house Bill H.R. 4596
Do More Small Internet Service Providers Need an Exemption From FCC Reporting Requirements?
Argument in favor
Small internet service providers with fewer than 250,000 subscribers should be temporarily exempt from transparency regulations that were meant to keep consumers informed about the performance of larger providers’ networks and how they are managed.
03/16/2016
"We need to strengthen small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy and critical to job creation and sustained economic growth... The Obama administration has taken steps to make credit more available to small businesses looking to grow and expand, cutting taxes, incentivizing investment and hiring and reducing barriers to growth." [whitehouse.gov]
03/16/2016
Any bill which wrestles control of private businesses away from the federal government will get my endorsement. They don't own the business so they shouldn't dictate how it works either.
03/13/2016
I don't think it is necessary to provide this information to the FCC, but it should be available to consumers if requested.
Argument opposed
The size of an internet service provider should not make any difference when it comes to compliance with an Federal Communications Commission regulation. Extending and raising the existing exemption from 100,000 subscribers to 250,000 is unnecessary.
03/15/2016
While this sounds nice, and I'll be amongst the many who'll defend and advocate for small businesses, this specific bill will allow carriers under certain conditions to not post their fees, amongst other things that will eliminate pro-transparency motions. This could easily be abused, so I cannot be for it.
···
03/14/2016
Small businesses don't have to play by the rules? Who drafted this nonsense?
03/17/2016
Transparency is necessary for small business. I see no cause to change the classification of small business from 100,000 to 200,000. Small business must meet FCC regulations. The government should protect their constituents from potential financial abuse from these small business.
"We need to strengthen small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy and critical to job creation and sustained economic growth... The Obama administration has taken steps to make credit more available to small businesses looking to grow and expand, cutting taxes, incentivizing investment and hiring and reducing barriers to growth." [whitehouse.gov]
While this sounds nice, and I'll be amongst the many who'll defend and advocate for small businesses, this specific bill will allow carriers under certain conditions to not post their fees, amongst other things that will eliminate pro-transparency motions. This could easily be abused, so I cannot be for it.
Small businesses don't have to play by the rules? Who drafted this nonsense?
Transparency is necessary for small business. I see no cause to change the classification of small business from 100,000 to 200,000. Small business must meet FCC regulations. The government should protect their constituents from potential financial abuse from these small business.
Providing an open and monitored internet is vital to remaining a smart and knowledgable consumer base. Maintaining proper record on small provider practices is vital to this cause.
The internet should be open, free & accessible. The FCC saw that without net neutrality, it would create a system of have's, have some's & have none's so they issued the Open Internet Order. Now, the lobbyists & legislature are attempting to undermine the Open Internet ruling again. This time they introduced, "discussed" & voted on new legislation in 12 hours that reclassifies which businesses have to adhere to the Open Internet standard. It's time we stop letting lobbyists have their way with our laws.
Any bill which wrestles control of private businesses away from the federal government will get my endorsement. They don't own the business so they shouldn't dictate how it works either.
Some how these small exceptions become large exceptions. Consumers need to know the speeds of these connections, so they can make an informed choice on which company they subscribe to.
Transparency should be adhered to by all providers. Consumer protection.
I don't think it is necessary to provide this information to the FCC, but it should be available to consumers if requested.
Even "small" ISPs are part of big companies these days. The information to be reported is not onerous to collect in any case. This could be a slippery slope toward allowing big companies to evade scrutiny of their policies.
Laws must bind everyone, large or small, or they are not laws at all.
The does not seem to be a compelling reason to grant the exemption to these smaller providers.
This another way to cut citizens privacy and security rights to a new low. Shame on you Dems and Republicans for this.
This isn't a privacy issue. It's about giving what amounts to small business in the ISP arena the opportunity to build out and grow a business to compete with the likes of Comcast, Time Warner, Optimum, and Verizon, who have a near monopoly nation wide with 10's of millions of subscribers each
The FCC, like virtually all government agencies, needs to be scaled way back.
250,000 subscribers is HUGE! That is not a small business. Stop the nonsense!
No. They are as likely to screw over the consumer as the large providers - some even more so
This is a capitalist country but in order for many to prosper and for many who are just beginning life in a capatilistic, democratic county they need to be on a level playing field, THhat st