Posted on 12/06/2010 5:47:00 AM PST by kingattax
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) plans to introduce a bill to prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from enforcing net-neutrality rules.
She said on an episode of CSPAN's "The Communicators" on Friday that she will reintroduce her legislation to halt the FCC.
"What you're going to see happen is this," she said. "If the FCC moves forward on Dec 21…then come January you are going to see some aggressive work making certain the FCC keeps its hands off the the Internet."
"I will refile my legislation…to prohibit the FCC from enacting net-neutrality regulations," she said.
Blackburn, a member of the House Communications subcommittee, also mentioned hearings as a way to push back against the FCC.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed formal net-neutrality rules on Wednesday, pending passage in a commission vote in December.
Genachowski received support from Democrats and intense opposition from Republicans.
Still, there might be little the Republicans can do to stop Genachowski.
It's unclear that Democrats will be enthusiastic to sign onto a Republican bill blocking net neutrality.
One indicator to that effect: Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas), who rallied Democrats against strict FCC regulations this year, commended the FCC for moderating its views in its most recent proposal.
Further, President Obama made a campaign promise to support net-neutrality, so he might be unlikely to sign such a bill.
Rather than go around and around with Leftists, I pose this simple construct to them.
There are two kinds of people in the world. The ones who just want to be left alone to live their lives and pursue their dreams, and the meddling busybodies who can’t abide freedom and constantly interfere. Which are you?
If our side knew squat about how to frame a debate, Blackburn would say something like this: “What the FCC and the government wants to do is take away your I-phone! They can’t stand not being able to control communications.”
But she won’t do that.
This one has me really torn. net-neutrality IS the way to ensure simplicity for the end user. Too bad it’s in the domain of the FCC.
For those here who just see the FCC and say net-neutrality is bad, I hope you enjoy your multi-tier pricing scheme where you can’t stream netflix video nor expect anything of appreciable size to download uninterrupted without the top-tier package which will cost you 2-3X what you are paying now.
The mind boggles at all the BS Verizon, AT&T, qwest, etc... are going to charge you to do what you already do today for a one simple bill.
Defund it.
Good girl doing what her corporate masters tell her.
Verizon was her #3 contributor. Comcast was tied for #4.
This is outside of the FCC’s charter. There are no airwaves that need to be regulated.
This is like asking the Highway Patrol to make sure all gas stations have the same price for all brands of gas.
ping
Less government means more freedom, whether it’s freedom for companies to compete for customers or freedom for websites to contain the content they choose. Anything else is the government seeking more control of our lives.
Great, it doesn’t have to be the FCC, I don’t care who does it. But if net-neutrality isn’t enacted in some way, we as consumers are the ones who will be getting the shaft.
While I agree that the FCC shouldn’t have any oversight on how the Communications in this country are handled, you’re wrong about the airwaves remark.
The FCC handles everything about the communications industry, even down to Joint Use Pole Agreements between Power and Telecom Companies.
Trust me, other than the portion that is covered in the US Constitution, I think we should disband everything related to the FCC.
Let me ask you this.
Why should these companies provide you with a fixed rate service? You say that consumers are getting the shaft, but is that really the case? No, you get what you pay for and if you can’t handle paying for it, then you don’t need it do you?
What’s wrong with multi-tiered pricing? If I want the fancier car I have to pay more money. I’m just not interested in the government forcing anybody to give me “free stuff”.
That’s technically not a net neutrality issue, more of a consumer protection one. The IPSs have no problem advertising one speed but providing another, hiding behind the small print to get away with it. But things like this were part of the latest net neutrality bill.
My wife leaves Netflix or other streaming (Hulu, web radio, etc.) on much of the day, as background noise when cleaning, when actually watching something, or as cartoons for the little one. Plus our older kids can watch in their room and way too often forget to turn it off. I also pull a ton of educational podcasts for the kids and have my own few shows I like. I’m looking into dropping our cable TV completely since it’s rarely used now.
With this many people in my household watching different things it’s easy for us to pull over 8 program-hours per day. That’s a LOT of bandwidth, over 10 GB per day at a SWAG average of 3 Mbps; web radio takes less, Netflix HD takes more. That doesn’t count my gigabytes per month of application and OS downloads (mainly MSDN, Linuxes and VMWare appliances). Luckily, my ISP doesn’t seem to have a problem with it, let’s me use the bandwidth I pay for. I hear others aren’t quite so lucky.
So when I support net neutrality, it’s not out of selfishness. I’m happy with my service. It’s the principle of an open Internet, plus remembering pastor Martin Niemöller, “First they came for the communists...” When I do go fully streaming, then my ISP might decide they want a cut of my business relationship with my streaming company.
What would really impress me is to hear Rep. Marsha Blackburn speak while the CEO and Board of Directors of Comcast and AT&T all drink a glass of water.
Someone like me will ask you to “splain yourself” so the rest of us can understand what you are wanting someone to enact vis-a-vis net neutrality.
Republicans should put a rider amendment on the Bill to de-fund NPR, PBS, BET, etc., and also the NEA, EPA, FCC, and all Czar positions.
Multi-tier pricing is fine. It happens today. You want 1.5 Meg download speed? Great, buy that package, you want 10 Meg, 15 Meg, etc.. great. That is the way it should be.
But in a world without net neutrality, you will have the telco’s blocking your content, or SEVERELY restricting your content until websites/providers pay them big bucks to be put on the better tiers.
For example, you can watch netflix on a 1.5 Meg plan. Not any more, customers of 1.5 meg plans will be getting packets once in a blue moon. You’ll have to move up to the 10, 15, 15+ packages to watch netflix.
Without net-neutrality, the telco’s will limit what you can access based on package you buy. And for those saying it’s the telco’s right to do that, I”ll simply add this ...
1) The internet has been built to date upon net-neutrality, it will get to you based on how fast your internet connection is. Now, that would no longer be the case. It goes to the highest bidder 1st.
2) For the telco lovers, what about medium to small business that can’t pay millions to have their sites run fast? You are crippling those company’s abilities to do e-business. This doesn’t boil down to gov’t versus business, it boils down to big business destroying small business.
There are many others.
Nothing. Roadrunner has "lite," normal and "turbo" bandwidths available. I also hear they're going to offer a "gamer" package where you pay more for very low latency. Net neutrality doesn't affect this at all.
The problem comes from "tiering" on the other side. The ISP would restrict bandwidth from content providers such as Netflix unless those providers pay up. Basically it's extortion. This destroys the open nature of the Internet, where when you get online you expect access to all resources equally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.