Three New Competing Net Neutrality Bills Introduced in DC by Markey, Eshoo, Stevens and Wyden

If you find this useful please share it!



 

Dueling Net Neutrality bills have been introduced in Washington DC this week, one by Democratic House representatives Markey, Eshoo, Inslee and Boucher, the other by Republican Senator Ted Stevens and Democrat Senator Daniel Inouye. Oh yes, and another one by Republican Senator Wyden.

Apparently unconcerned by the defeat of a similar Net Neutrality rider which they attempted to attach to another bill last week, Markey and Eschoo’s House bill – introduced following its predecessor’s defeat – would require that Internet service providers could not charge some sites to have access to faster service, nor could they block or slow down data served up by their competitors. The Senate bill would only task the FCC with looking at whether there is a need to mandate net neutrality. Senator Wyden, one of the movers and shakers behind CAN-SPAM, has also introduced a bill in the Senate similar to the one introduced in the House by Markey, Eshoo et al.

(Article continues below)
Get notified of new Internet Patrol articles for free!
Or Read Internet Patrol Articles Right in Your Inbox!
as Soon as They are Published! Only $1 a Month!

Imagine being able to read full articles right in your email, or on your phone, without ever having to click through to the website unless you want to! Just $1 a month and you can cancel at any time!
Three New Competing Net Neutrality Bills Introduced in DC by Markey, Eshoo, Stevens and Wyden

Here’s the thing that the 3Ns (Net Neutrality Nuts) don’t get: bandwidth costs money. And if you can’t charge those who use the majority of it accordingly, then you are going to have to amortize it across everybody.


 

So, if a net neutrality law passes, don’t be surprised when your costs to have an Internet account skyrocket.

Because somebody has to pay those bills, and if the law says that the ISPs can’t charge the big guys – the big users – differently, it means that they have to charge them the same rate that they charge everyone else. And that means not that their rate will go down, but that everybody else’s rate will go up.

  
No Paywall Here!
The Internet Patrol is and always has been free. We don't hide our articles behind a paywall, or restrict the number of articles you can read in a month if you don't give us money. That said, it does cost us money to run the site, so if something you read here was helpful or useful, won't you consider donating something to help keep the Internet Patrol free? Thank you!

Three New Competing Net Neutrality Bills Introduced in DC by Markey, Eshoo, Stevens and Wyden

Get notified of new Internet Patrol articles!

If you find this useful please share it!

3 Replies to “Three New Competing Net Neutrality Bills Introduced in DC by Markey, Eshoo, Stevens and Wyden”

  1. I pay my ISP for net access and it comes with a certain bandwidth. I should not have to endure timeouts or reduced service because the content provider did not grease the palm of the ISP or carrier.

  2. Thank you for the insight.
    When explain in this manner, it sounds like the function of a Net Neutrality bill would be to have big business subsidized by the public. Again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *