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.

disabledbobcat 09/14/2009 9:11am
in reply to kference Aug 28, 2009 8:17pm

The problem is that in almost all areas outside of major cities, there are no other options. Where I live, it’s Comcast or dial up. I’m not satisfied with my service but what can I do? The market right now does not encourage competition because providers have virtual monopolies on huge areas.

Ak_Midnightsun 10/22/2009 8:28am

This is a Fight over whether the Government will take over the Internet plain & simle. If this passes it WILL be regulated and we will lose the internet as we know and love now forever…. If you like our internet as it is (free of rules and regulation) Tell your Local Reps! Pass the word… http://bytestyle.tv/content/action-alert-fcc-vote-net-neutrality-thursday

kimitch 10/27/2009 4:40am
in reply to LeMat Oct 22, 2009 12:01pm

“Anything the Government does can be done hundreds of times better and more efficiently by the private sector.”

So I guess we should privatize our military, fire departments, police, coast guard, etc., too?

Oh yeah, except then businesses will run all of it. And businesses are FOR profit (unlike the government) and are run by people who are not elected by the people of the United States of America. Yeah, I’d rather have a bunch of rich, non-elected people to run everything in my life… because at least then it won’t be the big bad government (you know, those who are elected).

And government is not the antithesis of freedom. That’s like saying rules are the antithesis of freedom. Rules are essential to freedom (at least the kind of freedom that is good and just).

Gmannygarcia 09/07/2009 7:30pm

The consumers didn’t flee from Eron for its unethical business practices, it eventually became the job of the government to arrest and fine the corrupt executives of Enron.

Also, the artificial sweetener, Aspartame, has managed to garner around 80% of the FDA’s complaints, and was approved by a very scandalous procedure in which the company itself basically purchased its own approval. Now, aspartame is still in outrageous amounts of food and hasn’t been run into the ground by product-conscious consumers.
The fact is, the health and well-being of the American people cannot be left to the free market and the responsibility of the consumer, the government has a distinct role to play in making sure that the free market doesn’t spiral out of control with corruption, while the American people stand by, mesmerized by the artificial bubble they’re in.

WhiteZombie7689 08/30/2009 1:44pm
in reply to kference Aug 28, 2009 8:17pm

Here’s the thing… Do you really think that, after restricting content to force people to pay extra for full internet service, there will be a benevolent ISP that doesn’t want to put the squeeze on consumers?

LeMat 10/22/2009 12:42pm
in reply to rynz1rc Sep 29, 2009 8:08pm

It’s called ‘Government Control’. Forgoing the fact that it remains out of their Constitutional purview (don’t even go to the Interstate Commerce Clause, because it’s nothing but BS), they have no business getting into our business at all. Do you really think Government involvement in ANYTHING will drive down costs or make things more ‘free’? Do you think they’ll stop at giving everyone ‘equal access’, or will they also need to make it ‘safe’ for us all as well? I hope you enjoy censorship with your cablemodem.

Guess what, there’s not enough bandwidth in the Internet’s backbone (major routing paths) to give everyone broadband! Worthless service for everyone! Hurrah!

dysaniak 08/28/2009 11:07am

Without protections that I can only believe will come from the federal government and certainly NOT any private companies, the internet could easily fail to flourish as it has so far, once ISPs start eroding democratic site access. Can you imagine a world where you must pay to be allowed access to Google? Pay a little more, and you can access Facebook? All too easily. And it terrifies me. And there is MONEY to be made this way, but what does it cost US? Since there is profit in it, we cannot trust private companies to help us.

Kordis 09/14/2009 12:29pm

The free market benefits companies, not people. We The People need protecting too. I live in a metropolitan area, and similar to Disabledbobcat, I only have 1 choice for ISP that provides speeds needed today, my other option is dialup. I even checked with the satellite companies, and locally, they all offer their internet service through Comcast. If comcast decides to take a position to charge to be connected to any search engine, or to sites outside the U.S., what are my real options? If internet businesses are given free reign, we WILL lose our right to free speech, by being blocked from seeing whatever the people in charge of the companies see as detrimental to their success or as going against their beliefs, or charged for something that should be free. Remember, the internet itself could have been under the control of just a few people, but they decided to make it public domain, and they were right for doing so.

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.

Spam Comment

kbthiede 10/21/2009 12:21pm

In short, not allowing this bill to pass would be like allowing a small few corporations decide what businesses fail and which succeed.


kimitch 10/27/2009 5:06am
in reply to LeMat Oct 22, 2009 12:16pm

Yeah, we saw what the “free market” could do with the collapse of the housing and banking industry. And what about them airlines? What happened? They were so concerned with their bottom-line and their profit margins that they drove their businesses into the ground, and then call on the big bad government to help them to their feet and kiss their boo-boos.

