Cutting access to the Internet, cable to the router

Report: GOP Working on a Bill to Save Net Neutrality

Last week the FCC announced that they will move the internet from a Title II to a Title I service. This effectively ended what many called Net Neutrality. Now it is being reported that House Republicans are working on a bill that would prevent blocking and throttling of net content.

According to a report from Multi Channel News, the bill, which would amend the Communications Act, would bring back many of the parts of Net Neutrality by directly the FCC to enforce rules agents blocking and throttling. Yet the FCC would get no new additional powers over the internet other than to regulate attempts to block or throttle content.

Details are still thin and we will have to wait to see what the final bill says but for many who wanted to protect their access to content this is a step in that direction.

If you want to help get this bill passed we recommend you call your representative in Congress. Let your voice be heard as there has already been talk of a bill in Congress to make net neutrality a law not just a legal rule from the FCC. Posting online is great but will unlikely be seen by the people who matter. Next, I suggest you send a physical letter again a polite letter but a physical one net an email. Emails are easy but also easily ignored.

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter for more news, tips, and reviews.

Need cord cutting tech support? Join our new Cord Cutting Tech Support Facebook Group for help.

62 Responses to Report: GOP Working on a Bill to Save Net Neutrality

  1. Joseph ewing December 19, 2017 at 1:26 pm #

    The bill doesn’t stop paid prioritization, and also bans states from passing their own Net Neutrality laws.

    • Me December 19, 2017 at 1:45 pm #

      Considering your internet connection likely like going over state lines that falls under interstate commerce. Also I’m not sure how you can have paid prioritization and not have throttling. If one is paying to have their stuff be faster than everyone else’s that has to mean everyone else’s is slower thus throttled.

      • Mark Bidewell December 19, 2017 at 8:59 pm #

        Paid Prioritization encompasses some practices which could be pro-consumer. The no-throttling rule prevents the real harms.

        • Me December 19, 2017 at 10:02 pm #

          explain how you can prioritized some content without de-prioritizing other content? That doesn’t pass the sniff test.

          • Mark Bidewell December 19, 2017 at 10:14 pm #

            Ok some possible examples (at least in my mind). Note that what I consider throttling is deliberately passing traffic below the users selected plan rate.

            1) Suppose Netflix wanted to ensure that all of its customers could see HD video (including those paying for slow connections). Allowing Netflix traffic at say 15 Mbps for a user with a 10Mbps plan doesn’t prevent other traffic from passing at the 10Mbps rate.
            2) Zero rating is often lumped in with paid prioritization. Allowing uncapped access to services I don’t view as a harm.

            Philosophically, I don’t mind companies fighting for competitive advantage as long as it enhances consumer experience. I only care if people are being denied goods and services they are paying for.

          • DH4 December 20, 2017 at 4:58 am #

            See something like that I would not have a problem with. If an ISP wants to partner with specific content providers to offer exclusive deals like that, I don’t see anything wrong with it. They would not be throttling or blocking other content, they are just providing value added services, or improved service that those users would typically not get at their existing plans.

            There is even more possibilities we may not even be thinking about right now. Net Neutrality was always a bit of an overreach in the way it was implemented. This bill takes care of the number one concern of those freaking out over the repeal. While at the same time allowing companies room to innovate in other ways.

            This is why from day one I didn’t think lack of Net Neutrality in it’s current form was going to be a big deal.

          • Camille M December 20, 2017 at 7:17 pm #

            That sounds very reasonable. However, it still opens the door for ISPs to effectively restrict access to some services – perhaps by lowering data caps while they offer their affiliated services with zero rating. Actually as 4K becomes popular current speeds and caps will become limiting, forcing customers to choose between using the ISP’s preferred services, viewing in a lower quality, or paying more for an upgrade.

          • Richard December 20, 2017 at 7:49 pm #

            I’d add an example for prioritization (without the ‘paid’). Let’s say the service is a poor performer. The ISP provides the bandwidth and the content provider misused the provided bandwidth to the detriment of the customer. There should be some recourse available other than the consumer simply not using it.

          • Robert Frankenfield January 5, 2018 at 2:03 pm #

            I recall a while back Comcast throttling Netflix. Netflix was constantly buffering making watching anything impossible. Comcast denied it only to be found guilty of throttling back Netflix users access to their content. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Bandwidth you were paying for. If an ISP decides to limit your connection to any type of service, you could have a GB connection speed and you’d still be buffering. The same goes for someone that was paying for a 50MB, 100MB, or 150MB plan. Since Comcast was caught red handed throttling Netflix user’s connection to their service, it brought about lawsuits from Netflix and brought about Net Neutrality to stop ISP’s from throttling users ability to access content over the internet. Please feel free to do a google search to verify…

            If I’m paying for 150MB connection from my ISP, I should get 150MB throughput no matter what site I’m on or whatever content I’m streaming. Unfortunately, a law had to be passed so ISP’s would not continue with these shady practices. Especially when they are trying to promote their own services while directly negatively impacting their competitors services.

      • Sunflower December 20, 2017 at 12:11 pm #

        The Zero Sum Game fallacy, really?

    • TaiPeng December 20, 2017 at 12:51 am #

      Government favors Xfinity Government Internet.

  2. Vegas Steve December 19, 2017 at 2:16 pm #

    Smoke and mirrors. It’s all these bozos do anymore.

    • Joanna Ward December 19, 2017 at 2:30 pm #

      Russia Russia Russia McCarthyisms.

    • Cooper McChester December 19, 2017 at 3:47 pm #

      What? next thing you will tell me is that they are passing a tax bill that raises the debt and redistributes wealth, the very things they have been arguing against for years. LOl

  3. NotADeplorableTrumpet December 19, 2017 at 2:16 pm #

    The GOP is 100% responsible for breaking net neutrality, despite overwhelming public support Why would they want to fix it?

    • Joanna Ward December 19, 2017 at 2:27 pm #

      Sometimes you have to tear things down to actually permanently fix the problem. Like this/daca/foreign treaties not voted by Congress, they were all temporary and could be pulled by anyone.

      • Richard Thompson December 19, 2017 at 2:40 pm #

        What was the problem with net neutrality thaf reuured scrapoing it ti fix it?

        • Paul December 19, 2017 at 2:50 pm #

          As the best character in Toy Story put it…….Money Money Money (One-Eyed Bart)

        • Mark Bidewell December 19, 2017 at 9:23 pm #

          Title II was designed to regulate the AT&T phone monopoly. In fact Title II providers are exempted from antitrust enforcement. If you want competition, Title II is not how you want to enforce net neutrality.

      • S. Mays December 20, 2017 at 10:16 am #

        Well, the reason those things weren’t handled by Congress is the GOP was in charge for the past 6 years, and they vowed to not create any legislation to help the country as long as Obama was in office. The country still needs to be run, even when a do-nothing lame-duck Congress sits on its hands, so we ended up with executive orders and other workarounds to keep the country running. So they were temporary band-aids, but the best that could be done at the time.

    • S. Mays December 19, 2017 at 3:36 pm #

      Because when they “fix” it, they will “fix” it – meaning they’ll let their donors and corporate lobbyists rewrite it so it *sounds* good, yet does absolutely nothing. Then they’ll say the issue is settled and no longer needs attention.

      • DesignatedJizTowel December 19, 2017 at 7:00 pm #

        Exactly

        • Ghostmaker December 19, 2017 at 10:07 pm #

          Democrats never do that. Take Obamacare no corporate involvement in writing that bill none at all.

          • S. Mays December 20, 2017 at 10:14 am #

            Yet Obamacare was still better than the system we had before Obamacare.

    • Tony Bassham December 19, 2017 at 3:54 pm #

      I so totally agree with you. Why break something that isn’t broken, money to their donors.

    • Rlee December 19, 2017 at 4:57 pm #

      Because there was only one thing in it that was right. The new bill will reinstate it, while cancelling out the other government garbage. Why do liberals love government involvement in everything? Can’t you make decisions for yourselves?

      • NotADeplorableTrumpet December 19, 2017 at 5:41 pm #

        Nice sweeping generalization.
        What, specifically, was wrong with the bill before. What is the one right thing carried over? How does this bill, specifically, fix what was wrong before? You won’t find those answers on the gop talking point sheet.

        • Ghostmaker December 19, 2017 at 10:05 pm #

          The bill before could have been used for controlling ideas. But isn’t that what Democrats do, tell the rest what to think.

          • Tony Bassham December 20, 2017 at 8:35 am #

            Why bring politics into it? No need, this is bad and Republican’s are in power, boom!

          • Joellyn Carpenter December 20, 2017 at 4:43 pm #

            The 2015 net neutrality bill just put into law the way the internet has always operated. No throttling of services, no removal of content, all data is treated the same. So how does that control ideas????

            Now with these new FCC rules, as long as the ISP puts in writing it is throttling content, or removing access to sites it doesn’t break the law. What a crock considering there are lots of areas in the US with only 1 ISP choice.

    • Mark Bidewell December 19, 2017 at 9:01 pm #

      If anything, this episode shows just how fickle regulations can be – total reversal over the course of a couple months. Legislation is far more durable.

    • Ghostmaker December 19, 2017 at 10:04 pm #

      Yea we didn’t have internet 3 years ago. Not at all.

    • TaiPeng December 20, 2017 at 12:53 am #

      Business traffic is more important than domestic traffic. Business internet will be prioritized ober home internet. Business internet is often cheaper.

  4. Andrew Lindeman December 19, 2017 at 3:41 pm #

    Data caps are what are going to kneecap cord cutters- especially once 4K becomes prevalent. Data caps will be what the cable companies use to defend their old TV systems turf- and keeping us all paying stupid set top rental fees!

    • Me December 19, 2017 at 3:44 pm #

      Here’s the thing, you can control if you want 4K content or not. No one is forced to watch in 4K. Not advocating caps but honestly 1080p even 720p are just fine for many. Myself included.

      • Andrew Lindeman December 19, 2017 at 3:47 pm #

        In five years when everything is 4K, I’m not sure I’ll agree with you. Comcap’s 1 TB data cap won’t be good for more than a few days worth of video viewing.

        Here’s hoping that 5G really will be a panacea and Internet providers will have lots of competition.

        • Me December 19, 2017 at 3:51 pm #

          not everything is going to be 4K. Most people still watch broadcast TV and they are not moving to 4K. Heck they aren’t even 1080p. Also who is to say Comcast’s cap will be 1 TB in 5 years. 5 years ago it was 250 GB. So on the one hand you assume TV content will make this huge leap to 4K but somehow internet will remain static.

        • ChanceDM December 19, 2017 at 6:07 pm #

          I would think some content providers would realize there is a market for non-4K TV and provide accordingly.

      • S. Mays December 19, 2017 at 4:33 pm #

        You know what I also can’t control? My ISP. Because they have a monopoly. And since they have a monopoly, they should be regulated by the government.

    • ChanceDM December 19, 2017 at 6:06 pm #

      Well, subscribers to AT&T can get stream DirecTV Now without it counting against their data cap. I know that violates the moral code of net neutrality but it does provide another option. I can understand why people are against zero rating but it seems to be the only thing in some cases that prevents a monopoly when it comes to streaming video.

      • Me December 19, 2017 at 9:59 pm #

        So if you prefer one of the other streaming options you’re out of luck or you have to pay WAY more in overage fees or a higher cap.

        • ChanceDM December 20, 2017 at 8:52 am #

          My point is, you have one choice you didn’t before. So, instead of having only your local ISP as the sole gateway for streaming video, you at least have one more choice (whether you use it or not). I should also mention that T-mobile provides zero rating streaming options as well. If you don’t choose it, at least it’s an option for other people.

          So basically, if these other choices aren’t exactly what you want, you don’t want them at all? If I have the choice of
          1) One single ISP for streaming video.

          2) One single ISP or AT&T/DirecTV Now combo or T-Mobile for streaming video for some things.

          I’d prefer 2. The presence of other options does not make me, or others, worse off.

  5. rich g December 19, 2017 at 4:20 pm #

    Sean austin said his famous mother patty duke gave 3 comments in favor of appealing Net neutrality, she’s been dead for 2 years

    • S. Mays December 19, 2017 at 4:32 pm #

      Yeah, weird how we had a public discussion period, and all of the people in favor of repealing it were either dead or using stolen identities. 80% of the country is in favor of keeping it, but we rushed forward with repeal. You’d think we’d at least need to investigate this illegal activity that was going on with the comment period, but no, guess not.

  6. rhf December 19, 2017 at 4:44 pm #

    we dont know what will happen you just listen to what somebody else says and run with it.

    • NotADeplorableTrumpet December 19, 2017 at 5:47 pm #

      Nobody knows the future. But most are aware of the past. And Occam’s razor, even if they don’t know it by that name.

  7. Barbara R December 19, 2017 at 4:52 pm #

    I think this may evolve in a different direction. The big providers (AT&T, Comcast, etc.) are becoming super-aggressive in their pricing for homeowner associations and other groups (apartment buildings, etc.). AT&T has an entire department called “connected communities.” I think this may expand to entire local governments, so that everyone is connected and it is paid for through local taxes.

    Just as an example of what this can do for pricing, my gated S. Florida community (1,150 condos) negotiated a new, 10-year contract with AT&T, which just started in March. AT&T laid fiber to every single unit, and now we all have 100 mbps internet (no data caps) plus U-200 TV plus HBO plus whole home DVR plus all equipment, taxes, and fees for up to four televisions at a cost of $65/household, all in, paid for through our quarterly condo fees. So — we never see a bill unless we want to upgrade to U-300 or U-450. (U-450 is an extra $25/month, U-300 is $16/month, 1GB/ps is $20/month.) I pay $8/month for Epix.

    In addition, AT&T paid our community a signing bonus of $350,000, just as you might get a gift card for $100 when you sign a new contract. Our cost can’t increase more than 4%/year, so we have real price stability.

    If I didn’t have this, I’d be a cord-cutter. I’ve learned so much from this site, and have used much of what I’ve learned. But my husband and I pay a grand total of $100/month for the package described above, both of our cellphones, Ooma telephone and fax, Epix, and Acorn. That’s our total bill, taxes and all.

    I think this model of bulk contracts is going to expand via homeowner associations, landlords, local governments, etc. It might be that some communities will provide basic TV as part of the package and allow individuals to add larger packages or stream via the OTTs. But I don’t think the cable bundle itself will totally disappear; I think the model of delivery and payment will evolve, and there will be many additional options.

  8. Rlee December 19, 2017 at 4:58 pm #

    Can liberals do anything but cry?

  9. Colton December 19, 2017 at 5:23 pm #

    Of course, the government wouldn’t want to miss the opportunity to begin internet legislation. Step one, net neutrality, step two bye torrenting, step three bye any smidge of anonymity.

    Not to mention I’m sure lobbyists like oh I don’t know GOOGLE are trying to push this though. Guarantee this bill won’t apply to google or Facebook, the companies who actively decide what you get to see.

    Remember when everyone told the government “hands off the internet”. What happened to that? It looks to me like the internet has been pretty prosperous.

    • chad December 19, 2017 at 8:52 pm #

      The government should keep their “hands off the internet”……even though the government invented it. There is a slight absence of logic in that.

      But while we’re at it, let’s get the NTSB out of train safety. Who needs new rules on implementing speed regulators that are currently optional? That costs money.

      Who needs regulations on food and drugs? Who needs vehicle safety? If my car blows up, and me and my family survive, market forces will dictate that I move to a safer car. Who needs FAA regulations? Airline tickets would be cheaper if the airlines could do what they want.

      • Colton December 19, 2017 at 9:17 pm #

        You’re joking right? Food and drug regulation and vehicle safety are actual dangers and could cause serious harm to people. The internet can’t kill anyone the way poisonous food or cars can.

        And if you want to take the approach that the government invented it so who cares, then why are there ISPs? Let’s have the government have heavhanded control, anyone who wants a website, or to post anything online needs government approval first. And really since it was originally for military communication why should anyone other than the military need to use it? I really hope you see the fallacy in your logic. What the government created is not what we are using today.

        • S. Mays December 20, 2017 at 10:25 am #

          The internet is now required for employment, education, and numerous other facts of life. It is not just for cat pictures and youtube. It’s as much a utility now as electricity, water, etc.

    • S. Mays December 20, 2017 at 10:24 am #

      Erm…Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. are the good guys in this battle. Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc. are the bad guys.

      • Sunflower December 20, 2017 at 2:19 pm #

        Hmm, hard to see them as good guys at all. Google censors with it’s algorithm by putting things they don’t like on page 103, Facebook also by controlling your feed and playing psych games with your head.

  10. Mark Bidewell December 19, 2017 at 9:08 pm #

    Here is the text of the bill. It seems good to me. Stops the major harms – blocking and throttling. Personally I don’t care what arrangements content providers and ISPs want to make as long as the ISP honors the bandwidth I contract with them to provide.

    http://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NN_02_xml.pdf

    • Me December 19, 2017 at 9:56 pm #

      Except the bill was actually written by Comcast. You rally can have the Fox writing the rules on guarding the hen house. I wouldn’t trust ANY bill written by the GOP. Internet should be classified as a utility. period.

    • Me December 19, 2017 at 10:17 pm #

      Oh turns out the bills is sponsored by my Rep in the House. she is a shill for the ISPs. She is no good for the working people. But promises to get abortion banned and being Jesus back in schools and prevent evil socialist form taking away your guns so gets get elected over and over because where I live most people are ignorant hillbillies. the day I can leave this backwater can’t come soon enough.

      • Joseph ewing December 20, 2017 at 7:47 am #

        Wow, generalize much?

  11. TaiPeng December 20, 2017 at 12:50 am #

    Don’t ISPs already throttle over 22GBs already due to some bs about network conjestion? Data is free and costs nothing to produce. That rationale was found to be a lie.

    • Me December 20, 2017 at 2:12 am #

      Nope. I know of ZERO wired ISPs that do that. NONE, NADA, ZILCH. Verizon Wireless and at&t mobile DEPRIORITIZE after 22 GB which is not the same as throttling because it’s only done during times of congestion. Sprint does it after 23 GB and T-Mobile does it after 50 GB. Wildblue satellite does it after 150 GB.

  12. Doug_in_SF December 20, 2017 at 10:12 am #

    The GOP bill is not the one you would want passed unless there are major changes to it.

  13. MVO December 20, 2017 at 1:59 pm #

    The internet is a monopoly. Why isn’t it regulated as such?