House Energy Chairman to Co-Sponsor Net Neutrality Bill
"The fears some have professed that net neutrality rules will stifle network investment have proven unfounded over the years," Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said this morning. "Industry will benefit from clarity, consistency and predictability with regard to net neutrality."
The remarks drew immediate praise from neutrality advocates. "Chairman Waxman's decision to cosponsor legislation preserving non-discrimination and openness should serve as a powerful signal of how important these principles are," Public Knowledge president and co-founder Gigi Sohn said in a statement. "A free and non-discriminatory Internet should not exist at the good will of the telecommunications carriers."
The Internet Freedom Preservation Act, introduced earlier this year by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), would broadly ban network providers from blocking or degrading any legal content.
While Democratic lawmakers have unsuccessfully pushed for net neutrality legislation in the past, the climate in Washington might be more favorable for this type of bill now.
At the same time, opponents to legislation will almost certainly say it's unnecessary -- especially given the Federal Communications Commission's stance that it's empowered to neutrality principles without new laws.
Last year, the agency sanctioned Comcast for violating neutrality principles by blocking peer-to-peer traffic without adequate notice to subscribers -- despite the absence of legislation.
Comcast has appealed the ruling, arguing that the agency had no authority to issue it. Network providers and advocates are following the appeal closely, but if Congress enacts new legislation, then the court's decision will be far less significant. If nothing else, new legislation could definitively establish that ISPs can't unilaterally decide to block peer-to-peer traffic, slow visits to competitors or otherwise interfere with consumers' ability to access particular sites.
0 comments on "House Energy Chairman to Co-Sponsor Net Neutrality Bill".
Leave a Comment
Recent Daily Online Examiner Articles
-
Penguin Shells Out $75 Million To Settle Price-Fixing Charges May 23, 4:45 p.m.
Penguin will pay $75 million to settle claims by a coalition of state attorneys general that ...
-
Airbnb Ruled Illegal In N.Y., User Hit With Four-Figure Fine May 22, 5:18 p.m.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made no secret of his hope that the city ...
-
AT&T Loosens Video Chat Restrictions May 21, 5:10 p.m.
Changing course, AT&T has decided to allow all users -- including those with unlimited data plans ...
-
Aereokiller Agrees To Change Name May 20, 4:38 p.m.
Aereokiller, embroiled in litigation with the TV networks, is putting at least one legal dispute behind ...
-
Appeals Court Turns Away Twitter's Challenge To Subpoena May 17, 4:55 p.m.
An appellate court in New York has dismissed Twitter's appeal of a ruling requiring it to ...
-
Apple: No 'Direct Evidence' Of Ebook Price-Fixing May 16, 5:10 p.m.
Did Apple conspire with book publishers to end Amazon's $9.99-per-ebook price? That's the question at the ...
-
AT&T Stirs Controversy With Data-Cap Plans May 15, 5 p.m.
AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson reportedly confirmed today that the carrier plans to let content companies pay ...
-
Pandora User Seeks To Revive Privacy Lawsuit May 14, 4:48 p.m.
In 2010, music service Pandora was one of the first companies to partner with Facebook for ...
-
New Bill Legalizes Cell-Phone Unlocking, DVD Ripping May 13, 5:05 p.m.
Consumers could once again have the right to unlock their cell phones, if a new law ...
-
Data-Cap Exemption For ESPN Raises Neutrality Concerns May 10, 6:40 p.m.
The sports network ESPN reportedly is talking with a major wireless carrier about a deal to ...


I agree with the move to make the internet more integrated by granting users free access to content generated on competing sites. For years, I have frequently been blocked from respnding to emails from consumers by their ISPs, forcing me to sign up with each ISP separately in order to respond. The competition among ISPs should not contstitute restraint of trade between consumer and services, no matter how hot their boardroom battles may be. In a free market, consumers expect free access. They already pay for it through their communication services. Why should they suffer the backwash from ISP competition? What the ISPs don't realize that if they don't act to free up the service, the users will find someone else to host their content. They don't have patience for the lack of consideration they receive.