Del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Reddit
Newsvine
co.mments
Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008
To establish broadband policy and direct the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a proceeding and public broadband summits to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues relating to broadband Internet access services, and for other purposes.
Other Bill Titles (3 more) 2/12/2008--Introduced.
Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to declare that it is U.S. policy to:
(1) maintain the freedom to use broadband telecommunications networks, including the Internet, without unreasonable interference f... moreSee Full Bill Text
Committees
Amendments
This bill has no amendments.
Bill Status
| Introduced |  | Voted on by House | | Voted on by Senate | | Considered By President | | Bill Becomes Law |
| February 12, 2008 |
Users tracking H.R.5353 (80) are also tracking:
| People | Bills | Issues |
|---|---|---|
|
In the News
June 09, 2008 Senate Hearing on Net Neutrality Raises New Piracy Concerns
Lawmakers of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet entertained arguments regarding Chairman Ed Markey's bill (HR 5353) that would ...
May 13, 2008 Two Telecom Bills Form a United Front Against Discrimination
This bill provides a nice complement to HR 5353, the âInternet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008,â introduced by House Telecom Subcommittee Chairman Ed ...
Source: Public Knowledge Tech News and Comment, D.C.
May 10, 2008 Writers Guild, West steps up fight for internet freedom
Speaking on behalf of the Guild, three-time Emmy Award-winning writer-producer Steven Peterman testified in support of HR-5353, the Internet Freedom ...
35 more articles...
See most useful news articles
Information made available by:
Blog Coverage
October 03, 2008 chip pickering Free Press' Ben Scott testifies before Congress
Scott testified at a hearing on the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" (HR 5353) on behalf of Free Press, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America and Public Knowledge. This bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by Reps. ...
Source: Hot Trend from World
September 15, 2008 Fighting to Find Our E-Dom
Avengers of New Media assemble! Itâs time to take down Adam Curtis. I saw the speakers at the Digital Commons panel discussion as a team essentially preaching the opposite of what Adam Curtis was in The Trap. ...
Source: New Media Research Studio
August 28, 2008 Government documents
HR 5353 is the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008, which was introduced to the House of Representatives on Feb. 12, 2008 by Congressman Ed Markey. There are two interesting facets of this bill, as originally presented. ...
Source: Citizen Journalism
318 more posts...
See most useful blog posts
Information made available by:
Rating Filter: 5
Comments
Ok, so I for Network Neutrality in general and if this is the best they can do right now I guess it might be a good start. I'm just worried about this being passed and then held up as an excuse for not needing anything better later. And I have seen some arguments showing that putting it in the hands of the FCC could allow them to respond quicker to adapt to what is needed. That's assuming we have somebody in the FCC who will actually do something though...
I can't say I trust this FCC to act in the interests of the consumer. That said, if they're given a specific enough mandate, they can be sued into action if necessary, or Congress can always pass more legislation to force their hand.
The full text is actually very short so I encourage you to read its entirety.
It has three main points:
First to amend the 1934 Communications Act to include some policies which state that "to maintain the freedom to use for lawful purposes broadband telecommunications networks, including the Internet, without unreasonable interference from or discrimination by network operators" is a good thing. And similar statements.
Second to require the FCC to assess various things such as how harmful the restrictions providers apply to a user's network connection are. F'ex Comcast forging 'reset' packets to break BitTorrent.
Third to require the FCC to hold multiple summits on the topic, include a wide range of input (including on the internet as well as live events), and report the results to congress.
I actually think it's a reasonable conservative step forward on what is an extremely complicated issue. I'm for it.
Grange comes out against Markey Bill:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-14-2008/0004756105&EDATE=
the issue is really the same as when Clinton/Gore privatized the internet: are market incentives really sufficient to insure adequate investment in both access and bandwith?
it seems the answer is fairly clear: absent a permanent tech investment bubble, if the federal government wants an open internet accessible to everyone it is going to have to pay for it. the net backbone has really become a utility, like the electric power grid. if you have heavy regulatory requirements you will also need a seperate regulatory environment to insure investment and direct and indirect subsidies. a deregulated internet will never be 'open.'
but read the Grange news release: rural access to broadband really is spotty and don't think that the telco's won't try to tie tiered pricing and associated profits to investment in rural access to either get a bill through congress or prevent passage of bills like Markey's. as long as there is a senate, you are going to have to appease all those small states.
geos -
I am also in support of investment in access to rural citizens. The oft-lauded promise of the great democratization of the internet only holds if all people have viable access.
However I see this organization's response as analogous to being opposed to legislation to ensure the stop lights in town don't malfunction because there aren't enough roads outside of town. They're both about the same infrastructure, and they both need attention, but they're not mutually exclusive.
