H.R. 2902 would authorize the Federal Trade Commission, in consultation with the Federal Communications Commission, to review volume usage service plans of major broadband Internet service providers to ensure that such plans are fairly based on cost.
Detailed Summary
Broadband Internet Fairness Act - Makes it unlawful for major broadband Internet service providers to offer volume usage service plans imposing rates, terms, and conditions that are unjust, unreasonable, or unreasonably discriminatory. Treats a violation as an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Requires major broadband Internet service providers offering or proposing to offer volume usage plans to file a service plan analysis with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Requires the FTC to enforce this Act.
Defines "major broadband Internet service provider" as a broadband Internet service provider that, directly or through an affiliate, provides broadband Internet service to 2,000,000 or more subscribers.
Defines "volume usage service plan" as any choice of service offerings to a residential consumer that includes two or more different sets of rates, terms, or conditions directly or indirectly based on the amount of data transmitted to or from the consumer within a fixed period of time.
Includes nonprofit organizations or higher education institutions in the term "residential consumer."
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 6/17/2009: Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
Visitor Comments
McNeelyJ
June 18, 2009, 10:36am (report abuse)Although cable tiers are a concern I would hope that the government would go a step further and allow more competition for local markets. Each market is a monopoly for broadband internet.
There is one Cable provider and one DSL provider, these marketopolies lead consumers with limited choices and diminish the competitive pricing that would ensue if there were more players in a given market.
P. Aydin
June 18, 2009, 12:00pm (report abuse)Essentially, the main issue is that the ISPs are not the content providers but charge for it. They simply provide access to the content created by others, and yet ISPs do not pay a dime for it (like this particular page you are reading). Now, they, not only charge for it, but want to limit how much you can view of this free content they pay nothing in return. This is not electricity where utility companies pay for the electricity they distribute to the households. Policy makers should understand this and make policies accordingly.
Sherrial Rodgers
December 22, 2010, 12:13pm (report abuse)I fill this bill would hinder college students that have to take classes online and download forms to complete for assignments. We pay enough for internet now and don't need more charges added to the already high cost of education.