The Federal Communications Commission’s recent proposal to allow Internet service providers to charge websites for faster service is an “affront” to the open Internet, Sen. Al Franken said Tuesday.
The Minnesota Democrat sent FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler a letter blasting the net-neutrality regulations he introduced last week, saying the “fast lanes” undermine the core principles of net neutrality: openness and competition.
“Sanctioning pay-to-play arrangements would not preserve the Open Internet — it would destroy it,” wrote Franken, who is an outspoken supporter of net neutrality.
Such an arrangement would give “deep-pocketed” companies, such as Netflix or Facebook, an unfair advantage over small companies that would not be able to pay for faster service, he wrote.
“This proposal would create an online ‘fast lane’ for the highest bidder — shutting out small businesses and increasing costs for consumers,” Franken wrote.
Franken’s words echo the sentiments of many consumer-advocacy groups and liberal lawmakers, who have slammed the proposed regulations since they were introduced last week.
But Wheeler denies that his proposed rules would “gut” net neutrality, and he has promised to pursue stronger rules if these ones fall short.
“I believe this process will put us on track to have tough, enforceable Open Internet rules on the books in an expeditious manner, ending a decade of uncertainty and litigation,” Wheeler wrote in a blog post Tuesday.
The FCC first adopted net-neutrality rules in 2010, but a federal court struck them down in January. The original rules forbade Internet providers from blocking websites or discriminating against Internet traffic. Wheeler’s new proposal would still ban blocking, but would permit Internet providers to charge for faster speeds, as long as the arrangements are “commercially reasonable.”
The FCC’s five commissioners will vote to advance the proposal at the next open commission meeting on May 15. The commission will accept public comments on the new proposal before it is finalized.
What We're Following See More »
"Two days after President Trump’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russian officials offered a string of assertions about what the two leaders had achieved. 'Important verbal agreements' were reached at the Helsinki meeting, Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, told reporters in Moscow Wednesday, including preservation of the New Start and INF agreements," and cooperation in Syria.
"Two weeks before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump was shown highly classified intelligence indicating that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election. The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top-secret source close to Mr. Putin, who had described to the C.I.A. how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation. Mr. Trump sounded grudgingly convinced, according to several people who attended the intelligence briefing. But ever since, Mr. Trump has tried to cloud the very clear findings that he received on Jan. 6, 2017, which his own intelligence leaders have unanimously endorsed."
"The Interior Department’s internal watchdog has opened a formal investigation into a real estate deal involving a foundation established by Ryan Zinke and developers including Halliburton Chairman David Lesar, which was first reported by Politico, according to a letter sent to lawmakers Wednesday."
With preparations for the 2020 Census underway, President Trump has nominated a director of the agency. Steven Dillingham currently serves as director of the Office of Strategic Information, Research, and Planning at the Peace Corps. Previously, he served as Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Among his challenges will be navigating the thorny political issue of including a citizenship question on the survey.
"The California Supreme Court decided Wednesday to remove a measure aimed at dividing California into three states from the November ballot. In a brief order, the court said it acted because significant questions have been raised regarding the proposition’s validity and because we conclude that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election.'”