With recent advances, Satellite internet is available in massive percentages of the continental US.
Even if this were not true, Comcast (My VERY bed provider BTW) and other such companies should not be able to control applications I use. I pay for the speed of the connection coming into my house, why should they be able to burn the candle at both ends and charge the content providers FOR THE SAME SPEED?
On a separate note, I think Comcast, etc are biting off more than they can chew here. Many people most strongly supporting Net Neutrality are the people who can and do use their computers both more and for 'higher end' purposes. IF they start 'tiering' the internet, you can bet this particular Computer Science Major will find an alternative.
no, what the Grange is saying is that "we will support the telco's in their quest to extract more profit from the internet backbone if they promise to invest some of that profit in expanded rural access."
my point is that instituting a regulatory environment which restricts the profits of the companies without appropriate subsidy isn't doing anyone any favors: you assume that market incentives are going to lead to expanded bandwidth and access but you can already see that in comparison to other countries with stronger government involvement this isn't happening in the US. i'm would be all for re-nationalizing the internet backbone, but that isn't happening any time soon.
if your goal is an open internet accessible to everyone then you are going to have to put public money where your mouth is, and in this world, you are going to be giving that money to the backbone providers. the status quo is a de facto tiered system: with urban/wealthy areas getting fiber while the net stagnates everywhere else.
This bill is nothing more put a feather in the cap of the writer. It's so vague and powerless it's nothing more than a statement of intent.
While I'd like to chalk it up a step in the right direction, I'm not sure it even makes a step.
Does the current FCC hearing, held this past Monday on 2/25/08, have anything to do with this bill?
Also, see this: http://www.getmiro.com/blog/2008/02/comcast-secretly-pays-people-to-fill-seats-at-fcc-hearing/
This is no joke.
There are COUNTLESS examples of over the past eight years of how businesses / various industries pay lobbyists to build bills, wherein the company gains rights to be unfair in their own accountability and exploitation of their customers. Utility companies are deregulated, insurance companies are allowed to increase premiums and reduce coverage, banks are allowed to charge 20% or more on loans (at one time called Usury). The Internet is just another examples of an industry taking advantage of the political climate changing rules so they are unwatched, and gain profits by doing so. A great example are the gasoline prices. We no longer build refineries (due to environmental pollution) in order to put a premium on gasoline imports, in turn giving more profit potential for oil companies. The local stations are all in collusion with each other to lift prices and make more profits. Are there regulations to protect the consumer on this? Yes. Are they honestly enforced? No. Those claims are stonewalled. Complainers today do not give money to the regulators. Corporations are bought off, and say to the US Congress, "Prove it!"
The same is true here.
The Internet is being built out by these ISP's and in a way, they are now privatized and there is not enough clear protection to help citizens. The congress should stonewall these companies from allowing these ISP's the ability to stop client / citizen legal defense. The EFF is trying to help, and ICANN should additionally assist in helping. But they are not given enough government funding. I would personally feel fine with being taxed through my Internet connection and usage to be taxed in a way that gives money to these consumer advocacy groups. But this kind of group needs to be watched like the Supreme Court is watched. With checks and Balances.
The intentions of the congressman are doubtlessly good in this one, but as said prior, it is short, which means its full of holes. I suppose there is purpose in this because if any specificity were added to what FCC were allowed to do the bill would have no chance of getting through.
As it stands, interest would still be able to exploit this regulation as it leaves much up to the decisions of those who judge actions taken by communications companies.
They most certainly have 'friends' in the FCC.
Further specification must by made IF this manages to get through despite certain 'friends'
which of course means we need to continue to pressure congress.
Good Luck all
Moderated Comment
I see this as a ploy to determine whether or not we can be fooled into allowing "someone" to regulate anything. Let's leave as is. Any move at all is a move to regulate. No, please, no!
Interesting ...
This bill is a step in the right direction to protect Net Neutrality. I will be against any legislation that threatens Net Neutrality and I will support any legislation that protects it. So it's sort of worthless to argue over how much effect this bill will have. What we have to do is support Net Neutrality so that the ISPs cannot burn it to the ground.
I voted nay. Here's why:
I see the potential in the language for the government to censor content delivered via the Internet by deem it unlawful. See the language in section 4.2 paragraph A items i and ii. This language sounds good until something important to you is deemed unlawful - such as the free exchange of ideas that is vital to a free society.
It's all fun and games until someone's eye gets poked out ... or their civil liberties revoked.
Let the free market regulate and ensure that the consumers interest is upheld. It's up to you and I to protect ourselves from service providers who don't have our best interests in mind.
Add A Comment