Republicans in Congress talk about net neutrality, at least

Three Republican members Members of Congress introduced bills on internet neutrality on Thursday, but Congress is still far from a bipartisan agreement aimed at restoring the rules banning broadband providers from the Internet. prevent blockage, choking or any other form of discrimination with respect to lawful content.

At a hearing of the House Committee on Trade and Energy, Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Washington), Greg Walden (R-Oregon) and Bob Latta (R-Ohio), representatives, have stated that it had proposed network neutrality bills. No text has yet published the text of their bills, but their speeches and previous legislation suggest that their proposals will be far removed from the extensive protections adopted by the Federal Communications Commission under the Obama era in 2015 .

During the hearing, lawmakers on both sides have repeatedly agreed on the need to put in place basic protections on internet neutrality. This represents progress on the issue. Many GOP lawmakers have questioned the need for such rules for years, and the FCC, now headed by Republicans, voted in favor of repealing its network neutrality rules at the end of 2017 The problem has become more common in recent years and polls show that Democrat and Republican voters In favor of net neutrality protections, Republicans have at least begun to make fine words to the idea of ​​Net Neutrality. . But many Republicans in the House remain opposed to some of the key provisions of the 2015 rules.

Democrats' takeover of the House in last year's elections changed the political calculation of Internet neutrality, prompting both parties to reach a bipartisan agreement even as a federal court was considering an action in court challenging the legality of the FCC's decision to get rid of its rules. Thursday's hearing, however, suggested that there was still a big gap between the dominant positions of both parties.

The Obama era has reclbadified broadband as a "Title II" telecommunication service, similar to telephone services. It also imposed a "general conduct" rule that broadband providers must not "unreasonably hinder or disadvantage" lawful content, and empower the FCC to intervene on issues such as operators that exclude content. privileged use of customer data and "interconnection". offers that internet providers pbad between them on a case-by-case basis.

McMorris Rodgers stated that his bill was based on a law pbaded by the state in Washington last year, which provided for safety rules to prevent blockage, strangulation, or the creation of "pay fast lanes". She also said her bill would overturn state laws, including Washington's law and California's tougher law, pbaded last year. The Washington State law on which McMorris Rodgers based his bill does not include a general rule of conduct and does not cover data cap rules or interconnection rules. Walden said his bill would be similar to a bill proposed by Senator John Thune (R-South Dakota) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan) in 2015, which included rules for bright lines but did not include a general rule of conduct or capping coverage data. or the interconnection. The Thune-Upton Bill also banned the FCC from clbadifying broadband as a Title II service, similar to a proposed 2014 Latta bill.

Even before the FCC votes to overthrow the rules of the Obama era, leading mobile Internet providers were limiting video on some unlimited plans unless customers pay to switch to more expensive plans . It is unclear whether the new bills would prohibit this practice. Representatives did not respond to WIRED's requests for comment.

Last year, Rep. Mike Coffman (Colorado) proposed a more comprehensive bill on Internet neutrality, which would have created a new clbadification under Title III for broadband. The bill never advanced and Coffman lost his reelection bid last year.

Despite ample evidence to the contrary, Republicans said during the hearing that the internet neutrality regime adopted by the FCC of Obama had led Internet service providers to reduce their investments in broadband infrastructure. "Do we want to regulate the Internet as a public service of the 1930s, where restrictive regulation and price controls stifle innovation?" McMorris Rodgers asked.

Some broadband providers, such as Comcast and Charter, have actually increased their investments in 2015 and 2016. Others, such as AT & T, have decreased their investments, but have declared to shareholders years before the FCC adopted its rules that they planned to reduce infrastructure spending after the modernization of the network.

In a statement released Thursday, the US group USTelecom touted the increase in spending by the six largest US broadband providers in 2018, proving that the abandonment of net neutrality rules had boosted the pace of growth. investment in broadband, despite reduced spending by Comcast and Verizon. But even US Telecom admits that these numbers do not tell the whole story. "The important question for policymakers is not what happens year-to-year for broadband investments, but rather what an investment would look like." long term under a different regulatory regime, "says the organization's statement.

Many Democrats argue that the "Title II" protections are essential for the FCC to protect consumers. Tom Wheeler, who chaired the FCC when adopting net neutrality rules, said that if the agency only enforced the rules of the "demarcation line", it would not be able to control the rules. bad behaviors that are not explicitly defined in the rules.

"Consumers have no place to turn when they are aggrieved by these big companies because the FCC has completely pulled out of the market," said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey). "Consumers are left to watch Internet change slowly in front of their eyes."

A particular incident became a strong point of the debate. During the 2018 Mendocino complex fire, Verizon has strangled the mobile internet speeds for firefighters, according to a brief filed by Santa Clara County, California, as part of the lawsuit. against the FCC. The county paid "unlimited" packages for the firefighters, but the plan limited the connection speed to 1 / 200th of the usual speed after exceeding 25 GB of data. "This limitation has had a significant impact on our ability to provide emergency services," says the memoir. The county was able to restore its maximum speed only after contacting Verizon's billing department and opting for a new, twice-costier plan.

"By supporting the first responders in the Mendocino fire, we have not kept our own promise of service and performance excellence when our process has failed among some first responders," he said. Verizon's director, Mike Maiorana, in a statement. The company has created a new plan in response. Maiorana said.

The California incident, which has been evoked time and time again by Democrats at the hearing, is not a clbadic Internet neutrality issue because Verizon was strangling all the content, without favoring particular content or content types. But Verizon's behavior could have fallen under the general rule of conduct against unreasonable interference in the connections, and the incident demonstrates the types of application problems that may arise when the FCC does is not empowered to protect consumers.

More great cable stories