Days after the FCC repealed its net neutrality rules, the GOP has a bill to replace them
Source: Washington Post
Days after the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal its net neutrality rules for Internet providers, a Republican congresswoman has introduced legislation that would replace some — but not all — of the regulations.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) on Tuesday unveiled what she is calling the Open Internet Preservation Act. The bill restores two of the most important provisions of the FCC's net neutrality rules: a ban on the blocking of websites, as well as a ban on the slowing of websites. It also includes the same public disclosure requirements that Internet providers must abide by under the FCC's decision from last week.
The bill also directs the FCC to enforce the legislation by setting up an inbox for net neutrality complaints and adjudicating them.
But the bill omits a third plank of the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules: The ban on “paid prioritization,” or the ability of Internet providers to speed up certain websites in exchange for money.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/19/this-gop-net-neutrality-bill-aims-to-replace-some-but-not-all-of-the-fccs-rules/?utm_term=.c81a27e16e7f&tid=sm_tw
It seems there would be a contradiction - banning the "slowing" of sites but then no ban for "paid prioritization", i.e., by prioritizing one site over another, you get slowing of access to the lesser-paying sites.
Democrats on the relevant committees related to telecom issues are not too keen on this but maybe they can work something out? (Ha! Good luck on that)
= new reply since forum marked as read
is telling... There are HUGE corporations with deep pockets who would be impacted if they didn't fix this... and they may have more $$$ than the ISPs. 
The special interests will give up the website blocking and the slow-downs, as long as they get what they really wanted - paid prioritizations.
I guess it proves the FCC are nothing but shills anymore. Why even bother with an FCC, when all they do is give the special interests everything they want and more. All the uproar over internet privacy, security, blah-blah-blah. We can have all the net neutrality we want, as long as we can PAY for it.
sums it up pretty good! 
No more Netflix-type start-ups, no more Amazon Primes or any other content provider. That's the point of all of this.
Of course Facebook has to make sure nobody competes with them either, forget the fact that they benefited tremendously from wide-open internet. The doors are all slammed shut now for everybody else.
They've got the gravy train and they don't want to share it or lose it.
I don't believe it has anything to do with bandwidth, it's just (millenials') eyeballs on the screens.
They don't care if old people like me see their ads, all the money is in the young people.
(which enables multiplexing) OTA broadcasters could utilize those better and for something innovative.
I currently have a pretty loaded Comcast package with most of the major premium channels... yet I have barely turned the TV on the past couple years outside of some current event aftermath programs (including politics/weather) and a few movies I may have DVRed. I also have Amazon Prime which has its own streaming and have streamed a few movies... But I expect the demand for content is definitely going to be at the whim of the consumer, including the near non-consuming consumer!
ETA, I have subscription to SiriusXM and although the music channels have no ads, the REST of the channels DO have ads so don't be surprised that Netflix ends up with ads too and/or even higher tiers to remove them.
that it appears to be directed to the content providers (vs the consumers). The ISPs put out money to lay infrastructure (other than POTS lines) and want to recoup that cost and balance the load.
HOWEVER the fact that this is "interstate commerce" that originally came out of military's ARPANET infrastructure, it needs to be regulated like telecom with the onus being in favor of the customer. And in many cases, the data transactions could be peer to peer (both being customers) like a voice call (or even video call/teleconference) vs a content provider to peer (customer) stream...
I.e., what might happen with the former case and would that need its own classification in this throw-the-rules-out scenario? For example if parents want to "stream" a video of their toddler's first steps to grandma? Would those parents now be considered a "content provider" on par with someone like Amazon? Or (as will probably happen more and more in the future) if a school "streams" lessons to students at home rather than using a snow day off. Would the school now be a "content provider" to the students subject to rules aimed at Hulu or Netflix?
And as a note, the internet WAS "the phone system" and the phone system is more and more "the internet", with A/D conversions and digital voice calls going through servers and routers at some Central Office maintained by some Baby Bell. Add to that cell voice/data. The one evolved out of the other and are basically one and the same, with the differences being the protocols (and equipment like switches, etc) used to move the traffic, the size of the packets, and the total amount of data.
