U.S. Congress - H.R.96 Internet Freedom Act
H.R.96 - Internet Freedom Act
To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from further regulating the Internet. view all titles (3)
All Bill Titles
- Official: To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from further regulating the Internet. as introduced.
- Popular: Internet Freedom Act as introduced.
- Short: Internet Freedom Act as introduced.
This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.
Vote on This Bill
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed
Displaying 1-30 of 46 total comments.
To those who would support this anti-neutrality measure, I wonder how you will feel when AT&T charges you $20 more to access OpenCongress.
Um – they will change providers. That is the nature of “the free market”.
Um, not when Sprint charges and extra $20 and Verizon charges an extra $20 and T-Mobile charges an extra $20.
There’s already almost nothing free about the market as it currently is: the current American telcos are clones of each other with different branding. I can’t go to Verizon and get a better deal against my AT&T iPhone. There is no deal at all: the rates are all pretty much the same. Choose any random phone and you won’t get very much different service or features at any of these companies.
Removing regulation would only let the telcos be as outrageous as they really want to be. Data’s the new minutes (which now comes in the thousands for cheap), capped and over-charged, and texting rates are even worse than data — even though it’s an outdated technology in face of the mobile internet.
Unregulated markets brought us the financial crisis, FYI. Can’t we buy and use our phones in sensible peace?
No such thing as free market in in an Oligarchy.
When I have a choice of Comcast and Comcast, who do I switch to exactly?
Net neutrality is a consumer protection act.
Who is a consumer of the internet?
Nearly everyone, government, businesses, and citizens alike.
I wonder how anyone could possibly equate the “Internet Freedom Act” with the stated purpose pf the Bill. Have you read it?
This is not about “making” or “keeping” the internet free – it’s about allowing congress to take control. What good is Freedom of the Press when the incumbent, empowered elite control the content of or access to ideas?
Anyone remember the “Fairness Doctrine”?
This is another attempt by those in power to whittle away our Natural Rights.
Do not support!
They won’t. Don’t you get that the free market will keep prices reasonable for both the consumer and producer? As for prices to charge, a producer of a good or service has to be allowed to sell a product at a decent enough price to pay for costs and make a profit otherwise they’ll just stop offering it.
MetroPCS just announced that access to Netflix and Skype or other “advanced HTML” websites require you spring for the top payment plan.
Lower plans still have access to YouTube, despite similar data requirements.
“Free market regulation” works better in industries that don’t have you tied to a $300 early termination fee.
christapher, you’re tied to an ETF for your internet, not including a cell phone or cable/satellite? Who do you have your internet with?
Spam Comment
gosox5555, are you saying you only use your mobile phone for internet and not actual internet service from someone other than your phone company? I ask, because the post you replied to was my question about a $300 ETF from an internet provider. If you only use your phone as your internet gateway, then yes, I can see a high ETF. But if you don’t use your phone, then why would someone agree to a $300 ETF for internet? There’s always options.
If there is no Internet at the hotel, I am forced to rely on the mobile phone’s Internet. I watch movies over it (Netflix). I shouldn’t be penalized for this, if I’m within my allowance of bandwidth, and I especially shouldn’t be forced to watch them on YouTube or Hulu instead. The point here is that if telocos got their way, “all websites are created equal, but some websites are more equal then others.”
I see what you’re saying, but you know the FCC Net Neutrality rules don’t stop the companies for charging more tomorrow for the same service you have today, right? Yes, the FCC’s rules do mean you can access Netflix, even when you’re using a competitor of Netflix, but since the broadband companies (especially those listed as mobile broadband) now have to comply with higher regulation costs, where do we think the money is going to come from? The FCC says, “expand network, don’t limit, etc etc”, and the companies will try to fight it like Verizon is [http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2015717520110121] but that doesn’t mean they can’t charge $20 more per customer because of the higher costs.
FCC Ruling:[http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1223/FCC-10-201A1.pdf]
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
Spam Comment
If a business refuses to sell its competitor’s product, …
If an ISP refuses access to a competitor’s website, …
Can the ISP block and censor its competitor’s network traffic?
If you mean block it’s competitor’s homepage, then I would say they should have the right to do so. But if you mean block their IM traffic, or webpages for what their customer’s post (yahoo groups, AIM, etc.) then I would say yes they should have the right, but they will not be in business long. As what is seen with cell phones, a high ETF will not keep customers when they don’t want to be your customer. So an ISP that blocks it’s competitor’s traffic (yahoo groups, AIM, etc.) is limiting themselves to a debilitating degree and will lose too many customers to keep blocking those items. But it is a private business, if they want to go bankrupt, they should be allowed to.
Comcast blocked youtube for several days recently because of bandwidth issues, but in certain areas of the country comcast is the only game in town, so you can’t cancel and go with cablevision, or clearwire, or att.
Do you cancel your internet access on principle and go back to a papercup and taught string, or do you suck it up because you need access to the net?
You suck it up.
The free market concept has limits.
This might be one of the most insidious, ill-conceived pieces of legislation introduced all year, with potential ramifications that can cause widespread damage well beyond the internet.
Spam Comment
Ahhh fakk2, that is one of the major issues….lobbyists put money in the pockets of those to prevent competition. It’s happened in Philly with so many roadblocks put in the way of Verizion “competing” with them in the city.
The free market solves all problems… just look at housing market! Now, lets give them control over the internet, keep citizens uniformed, and fall below the 15th spot in “best internet infrastructure”
Freddie and Fanny gave us s free-market in housing? Really? 100’s of federal, state and local environmental zoning regulations gave us a free-market in housing? Think again.
Spam Comment
@ invient Wow you’re either completely clueless as to how the economy is run or you’re just outright dishonest. Most regulated sectors of the economy: financial, health care, housing. Most f**ked sectors of the economy: financial, health care, housing. Oh and I forgot about education, energy, and addictive drugs. But those are doing well . . .
Spam Comment
The President has a “czar” in charge of the FCC, and is moving toward total control of the internet, talk radio and other media it controls, with a view to stifling free exchange of information and the First Amendment guarrantee of free speech. I think we would have a better chance of keeping that freedom with Congress, especially the House, in charge of not increasing government controls.
Can you provide any evidence for this? I’m willing to consider it if you can.
You should note that members of the FCC are confirmed by Congress, and are subject to impeachment, just as all public officials are.
“Czar” is not a term that can just be thrown around. “Chairman” maybe, but “czar” implies absolute power, or in this country, advisory power. The FCC stands for “Federal Communications Committee” which implies that there are many members (appointed by a variety of Presidents, I might add).
Spam Comment
1. He doesn’t appear to have anything to do with these issues. He seems to work on issues relating to diversity in the media (something that urgently needs protecting). The only one who has called him a “czar” is Glenn “Birther” Beck (not a reliable source IMHO).