Here’s the thing about the “free market.” It isn’t free, especially without government over site. The government is composed of elected officials; people elected by other Americans. Companies are composed of people who are not elected; Americans have no say over who runs which company. So you’d rather have these non-elected people make all the rules and tell you what to do? Plus, without the government, there wouldn’t be any antitrust laws. Let’s take all that away and see how the “free market” fares.

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 10:35am
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.

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?

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

Spam Comment

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 10/29/2009 12:15pm
in reply to kbthiede Oct 27, 2009 11:03am

Regulation means less small business. You’d think people could look back a few years and see what zoning did to commercial real estate prices. How people argue from this continued position of ignorance is beyond me. When businesses need to ask the Government for permission to do anything, that’s control and it is EXPENSIVE! Control is anathema in the free market system.

Even with Government control as it is, there are STILL small business out there struggling. There are THREE local WISPs in my (very) rural area, one of which is a small business run out of the owners home! Perhaps you should look harder and stop shelling out your money to Comcast and Verizon if they are such a problem!

Google, Amazon, Microsoft… Who are they? The ones behind Net-Neutrality. Seriously, only three big money lobbies? Who is really in control of our Government? People with money, or voters?

kbthiede 10/27/2009 10:51am

“It’s called ‘Government Control’. Forgoing the fact that it remains out of their Constitutional purview (don’t even go to the Interstate Commerce Clause, because it’s nothing but BS), they have no business getting into our business at all.”


Hmmm……So now the Constitution is bullshit. Isn’t that a wonderful thing to say in a debate on American economic policy?

The clause is as such:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”


“Pronunciation: \ˈkä-(ˌ)mərs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin commercium, from com- + merc-, merx merchandise
Date: 1537
1 : social intercourse : interchange of ideas, opinions, or sentiments
2 : the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place”

What makes this BS? Explain, please.

stargunner 10/27/2009 4:09pm

I am typically against government intervention in the market, but I trust the FCC more than I trust Comcast and Verizon et al and their constantly skyrocketing bills for basic services.

Logwad 10/25/2009 10:02am

The bill allows the Committee on Energy and Commerce to constantly define and redefine what is illegal, without a vote of the full house, with the ability to force ISPs to record and report on illegal activity.

It’s a bad bill. I’d rather take it up the ass from a corporation than the government.

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.

LeMat 10/29/2009 11:13am
in reply to kimitch Oct 27, 2009 4:40am

Privatized military? It’s called Blackwater and YES; they ARE better armed and more efficient (per soldier) than our military. Privatized fire departments? We have a volunteer fire dept. where I live. Police? You CAN’T because they’d have no LEGAL authority, but an armed citizenry reduces crime. Coast Guard? The Coast Guard during it’s inception was nothing more than the state militias being brought under the control of the government… a power grab. Is it any wonder why we’ve gotten dumber and dumber since schools became socialized? Don’t make me laugh…

The Government is not for profit… are you kidding me? It’s OUR money their voting themselves raises with! Have you read their appropriations bills? Have you seen the way they spend? The very businesses you seem to resent are the BACKBONE of the American economy, and the only reason the government has any money at all is because those very businesses exist.

Government is control — control is the anti-thesis of freedom.

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

geekmom 10/21/2009 5:20am

The free market allows companies to compete. Something like this will only allow those companies with a lot of money and bandwidth to serve their customers. All the others will be squelched. And once people can’t afford to put Internet service in their area for their community, well guess who steps in: the monopoly or uncle sam—yet owning ONE MORE piece of America that you no longer do.

kbthiede 10/27/2009 10:10am

@ Constitutionalist1:

That’s my point exactly. The idea that the free market can solve all of our problems and do everything the best is not different from thinking the same about government. Neither one can solve all of our problems, neither one can do everything the best. THAT is why we need the government to regulate business. Ultimately, a free-market utopia cannot exist in which no government control on the economy is needed. After all, we had laissez-fairre during the industrial revolution, and industry poisoned our air, our water, and produced food that was contaminated, working conditions that were unfit for human beings, and ultimately generated a lot of money for an elite 1% of the population while everyone in the middle scraped by.

So, I’d say most of us agree that the power held by the “evil government” needs to balance with the power of the “evil corporations” for our economic system to work.

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.

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.

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