• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: HB 1994

HB 1994: Net Neutrality for Missouri

09 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

General Assembly, HB 1994, Mark Ellebracht, missouri, Net Neutrality

A bill, introduced today by Rep. Mark Ellebracht (D):

HB 1994
Establishes provisions for net neutrality
Sponsor: Ellebracht, Mark (017)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2018
LR Number: 5667H.01I
Last Action: 01/09/2018 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HB 1994
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING
[….]

Well, if the FCC (and Trump administration) won’t do it, maybe the Missouri General Assembly will.

The bill text:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 1994 [pdf]
99TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE ELLEBRACHT. 5667H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 407, RSMo, by adding thereto three new sections relating to internet provider practices.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 407, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto three new sections, to be known as sections 407.1145, 407.1146, and 407.1147, to read as follows:

407.1145. As used in sections 407.1145 to 407.1148, the following terms mean:
(1) “Broadband internet access service”, a mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all internet endpoints including, but not limited to, capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up internet access service. The term shall also encompass any service that the Federal Communications Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of the service described in this subdivision or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this 9 section;
(2) “Edge provider”, any individual or entity that provides any content, application, or service over the internet and any individual or entity that provides a device used for accessing any content, application, or service over the internet;
(3) “End user”, any individual or entity that uses a broadband internet access service;
(4) “Mobile broadband internet access service”, a broadband internet service that serves end users primarily using mobile stations;
(5) “Paid prioritization”, the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic including, but not limited to, through the use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management and the broadband provider does so either:
(a) In exchange for consideration, monetary or otherwise, from a third party; or
(b) To benefit an affiliated entity;
(6) “Reasonable network management”, a practice that has a primarily technical network management justification but does not include other business practices. A network management practice is reasonable if it is primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband internet access service.

407.1146. 1. A provider of broadband internet access service in this state shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain internet offerings.
2. A provider of broadband internet access service in this state shall not:
(1) Block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management;
(2) Impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a nonharmful device, subject to reasonable network management;
(3) Engage in paid prioritization;
(4) Unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage:
(a) An end user’s ability to select, access, and use broadband internet access service or the lawful internet content, applications, services, or devices of the end user’s choice; or
(b) An edge provider’s ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users.
3. The public service commission may waive the prohibition of paid prioritization in subdivision (3) of subsection 2 of this section only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice shall provide some significant public interest benefit and shall not harm the open nature of the internet in this state.

407.1147. 1. The attorney general is authorized to take all necessary action to enforce the provisions of sections 407.1145 to 407.1148. The attorney general may initiate proceedings relating to a knowing violation of sections 407.1145 to 407.1148. Such proceedings may include an injunction, a civil penalty up to a maximum of five thousand dollars for each known violation, not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars per day, in any court of competent jurisdiction. The attorney general may issue investigative demands, issue subpoenas, administer oaths, and conduct hearings in the course of investigating a violation of sections 407.1145 to 407.1148.
2. In addition to the penalties provided in subsection 1 of this section, any person or entity that violates sections 407.1145 to 407.1148 shall be subject to all penalties, remedies, and procedures provided in sections 407.010 to 407.130. The remedies available in this section are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies available by law. Any civil penalties recovered under this section shall be credited to the merchandising practices revolving fund established under section 407.140.
3. A court of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident or the nonresident’s executor or administrator as to an action or proceeding authorized by this section in the manner otherwise provided by law.
4. A violation of sections 407.1145 to 407.1148 shall not be reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business and shall be an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition.

If republicans won’t support this or they subvert the bill we can all make sure they own that obstruction in the November General Election.

Previously:

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D): let’s ask Josh Hawley (r) about that (January 8, 2018)

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • democrat news
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 191,398 hits

Blog at WordPress.com.