Print 99 comment(s) - last by HighWing.. on Oct 26 at 5:30 PM

Senator John McCain has introduced Internet Freedom Act of 2009 as alternative to FCC regulations

Net neutrality is one of the top technology topics that President Obama has focused on for his first term and was one of his big topics while campaigning. Obama feels that the neutrality of the internet must be maintained, as does the FCC.

The FCC voted to begin drafting rules yesterday that would require ISPs to treat all web traffic the same. The proposed rules would prevent ISPs from blocking or slowing the bandwidth available to high demand traffic like streaming video or other applications that can strain networks. The proposed rules would allow ISPs to block illegal material like child pornography and spam.

Republican Senator John McCain has introduced legislation that would block the FCCs proposal for regulating the neutrality of the Internet. The AFP reports that McCain said, "the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 [will keep the internet] free from government control and regulation."

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski said, "reasonable and enforceable rules of the road [are needed] to preserve a free and open internet." Genachowski points out that these rules are needed because of "some significant situations where broadband providers have degraded the data streams of popular lawful services and blocked consumer access to lawful applications."

Naturally, companies that make their money from the internet are supporting the FCC's proposal. These companies include Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and several other internet firms. McCain calls the FCC's proposal "onerous federal regulation" and calls the proposed rules a "government takeover" of the internet.

ComptuerWorld also reports that McCain does not support including wireless broadband providers in the net neutrality rules saying, "[The wireless industry] exploded over the past 20 years due to limited government regulation."

McCain said of his Internet Freedom Act of 2009, "Today I'm pleased to introduce the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation. It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment. Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: What about us?
By Samus on 10/23/2009 2:17:37 PM , Rating: 4
Well...this pretty much says it all. At least this guy isn't our president. Who knows what other lame-brain idea's he'd be pushing into legislation. In addition to all the bullshit Bush legislated during his time, specifically deregulation of the bank industry eventually leading to the housing market crash, I don't think McCain understands that REGULATING the internet in any physical form is constitutionally unacceptable.

RE: What about us?
By chrnochime on 10/23/2009 10:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
If I remember correctly I read somewhere that the Bank deregulation, or rather forcing banks to start to lower requirements for loans started in the Carter era. If that is the case(I can't be bother to research further), then you'd be wrong.

And all the BS? Come on, at least he's not trying to bring the States down the tube with the Stimulus package. It's only more than 1 trillion now?

Want to be a Demo supporter, fine. Next time don't try to bring down the rest of us who don't feel like paying out our *ss for gov't hand out.

RE: What about us?
By snakeInTheGrass on 10/24/2009 3:41:21 AM , Rating: 1
Yep, make sure you don't research too much - nothing sucks like finding out there's enough blame to spread around.

How does needing* to bail these companies out now somehow mean there shouldn't have been more oversight of them? There wasn't oversight to begin with and that seems to have worked out pretty well. It sure as hell wasn't because 'well, someone said make bad loans.' There's some pretty deeply entrenched corruption in the system and a LOT of people who were interested in turning a blind eye to what was bound to be a problem, but I guess it's all in one party!?

And yes, there was political pressure to make more risky loans, I also believe starting in the Carter era - idiotic, but not the reason for the problems today. There was a lot of 'the only way we're going to pass this bill removing oversight and allowing mergers or all sorts (Republican) is if you make loans to low income communities (Dems)' in the meantime. 2 wrongs doesn't really make a right - so again, how is that just the Dems fault? Whining about 1 trillion in stimulus when Bush 2 ran up 5 trills in f'ing debt. I love it - I hope you weren't cheerleading the Repubs when they were screwing us all over. Or maybe we can actually kick back and relax about the debt - sure, it went from 5 to 10 trillion, but the dollar is worth half of what it was, so it's really the same anyway, right? I mean, aside from all of our savings being worth half of what they were. Take a look at the gold standard or lack of it and compare to cost of gold / housing / stock market / food / fuel... hope you don't mind that a penny saved is about 1/20th of the penny you earned in the 60's.

At least McCain has learned and now wants to... oh yeah, make sure large ISPs won't have the government watching over them either. What company needs regulations or oversight? Why even have laws?

*I say needing because... well, really, so if some companies had been allowed to fail, the problem would have been? I was just explaining to my kids that banking is a fantastic sector - take people's money doing stupid business when times are good, and then if you fail get bailed out by the people whose money you took. Nice one.

So you're actually right, don't research it - it's too aggravating.

RE: What about us?
By SPOOFE on 10/25/2009 7:11:51 PM , Rating: 1
so again, how is that just the Dems fault?

There's a reason they were called "risky" loans: Because they were risky, and without the Dems demanding it, those are loans that would never have been made if greed were the only motivation.

Whining about 1 trillion in stimulus when Bush 2 ran up 5 trills in f'ing debt.

Five tril in either years vs. 1.5 trillion this year alone? Yes, you've observed that Obama, so far, has been much more spendy than Bush... if one assumes that the President is responsible for expenses, which he's not (there's a reason Congress's approval rating was far lower than Bush's near the end).

RE: What about us?
By SPOOFE on 10/25/2009 7:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
Five tril in EIGHT years; the dangers of relying too much on a spell-checker.

RE: What about us?
By jebo on 10/24/2009 11:26:43 AM , Rating: 3
I don't think McCain understands that REGULATING the internet in any physical form is constitutionally unacceptable.

You realize that it's the FCC and OBAMA that are regulating the internet, right?

McCain is trying to keep the internet free.

RE: What about us?
By alphadog on 10/24/2009 11:31:11 AM , Rating: 2
Net Neutrality = Freedom of Speech.

So, according to you, the Constitution "regulates" our behavior too. Are you against it too?

RE: What about us?
By munky on 10/24/2009 5:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
Did you miss the part where the Net Neutrality Act includes provisions to block certain content? No govt agency should have that ability.

RE: What about us?
By foolsgambit11 on 10/24/2009 8:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
First off, it's the ISPs who block the content. They are obliged to block certain illegal activities that happen on their watch. As an analogy, if your store is turned into a place where people openly deal drugs, the government would probably nab you for aiding and abetting. And if, like an ISP, you actually passed the drugs from the seller to the buyer, you'd be in way more trouble with the law.

I'm not saying there aren't logistical issues with implementation, etc., but the principle of the government not allowing a business to be associated with illegal activity is certainly sound, yes?

More on topic...

The problem is, while there's a strong argument that the free market would provide the best internet for the best value for consumers, McCain's bill doesn't ensure that there's actually a free market for internet providers. The free market works only when consumers have the ability to assert their interests in the marketplace, and with the local monopolies prevalent in many parts of the country, that just isn't possible. There are two solutions - the FCC's was to assert the consumers' interest by law. The opposite position would be to open up the local markets to consumer choice. Unfortunately, McCain's bill doesn't do that - it just maintains the status quo, and (to quote NPH) "the status is not quo." If the government isn't going to fight for the consumers' interests, it should at least stop fighting for business' interests.

Of course, breaking up local monopolies would require government action and corporate regulations - anathema to the Republican Party - as well. Probably something like the breakup of Ma Bell. So we won't be seeing any suggestions for that from McCain.

To broaden the scope, why can't the Republicans come up with a better platform than, "Things are working great, let's not change anything"? Because that seems to be their policy on most everything. Heaven forbid they proffer a complete, well thought out solution to the problems of everyday Americans to counter the Democrats in a meaningful and positive way.

RE: What about us?
By alphadog on 10/24/2009 11:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
While I appreciate the backup here, I think the regional monopoly issue is orthogonal to the higher-level concept that it would be to enshrine "freedom of internet" as a version of "freedom of speech".

We could create an environment that favors the breakup of regional monopolies, yet still have the same neutrality issue in that my ISP can slow or prevent YouTube for me, whereas it favors its own version of YouTube.

RE: What about us?
By alphadog on 10/24/2009 11:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
Precisely what kind of lawful content would be blocked and by which provisions?

"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain
Related Articles
Verizon, Google Talk Net Neutrality
October 22, 2009, 9:40 AM

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki