seek professional help
  
  "the "big wigs" that we enable"
  
  No I didn't. You use the term "we" quite loosely
  
  "things are better than ever."
  
  Who, exactly, claims this?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2014 @ 9:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    before calling me a dipshit you might want to read the declaration of independence where it says they "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed". they are just stating a fact
    
    I love the use of the word "just", pfft
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2014 @ 5:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Dipshit apologists go around attempting to lay blame upon those who have the least amount of influence upon the present state of most everything. Then, they sheepishly point at paper upon which the founding fathers wrote words. Words that are oft quoted but rarely followed by our representatives. These representatives attained office with a minority of the eligible votes due to low voter turnout, gerrymandering and outright electoral fraud. Then they claim a mandate to implement whatever policy they get paid for regardless of the needs and desires of their constituents.
      
      And then some dipshit claims it is my fault. Well, up yours.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
EveryoneForCongress_Molyett (profile), 4 Feb 2014 @ 2:39am

That's the current congress
Everything is fair game to these guys as a partisan issue, even fair play by government supported monopolies.

This is exactly why I am pushing for some information security expertise to get elected to Congress this year. Lawyers writing laws with experts advising is apparently backward, the money gets too much say. Lets put experts into Congress and let lawyers advise them on the language details!

Refuse to engage in the partisan games. Support unaffiliated candidates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violynne (profile), 4 Feb 2014 @ 3:29am

"Democrats for, Republicans against"
Translation: No stakeholders in ISPs, considerable stakeholders in ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2014 @ 4:01am
  
  Re:
  [quote]"Democrats for, Republicans against"
  Translation: No stakeholders in ISPs, considerable stakeholders in ISPs.[/quote]
  
  On Henry Waxman's list of contributors, Google is #3 and TimeWarner is #6
  
  https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00001861&type=I
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2014 @ 4:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    Oops! Missed one: American Cable Assn is #4
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2014 @ 4:04am
  
  Re:
  "Democrats for, Republicans against"
  Translation: No stakeholders in ISPs, considerable stakeholders in ISPs.
  
  On Henry Waxman's list of contributors, Google is #3 and TimeWarner is #6
  
  https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00001861&type=I
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2014 @ 4:06am

Sorry - early-morning finger fart...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[secret], 4 Feb 2014 @ 5:28am

You deserve it!

Keep voting for these schmucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2014 @ 5:31am

But FREEDOM can justify any stance on a polical issue!
Sure Net Neutrality is a partisan issue now... but but FREEDOM justifies taking seemingly backwards stances on almost anything! Here's a few examples.

-Net Neutrality? That infringes on FREEDOM of capitalist ISP's to extort, err I mean 'charge' as much money from the free market as they possibly can! Even if there's no competition and no sign of new competition coming anytime soon for ISP's the free market will still self correct itself here!

-Trade agreements that let foreign companies sue the government for hurting their profits with pesky things like environmental and safety laws? But the government is harming their FREEDOM to pollute the environment and put workers in an unsafe environment in the name of boosting profits!

-Government granted monopolies through patents and copyright that harm the economy? But that infringes on the content creator's FREEDOM to patent troll the free market to get rich! Freedom is ALWAYS good, even if it's the freedom to get screwed over by other people's freedoms!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Baron von Robber, 4 Feb 2014 @ 7:48am
  
  Re: But FREEDOM can justify any stance on a polical issue!
  Welcome to the Robber Barons ver 2.0
  We've been in business for the past few years. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jilocasin (profile), 4 Feb 2014 @ 6:21am

Natural monopoly
Competition is probably what's needed, but it has to be at the ISP level _not_ at the infrastructure level. The wires/cables/fiber optics is a natural monopoly. It doesn't make sense; practically, economically to force everyone to run their own set of lines to every household (and no, wireless/satellite isn't an adequate substitute).

We don't expect every delivery service to run their own roads, nor every electric company to run their own power wires, nor every water company to run their own pipes to everyone's house, it's silly to expect every potential ISP to do the same.

Split the wires from the access and let anyone who wants to compete as an ISP. Then you'll have a chance of seeing the real competition that your looking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baron von Robber, 4 Feb 2014 @ 7:52am

I think what it will come down to and seeing the head of the FCC is a former cable company lobbyist (so I have doubts), is whether ISPs become Common Carriers.

The courts seemed to hint to the FCC that is what is needed for Net Neutrality to survive.

Sounds good to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
missyg (profile), 4 Feb 2014 @ 9:29am

Internet Must Go
Net neutrality is an issue worth fighting for, and it's becoming more and more important to keep up with the issues. For a good refresher, here's this great mockumentary: http://www.theinternetmustgo.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]