?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Help save net neutrality!

I just contacted one of my senators, Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), about the proposed two-tiered Internet service, which would create a "fast lane" for those who can afford it, and a "slow lane" for the rest -- and most -- of us, who cannot. Here is what she replied:

* * * * *


Thank you for contacting me about Internet policy. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue, and sincerely regret the delayed response.

On May 15, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to move forward with a proposal allowing high-profit Internet providers to charge "commercially reasonable" rates for faster service. I am concerned that the new proposal could eventually lead to a tiered Internet with premium fast lanes and slow lanes for the rest of us. Currently, the FCC proposal is open for public comment until July 15, after which the FCC will proceed with the rulemaking process. I encourage all Washingtonians to share their perspective on the proposed rule with the FCC at openinternet@fcc.gov.

Two-tiered Internet is unacceptable. Americans do not pay different rates for slow or fast telephone service and should not have to for the Internet, either. The Internet is a bedrock component of the 21st Century innovation economy and we must continue to fight hard for a level playing field.

I am working with my colleagues on legislation to restore the protections of an even playing field for American consumers and entrepreneurs. Without strong protections, broadband Internet providers will likely favor their own or affiliated content, service, and applications because they have the economic incentives and technical means to do so.

On January 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down key parts of the FCC's net neutrality rules. This ruling (Verizon v. FCC) revoked the FCC's rules that blocked broadband providers from charging varying prices for network access. The court ruled that the FCC does not have the authority under the Communications Act of 1934 to regulate broadband providers as "common carriers." I am concerned that the new proposal by the FCC could lead to the kind of varied pricing it has opposed in the past.

As a senior member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, I have consistently fought for strong net neutrality rules and I am considering legislation to accomplish that goal of maintaining an "Internet for all." During the 112th Congress, I introduced the Internet Freedom, Broadband Promotion, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 74) along with Senator Al Franken (D-MN). My legislation would have created a new section in Title II of the Communications Act by codifying the six net neutrality principles in the FCC's November 2009 Notice of Proposed Rule Making for preserving the open Internet, effectively designating telecommunications companies as "common carriers." Additionally, the legislation would have prohibited broadband operators from requiring content, service, or application providers to pay for prioritized delivery of their Internet Protocol (IP) packets, also known as pay-for priority. Unfortunately, this legislation was not adopted before the end of the 112th Congress.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator


For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at
http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/

* * * * *


Those reading this should send their comments on it to the FCC at openinternet@fcc.gov. It's our Internet -- we shouldn't have to put up with bad Internet service.

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
banner
Jul. 12th, 2014 02:03 am (UTC)
She never read your letter. You just got a form email.
polaris93
Jul. 12th, 2014 02:04 am (UTC)
I knew that. But she does give the email address of the department of the FCC to which people can send comments on the proposed legislation. That's the important thing I'm sharing.
mauser
Jul. 12th, 2014 09:02 am (UTC)
Still, it's the first respectable form letter I've seen from CantVoteWell. The one I got in reply to the suggestion of not taxing unemployment benefits was this close to a matter-antimatter explosion in its cognitive dissonance. (Proud of voting to increase and extend benefits. Taxes on them are an incentive to get off of them and find a job. Buhwhat?)
polaris93
Jul. 12th, 2014 08:06 pm (UTC)
That sounds . . . bureaucratic. I have to admit that whoever wrote Maria Cantwell's form letter did a really great job. And, as I said to Banner, it included the email address people could send their comments to, for the FCC to use in consideration of the issue.
justgoto
Jul. 12th, 2014 04:16 pm (UTC)
I have the privilege to pay more for less with hughesnet!
polaris93
Jul. 12th, 2014 06:56 pm (UTC)
? Haven't heart of it. Why "more for less"?
justgoto
Jul. 14th, 2014 02:10 am (UTC)
Because if I'm watching a YouTube video they will "interrupt" the video. How dare I use all that bandwidth.
polaris93
Jul. 15th, 2014 01:03 am (UTC)
AH. yes.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Let's Roll
polaris93
Yael Dragwyla

Latest Month

February 2018
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728   

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner