, , , , ,

At the Great Orange Satan:

Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 04:00 PM PDT

What the net neutrality rules say: We win

by Joan McCarter

….For the stuff that matters to us most, as an online community: the order bans paid prioritization, throttling and blocking. That means that outright blocking of content, slowing of transmissions, and the creation of so-called “fast lanes” available on a pay-to-play basis are banned. Daily Kos will be delivered across the networks as easily as the New York Times’ website or Fox News’s or RedState (it still exists! Who knew?) and you and we won’t have to pay more to have it delivered to your screen. In fact, it will be delivered to all your screens equally-fixed or mobile….

Here at Show Me Progress we’re big fans of the concept of net neutrality, entrepreneurial spirits that we are. The right wingnut republicans in the Missouri General Assembly are another matter. A resolution introduced yesterday by Representative Jeff Pogue(r):


House Resolution No. 949 [pdf]



2531L.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

WHEREAS, on February 26, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission voted to implement new net neutrality rules which will become effective sixty days after publication in the Federal Register; and

WHEREAS, net neutrality, also called Open Internet, is based on a principle that Internet networks should be equally available to all types of legal content generators; and

WHEREAS, while FCC-approved net neutrality rules have been in place since 2008, the FCC was forced to propose new net neutrality rules when the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in early 2014 vacated the earlier rules; and

WHEREAS, the new rule reclassifies ISPs, including wireless data providers, as public utilities, like phone companies, that are subject to a set of regulations regarding fair access to services; and

WHEREAS, the new net neutrality rules will allow big ISPs to charge online companies for faster delivery of their content, which essentially will create a two-tiered system that allows ISPs to offer premium access to content providers who could afford to pay for it; and

WHEREAS, the new rules will create a “segregated” Internet where smaller and newer companies are unable to compete with established firms and their deep pockets; and

WHEREAS, ISPs could end up having to pay more fees under the new rules and will likely pass those additional charges on to consumers; and

WHEREAS, imposing these new rules by reclassifying broadband under the same rules

the FCC uses for the telephone network gives the FCC authority to set prices on services and collect fees; and

WHEREAS, while the FCC officials have stated that they won’t raise fees for ISPs, there are no protections in the new rules which would prevent such a change in the future:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we, the members of the Missouri House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth General Assembly, hereby strongly opposes the new FCC net neutrality rules which could result in higher costs which could inhibit ISPs from introducing new services and limit innovations in improving their networks, and will likely be passed on to consumers; and

that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives be instructed to prepare properly inscribed copies of this resolution for FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and each member of the Missouri Congressional delegation.

[emphasis in original]

Never underestimate their enthusiasm to act as shills for large corporations.

There were 3.7 million public comments on net neutrality sent to the FCC.

Public Knowledge: Net Neutrality


….Without net neutrality rules in place, ISPs can prevent users from visiting some websites, provide slower speeds for services like Netflix and Hulu, or even redirect users from one website to a competing website. Net neutrality rules prevent this by requiring ISPs to connect users to all lawful content on the internet equally, without giving preferential treatment to certain sites or services.

In the absence of net neutrality, companies can buy priority access to ISP customers. Larger, wealthier companies like Google or Facebook can pay ISPs to provide faster, more reliable access to their websites than to potential competitors. This could deter innovative start-up services that are unable to purchase priority access from the ISPs. Also, if ISPs can charge online services to connect to consumers, consumers would ultimately bear these additional costs (for example, on their monthly Netflix bill or in the cost of products from a local online store)….


Yep, now we understand why Representative Pogue (r) introduced HR 949.