H.R.3458 - Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a national broadband policy, safeguard consumer rights, spur investment and innovation, and for related purposes. view all titles (3)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a national broadband policy, safeguard consumer rights, spur investment and innovation, and for related purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Popular: Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 as introduced.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 70 total comments.

stockprofessors 08/31/2011 2:23am

Thanks for sharing very good information that will be so interesting. http://www.stockprofessors.com/

timstrain 07/27/2011 12:30am
in reply to LeMat Nov 02, 2009 10:35am

While I agree that the quality of life comparison is ridiculous, you are absolutely wrong about Americans fighting against communications regulations back in the 1800’s. Read the Pacific Telegraph Act of 1860, where Congress regulated how telegraph lines were constructed, how they were operated, and who had access to them. That Act was the Net-neutrality policy of the Industrial Revolution, and seeing how well it worked back then, I don’t see why it wouldn’t work in today’s world with the internet.

Spam Comment

Spam Comment

socalcitizen 05/26/2010 8:03am

I support Net Neutrality, by guaranteeing freedom of content all users benefit. We are already limited in internet speed by a tiered system created by corporations, we don’t need these same companies limiting our content also.

socalcitizen 05/26/2010 7:44am
in reply to kference Aug 28, 2009 8:17pm

That’s what was said about the banks “deregulate” and look where they took us. On the other-hand telecoms, television and radio has been regulated for years with little issue.

redraparee 05/15/2010 3:04pm
in reply to Logwad Oct 25, 2009 10:02am

Let me first say that I’m not a fan of Government regulation. However, in this case, it is not only appropriate but vital if the Internet is to remain free and open.

This Bill is not about turning over control of the Internet over to the Government but about preventing major IT and other corporations from controlling it.

If it weren’t for Government regulation, utility companies or another form of corporate “service provider” could and would charge whatever they wanted for vital services, like telephone, gas and electricity. Are you also for having these regulations removed? Do you really trust the big guys to do the right thing?

Though, to my knowledge, the Internet has not been officially designated a public utility, it very much is and should remain just that and to keep it that, some regulation is definitely required.

death32478 04/25/2010 1:52pm
in reply to kbthiede Apr 22, 2010 4:25pm

Don’t get yourself worked up to much man. Keep fighting the good fight.

kbthiede 04/22/2010 4:25pm

If ISPs form an oligopoly as it is over the industry of providing bandwidth, why should we give them a similar oligopoly over internet content? MONOPOLIES AND OLIGOPOLIES ARE NOT GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY, AS THEY REDUCE INNOVATION, COMPETITION, AND CAUSE PRICES TO RISE. I know you guys like to show of how conservative you are and like to throw around words like “free market” and “big government” but the market is anything but free when dominated by a very small number of corporations. Monopolies and oligopolies kill freedom of trade just as easily as does oppressive government. So, whatever dude, you like exploitation and greed in a system that favors the transfer of wealth…from the poor to the rich. FUCK YOU

Spam Comment

TBSchemer 02/28/2010 9:14pm
in reply to kbthiede Oct 21, 2009 12:19pm

Is AT&T already throttling consumers of their ISP service? No? Then what makes you think we need a bill preventing them from doing so?

Do you think one day they’ll just completely reverse every notion they currently have of what will get them good business?

TBSchemer 02/28/2010 9:14pm
in reply to kbthiede Oct 21, 2009 12:19pm

Is AT&T already throttling consumers of their ISP service? No? Then what makes you think we need a bill preventing them from doing so?

Do you think one day they’ll just completely reverse every notion they currently have of what will get them good business?

mwurgaft 02/22/2010 5:09am

I believe this bill needs more bite. ISPs should not be allowed to hide behind the DMCA safe harbors, and should be actively policing their networks for illegal content. Piracy is a scourge and can be characterized as both the Bull in the China shop AND a dirty little secret that does not get enough press.

Quality of Service (QoS, tiering) and Municipal providers should be considered. Our “dumb” network needs to get “smart”.

ericiscool 02/12/2010 12:24am
in reply to dabears Nov 13, 2009 1:42pm

who, me?

ericiscool 02/12/2010 12:21am
in reply to deanberry Oct 07, 2009 12:56pm

ahh, so THAT’S why they want it shut down!. Because they realized it RUINED a commie nation!. thank you for shedding light on this, for me!.

They’re not gettin’ any info out of me.

Ak_Midnightsun 12/04/2009 8:50am

Time Warner is also in on the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement The Act would require ISPs to police user generated content, to cut off Internet access for copyright violators & to remove content thats accused of copyright violation w/o any proof of actual violation! It also completely prohibits DRM workarounds even for archiving or retrieving one’s own work

Only 42 persons such as reps of Google Intel Verizon Time Warner Sony News Corp eBay the MPAA and the RIAA were given access to the document under nondisclosure agreements The politicians involved in creating the it are heavily funded by entertainment media and IP corporations such as Sony Time Warner News Corp & Disney

Internet users around the world are headed for a new regime of IP enforcement a culture of invasive searches minimal privacy guilt until innocence is proven and measures that would kill our normative behaviors of file-sharing free software media downloading creative remixing and even certain civil liberties

Ak_Midnightsun 12/04/2009 8:29am

According to Open Secrets, Markeys 2nd & 3rd Top Campaign Contributors for ‘09 & ’10 are Time Warner & Comcast. And His 3rd & 5th Contributors in ’07 & ’08. Hmmm….he is cheap also.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IN WASHINGTON IS FOLLOW THE MONEY WE NEED TO CHANGE IT SO SO THAT REPS CAN’T BE BOUGHT OR INFLUENCED!
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000270&cycle=2010

jasoncostello 11/21/2009 10:06am
in reply to cpiseco Nov 17, 2009 3:35pm

What does that mean? “Safeguard consumer rights”. What gets lost whenever anyone says “net neutrality” is that you don’t want the owners of the pipes (ISP’s) to allow their content to be delivered at a higher quality (or at all) when compared to an alternative. Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, they are ISPs, but they also want to generate content. They offer TV and phone service in addition to Internet access. I want to make sure I can still use Skype or watch Hulu even though one of these companies may offer a competing product at an extra cost.

LeMat 11/19/2009 4:22am
in reply to dabears Nov 13, 2009 1:40pm

How, when they are regulated to death by the very Government you want to give even more control? Most of the costs you think you’re paying to your ISPs and phone companies are hidden taxes. Google how much of your phone bill is tax sometime.

cpiseco 11/17/2009 3:35pm

Safeguard consumer rights. Hit the nail on the head. Yes to this.

dabears 11/13/2009 1:42pm
in reply to deanberry Oct 07, 2009 12:56pm

You are completely misinformed. Have you even read the proposed bill?

dabears 11/13/2009 1:40pm
in reply to LeMat Oct 22, 2009 12:42pm

Maybe the ISP’s should invest some of the billions we’ve already given them into their infrastructure instead of trying to screw the consumer out of their internets.

LeMat 11/02/2009 10:43am
in reply to LeMat Nov 02, 2009 10:35am

Socialist states are good at providing quality of life? Wow, an excellent point that showcases your utter ignorance. If they are so great, why do they have to put up fences and walls to keep their people IN?

Go talk to an ex-patriot from a Socialist nation sometime… please. Allow them to educate you with their first-hand experience on just exactly how excellent their quality of life before they moved here to get away from it.

LeMat 11/02/2009 10:35am
in reply to LeMat Nov 02, 2009 10:35am

“The Economy would devolve into an oligopoly of powerful companies that will stamp out all competition due to their superior resources.” What do you think the government is doing right now? They have already regulated practically ALL the small business in this country to death! Our government is OWNED by powerful business, and you want to give them MORE power! I reiterate: Google, Amazon and Microsoft are backing this bill. You want an Oligopoly? You’re fighting for one!

A balanced economy IS a good thing. Nowhere is an economy more balanced than in a free market.

LeMat 11/02/2009 10:35am
in reply to LeMat Nov 02, 2009 10:33am

Compare quality of living between now and the Industrial Revolution? That is your argument? The late 1700’s and early 1800’s quality of life has absolutely nothing to do with this argument. Let me ask you this instead… were American’s more FREE in the Industrial Revolution; were they better educated about their rights; would THEY fight the government regulating their communication businesses? That would be a resounding YES! Our country was born during that time and it has NEVER been freer.

LeMat 11/02/2009 10:34am
in reply to kbthiede Oct 30, 2009 12:28pm

You seem to be fond of the term “Capitalist Utopia,” but never define it. True Capitalism is nothing more than natural law: survival of the fittest. It is good enough in nature and it works perfectly well in business; it spurs innovation and allows for greater prosperity. The government is supposed to make sure that the playing field stays level, and no one stacks the game illegally. Instead, they have become the enabler, and allow big business to run roughshod over all their competition. Once more, I would like to point out to you that small business did not die off on it’s own and big business did not spring like Athena from the crown of Zeus… they each had help from the government.

LeMat 11/02/2009 10:33am
in reply to kbthiede Oct 30, 2009 12:28pm

An economy built on a fake credit bubble created by a central bank? All that money was DEBT, and we can see where it gets us in the long run! The problem here, kbthiede, is that you have neither an understanding of economics nor the Internet. You blather constantly in aggrandized generalizations and never offer any specific arguments to bolster your point.

LeMat 11/02/2009 10:05am
in reply to Andy_la_rue Nov 02, 2009 5:15am

Do you need someone to define for you what ‘government regulation’ means? The White House is currently attacking Fox News (the FREE PRESS) for what it considers ‘pushing a viewpoint’. This is who you want regulating Internet content?

Your only free when you don’t need to ask the government for permission.

Andy_la_rue 11/02/2009 5:15am
Link Reply
+ -1

So, I’m guessing that those who opposed this legislation are against their first amendment rights? They would rather private industry decide what content they see and when they see it? Or is supporting the first amendment socialist?

kbthiede 10/30/2009 12:28pm

LeMat, you’re right. America’s economy HASN’T been free market since the great depression. But guess what. After the great depression, America’s economy became even stronger and went on to become the world’s strongest.

But, I don’t care enough to argue with you about the merits of a capitalist utopia, it won’t happen, can’t happen, and wouldn’t work.

The economy would devolve into an oligopoly of a few powerful companies that will stamp out all competition due to their superior resources.

All you free market utopians seem to intentionally forget that we had almost total free market economics during the industrial revolution. Tell me with all honesty that you think the quality of life was better back then. An economy needs to be balanced, total free markets are profitable but corrupt, and total socialist states are economically weak, although good at providing a good quality of life for almost everyone. Yes that’s a generalization, cry about it.

A balanced economy is a good thing.


Vote on This Bill

70% Users Support Bill

283 in favor / 121 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments