Congress Introduces Legislation to Replace Net Neutrality Rules

December 20, 2017
OAN Newroom

Congressional Republicans introduced a bill aimed at replacing recently repealed net neutrality rules.

House Energy and Commerce Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn announced she is sponsoring the Open Internet Preservation Act.

Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced net neutrality legislation on Tuesday that prohibits internet providers from blocking and throttling content. (Reuters/Photo)

The law will reportedly bar internet service providers from ‘blocking’ or ‘throttling’ web content to consumers, while also keeping states from implementing stricter regulations.

The Tennessee representative says her simple legislation is meant to “settle the net neutrality debate.”

“Just as promised, we have a bill- the Open Internet Preservation Act…And we are back to Title I for an internet service, and yes- to preserve a free and open internet,” announced Representative Blackburn. “No blocking, no throttling…It is my honor to sign this bill.”

It’s still unclear whether the bill will muster bipartisan support as Democrats push to block the FCC’s repeal with their own legislation.

26 Comments on "Congress Introduces Legislation to Replace Net Neutrality Rules"

  1. And if you are counting on the free market, according to Forbes, 50% of the US has 1 broadband provider, 45% has 2. There is no real competition.

  2. Another way to think of it is Net Neutrality protects free speech by preventing ISPs from filtering content.

  3. Net Neutrality says ISPs cannot limit or block content along its lines. (please look at individual laws and regs, just because they say net neutrality doesn’t mean they are)

    • Scott Coston | January 15, 2018 at 4:41 pm |

      I think there are monopolistic issues, but that’s another comment stream.. Say there are net neutrality laws… how are they going to be enforced? Seems like some body will have to monitor content and data flow… something I’m not thrilled about. A lot of organizations seem to have s surprising lack of technical sophistication.

      The bottom line is we have to rely on market forces, government regulation or some hybrid combination. I can see both sides of the argument/topic.. but I have mixed feeling on the proposed solutions that I am aware of.

      Does anyone have some “real” statistics?

  4. I see a lot of defferent responses here but what NOONE OF YOU BOTHERS to see that THE INDUSTRY STOLE THE INTERNET !!!! First phone companys than cable etc sneaked in and slowly trotled it up down left and right what WAS FREE …………..
    If that dont piss you off it makes me red in the face……
    Pls dont say they developed the technology and so on its bull because juat for a small fee evetone could have this but rhe ” industry” have raped the internet for they own!!!!!

  5. I see a lot of defferent responses here but what NOONE OF YOU BOTHERS to see that THE INDUSTRY STOLE THE INTERNET !!!! First phone companys than cable etc sneaked in and slowly trotled it up down left and right what WAS FREE …………..
    If that dont piss you off it makes me red in the face……
    Pls dont say they developed the technology and so on its bull because juat for a small fee evetone could have this but rhe ” industry” have raped the internet for they own gain !!!!

  6. That Texas Guy! | December 20, 2017 at 12:13 pm |

    The internet was working just fine w/o government interference. Google, Facebook and others stood only to gain from this so called neutrality. They would not be where they are if were not for the fact that the free market, not the government was in control. They stood to gain even more as a result of the government picking the winners and losers in a rigged internet game. I am glad it was repealed. Keep it free and open, just like the very air itself.

  7. ummm… Marsha Blackburn is a hardcore Republican. This is a republican bill no dems involved.

  8. David Dezern | December 20, 2017 at 9:16 am |

    Without Net Neutrality you can look for your ISPs to give preferential treatment (bandwidth to specific web sites, especially those they have an interest in) and you can look for your costs to go up for such services as netflix and any other streaming site as the ISPs can write policies to determine access and speed, just like the telecoms do in the wireless networks. This is BAD BAD for consumers and small businesses and very GOOD for BIG business.

  9. And what is the Constitutional citation permitting govt this intrusion?

  10. I think we need to leave the Internet in the hands of the private market where it has been and remove the state regulators on who can provide service to certain areas to allow competition

  11. I wonder which Liberal group is paying her for doing this. We need to make government smaller and not larger but any true conservative knows that.

  12. At least this is a law by the constitutionally mandated law MAKERS not some government agency that is not supposed to create law.

  13. maurinemwheatley | December 20, 2017 at 7:37 am |

    sounds good to me…. open and free is American way of living….

  14. JaySands1234 | December 20, 2017 at 7:35 am |

    Looks like the demoncRATS are pissed off that the free online porno is getting slowed down.

  15. Sheesh, so what does the govt do? Create more intrusive laws governing a free market enterprise.
    This sets precedent, in that it opens the doors for taxation.
    Don’t doubt me on this!

    • Robert Sullivan | December 20, 2017 at 7:30 am |

      The old adage “Follow the Money” not only is appropriate for criminal politicians and political infrastructure, but also for States and Federal governments in their insatiable proclivity to levy more taxes. “Where can we get mor money to maintain bloated infrastructure and our retirement “. They never seriously focus on making government programs more efficient, logical, and politically un-biased. And the Sheep keep electing the same old mentality.

    • UFGatorsForever | December 20, 2017 at 8:08 am |

      On line purchases are already getting taxed in Wisconsin!

  16. “Net Neutrality” had nothing to do with neutrality. Just like “Obastard Care” had nothing to do with care.
    “Net Neutrality” was about shutting down conservative websites and bloggers.
    “Obastard Care” was about destroying private American healthcare so it could be absorbed by government.

    • Please explain your position on Net Neutrality. I’m curious how you came to that conclusion.

      • It’s really quite simple GC. This “Net Neutrality” (a benign name for government regulation of the internet) was pushed by none other than BHusseinO. Now all you have to do is answer this simple question, why would BHO be interested in regulating internet traffic?
        Have you forgotten what he did to the IRS?
        Have you forgotten what he did to the DOJ?
        Have you forgotten what he did to the FBI?

        • Net Neutrality was a feel good term for the snowflakes. Who in their right mind would want the government in charge of the internet? Look what they did to health insurance, the post office and education.

Comments are closed.