Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 4682

Preventing ISPs From Blocking or Throttling Content While Allowing Paid Prioritization

Argument in favor

This bill strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring that ISPs can’t block or throttle content on the internet while allowing for innovative services like paid prioritization to be attempted.

Nijaansh's Opinion
···
12/22/2017
NetNeutrality is one of the biggest “freedom” many of us have. Freedom choose which ever ISP is available without having to worry about paying more to visit sites that others (ISP) don’t like. That’s taking away our freedom
Like (89)
Follow
Share
Argenis's Opinion
···
12/21/2017
We want Net Neutrality to live on for the rest of our lives in California.
Like (4)
Follow
Share
TracyEckels's Opinion
···
12/22/2017
It is essential that we preserve the openness of free and open internet access. Allowing ISP’s to selectively throttle internet services and open access would be against the freedom of speech that we all hold so dear to our hearts.
Like (2)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

This bill doesn’t go nearly far enough in terms of re-imposing net neutrality rules, as paid prioritization of content should not be allowed. States should be able to make their own open internet standards.

Charles's Opinion
···
12/22/2017
We need no throttling of any kind. You need to truly undo what the FCC just did. You should not let a Verizon puppet get away with ending Net Neutrality.
Like (320)
Follow
Share
I.Got.an.Idea...'s Opinion
···
12/22/2017
This sounds like “ Hey, we took some freedom from you; Now, we are going to GIVE back to you....” The Republican M.O.
Like (111)
Follow
Share
Devin 's Opinion
···
12/22/2017
The main point is to say NO to paid prioritization. This bill included the phrase “disallow throttling” but paid prioritization is extremely similar in form and function. Voting “no” on this bill is more on the side of net neutrality.
Like (105)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on Energy and Commerce
      Communications and Technology
    IntroducedDecember 19th, 2017

What is House Bill H.R. 4682?

This bill — known as the Open Internet Preservation Act — would prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking legal content or services and from impairing or “throttling” internet traffic on the basis of content. ISPs would be allowed to offer specialized services (like paid prioritization) but couldn’t offer them in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet or are designed to evade the prohibitions imposed by this bill.

States and their political subdivisions would be prohibited from enforcing a law or rule related to internet openness obligations in providing broadband internet service, meaning that this federal law would preempt state law.

Broadband internet service would be considered an “information service” under Title II of the Communications Act, effectively blocking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from attempting to re-impose net neutrality rules in the same manner it did in 2015.

Impact

Internet users; ISPs; states; and the FCC.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 4682

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) tweeted the following regarding her bill to prohibit the blocking or throttling of internet traffic based on content while allowing paid prioritization:

“No blocking. No throttling. The Open Internet Preservation Act will ensure the internet is a free and open space. This legislation is simple, it provides light-touch regulation so companies can invest and innovate, and make sure our internet is up to 21st century standards.”

Net neutrality advocates have expressed opposition to this bill, with Fight for the Future’s Campaigns Director Evan Greer writing:

“This is not real net neutrality legislation. It’s a poorly disguised slap in the face of internet users from across the political spectrum. Blackburn’s bill would explicitly allow Internet providers to demand new fees from small businesses and Internet users, carving up the web into fast lanes and slow lanes.”

This legislation has the support of 15 cosponsors in the House, all of whom are Republicans.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: littlehenrabi / iStock)

AKA

Open Internet Preservation Act

Official Title

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure internet openness, to prohibit blocking of lawful content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices, to prohibit impairment or degradation of lawful internet traffic, to limit the authority of the Federal Communications Commission and to preempt State law with respect to internet openness obligations, to provide that broadband internet access service shall be considered to be an information service, and for other purposes.

    NetNeutrality is one of the biggest “freedom” many of us have. Freedom choose which ever ISP is available without having to worry about paying more to visit sites that others (ISP) don’t like. That’s taking away our freedom
    Like (89)
    Follow
    Share
    We need no throttling of any kind. You need to truly undo what the FCC just did. You should not let a Verizon puppet get away with ending Net Neutrality.
    Like (320)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a very poorly written bill, and I'm not inclined to support it either way. There should be NO THROTTLING, NO BLOCKING, AND NO PAID PRIORITIZATION. PERIOD. We already pay plenty of money to have internet access at home and even more through our mobile devices. But that's never enough for our ISP's.
    Like (212)
    Follow
    Share
    This sounds like “ Hey, we took some freedom from you; Now, we are going to GIVE back to you....” The Republican M.O.
    Like (111)
    Follow
    Share
    The main point is to say NO to paid prioritization. This bill included the phrase “disallow throttling” but paid prioritization is extremely similar in form and function. Voting “no” on this bill is more on the side of net neutrality.
    Like (105)
    Follow
    Share
    NO PAID PRIORITIZATION! That is absolutely ridiculous. The Internet should be reclassified as a utility in the light of the NECESSITY of having it in this day and age.
    Like (40)
    Follow
    Share
    Please vote no on this bill. It is a bandaid on the gaping wound that threatens the internet. This bill stole a free and open internet that was open to all. The kleptocracy is trying to place the internet in the hands corporations who did not develop the internet so that they can take it over and further profit financially from something that they do not own. Ajit Pai said that he would police the internet, but we have seen during the 2016 campaign how well corporations oversee their websites. Profit was more important to Facebook, Twitter and Google, and they sold ads to Russian trolls and allowed them to spread propaganda in favor the horrible man in office. Pai has already shown himself to be dishonest when he allowed letters of support from thousands of nonexistent people. He also completely ignored petitions and calls from voters who disagreed with his decision. He does not possess the decency to do the job. This administration does not listen to the majority of voters who voice their opinions.
    Like (28)
    Follow
    Share
    Net neutrality means a neutral network that does not discriminate based on content. All content is treated equally, has the use of the same bandwidth so long as the content is legal is not slowed or blocked. Anything short of this is not net neutrality and if I discover that my access is manipulated by my ISP I can learn to live with less access or no internet access at all. If ISPs begin to lose customers they may decide to change their tune. In 2018 and again in 2020 we need to let this Congress and Administration know what we think of their anti consumer policies they have championed. May be we can use their slogan on them and put some of them in jail!
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    It occurs to me that 1) you can't have paid prioritization on one hand without throttling on the other hand and 2) this still shackles independent content creators and small business who can't shell out for "fast lane" access. This is a fake Net Neutrality bill.
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    It might be a step in the right direction, but it does not address the main problem with reversing net neutrality - forcing users to pay more for different websites.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    While this is a step in the right direction, this isn't the answer to an open & free internet. The internet should be treated like a utility without any provider interference, censoring, or paid prioritization. Title II regulations need to be placed back on the internet to prevent providers from favoring content they want to push. providers will absolutely block, throttle and censor sites that they don't like, as this has already occured in the past. I want Titel II regulations back in place. it's the only real safety net we have, as the consumers and small business operators have against the monopolies of the ISP industry.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Monopolies are evil.
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    How watered down can this bill be? It goes nowhere near far enough to protect net neutrality and it actually undermines it further! Under this bill, the FCC wouldn’t be able to re-implement net neutrality rules. There should be no paid prioritization of any kind! Once you have access to the internet, going anywhere on the web should be free. No specialization services whatsoever. The internet should be classified as a utility!
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a poorly written bill. The people want true net neutrality.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    So they repeal net neutrality but then offer it back to us piece by piece? I say vote no on this for the simple fact that they're playing us.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    This is not truly net neutrality. It’s pointless, effectiveness, and stupid.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    This is one huge reason why we wanted to KEEP net neutrality rules in place. Internet is too infused into our everyday lives it needs to be treated like a utility.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill is brought to you by your friendly Netflix, Google, and Facebook Lobbyists. Help us make the government make it illegal for ISPs to charge us more just because we're 70% of all internet traffic after 7pm. If it helps you sleep at night, pretend that it's the little guy with practically no web traffic to his little start up site that ISPs want to charge more. That way you can pat yourself on the back while you help us protect our giant companies' profit margins! Tech Giant Lobbyists - it's not corrupt cronyism if it's a corporation you like!
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    We need full net neutrality. This bill is a wet blanket thrown over a wild-fire.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    No for paid prioritization.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE