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 31-60 of 70 total comments.

  • kbthiede 10/21/2009 12:19pm

    It seems to me like a lot of uneducated idiots are just waving the flag of free enterprise without learning about this issue at all.

    It would be like allowing a few companies that own and make roads to decide what shops get paved streets. Let me explain…

    I’m all for the free market, but without government intervention, a few telecoms will dominate the internet and turn it into a computerized version of cable. So, the government needs to intervene to protect competition and free enterprise.

    Imagine you have set up a web-based service selling high-quality digital images. The images you make may be great, but you can’t afford to pay AT&T as much as they want, so you get throttled (your website gets less bandwidth, thus slowing it down) and lose traffic.

  • Comm_reply
    TBSchemer 02/28/2010 9:14pm

    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?

  • Comm_reply
    TBSchemer 02/28/2010 9:14pm

    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?

  • kbthiede 10/21/2009 12:19pm

    Meanwhile an already well-established website that provides the same service as yours is flourishing because they had time to grow before AT&T began prioritizing its bandwidth. Eventually your business fails and theirs continues to grow.

    Is it really fair in a sense of the free market to allow an oligopoly to form that controls the greatest and most important form of data transfer?

    Here’s the deal, just regurgitate the words “let the market decide whats best” and live in a world where no more than 3 companies control ALL information, or learn about this issue and realize that a free enterprise economy could not survive without net neutrality.

  • 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.


  • kbthiede 10/21/2009 12:26pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    kbthiede (at) gmail (dot) com

  • Comm_reply
    LeMat 10/23/2009 5:36am

    If you were as ‘educated’ as you claim, you would realize that argumentum ad personam in the first sentence is not a good way to make your point. The free market is SUPPOSED to have restrictions, and a level playing field. The problem has become corporate lobbying and payoffs to a CORRUPT Government. Please go to the Ludwig von Mises Institute (online) and educate yourself on the Austrian Economic model and true free market principles.

    Face it… the most corrupt machine in our economy is the very thing you want to place in charge of protecting us from corruption. It would be like putting a misogynist in charge of women’s rights.

    “…free enterprise economy could not survive without net neutrality.” How Orwellian of you. I suppose “freedom is slavery” and “war is peace” are also some of your favorite quotes?

  • 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

  • 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.

  • Comm_reply
    redraparee 05/15/2010 3:04pm

    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.

  • Constitutionalist1 10/25/2009 1:25pm

    Holy Jeez kbthiede, your line..
    “I’m all for the free market, but without government intervention, a few telecoms will dominate the internet and turn it into a computerized version of cable. So, the government needs to intervene to protect competition and free enterprise.”
    Sounds like Bush’s: “I’ve given up free market policies to save the free market.”
    Ridiculous. You can’t have free market with government intervention, if so then it’s NOT FREE MARKET. Do you get the oxymoron here?

  • 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.

  • kbthiede 10/27/2009 10:25am

    So, I apologize for the mistake I made when I said “…free enterprise economy could not survive without net neutrality.” I suppose I should have said our American economic system could not survive without net neutrality…because America IS NOT capitalist, it is a MIXED ECONOMY balancing govt regulation with economic freedom, and we have the best economy and we, as a single country, have the most significant impact on the movement of the global economy.

    But even the ideal free market assumes each and every consumer can easily pick a business over another and switch easily with only concern for price and quality of product/service.

    Net neutrality guarantees an open marketplace on the internet. As opposed to one manipulated by oligopolistic companies.

  • kbthiede 10/27/2009 10:30am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    Ultimately, the internet is a public entity. The telecoms have no right treating it as their little toy, because it belongs to EVERYONE. Yes, telecoms provide us with bandwidth, but that doesn’t make the content theirs, too.

    You wouldn’t give possession of all public land to a handful of very wealthy corporations (capitalist utopia proponents aside), so why would you do so with all public data?

  • 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.

  • Comm_reply
    LeMat 10/29/2009 12:03pm

    I never said the Constitution is BS, nor even the Commerce Clause. As with all of our founding documents — it is not in the way it was written, but in the way it is interpreted. That clause was never meant to stymie trade between the states but to to encourage it. When the Constitution was written, the States regulated their own commerce (and laws) completely. Today, the Federal Government uses that very clause to regulate anything produced WITHIN any state, because it can be shipped between them. Much like the way the Government loves to point out the word ‘militia’ in the Second Amendment, then act like only the National Guard should be allowed to carry.

    Yes, you can read a dictionary… now try to read some of the founding documents like the “Federalist Papers” and “Anti-Federalist Papers” if you want some understanding.

  • kbthiede 10/27/2009 11:03am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Governmental regulation requiring Net Neutrality (NN) is needed to protect the open marketplace housed within the internet. Not having it will not make the internet better, it will just make it more expensive over time because the telecoms will learn they can get away with charging more for this and that.

    This is like many of the necessary regulations (like pollution control, food quality, anti-trust laws, the list goes on…) that will be needed to protect the consumers, because the government is ELECTED BY consumers to protect consumers. We, the consumers of bandwidth, cannot let an entire industry go unregulated because utopia CANNOT happen, especially not a free-market utopia, and industry has proven again and again that it cannot be trusted.

  • Comm_reply
    LeMat 10/29/2009 12:15pm

    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?

  • Comm_reply
    kombatandfw 04/02/2010 9:38pm

    Net nuetrality is a myth. EG buy a prom dress on line. The business on the page 1 paid to get that premium spot. Putting content on the net is cheap, hence spam. Do you really care how you get your net access, either by wire, wireless, internet access providers… There are very strict rules on net providers. Competition keeps costs down. Net access is 19 bucks a month. 19 bucks is 4 coffees.
    Network construction isn’t cheap. They are billion dollar investments, yes, like highways. Given content is easy and cheap to provide, the demand for bandwidth increases. That bandwidth costs money. Also, the more traffic, the slower your net. Just like a highway.
    If not for the networks, you would not have internet access.
    Ask why content providers want to eat all they want at the limited bandwidth trough? Click the money trail tab.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Comm_reply
    LeMat 11/02/2009 10:33am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    LeMat 11/02/2009 10:35am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    LeMat 11/02/2009 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.

  • Comm_reply
    LeMat 11/02/2009 10:43am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    timstrain 07/27/2011 12:30am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    LeMat 11/02/2009 10:34am

    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.

  • 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?

  • Comm_reply
    LeMat 11/02/2009 10:05am

    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.

  • cpiseco 11/17/2009 3:35pm

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

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