Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP lawmakers threaten to repeal Net neutrality
www.politico.com ^ | 12-21-2010 | By TONY ROMM

Posted on 12/21/2010 3:42:42 PM PST by NoLibZone

Less than an hour after the Federal Communications Commission approved net neutrality rules, Republican lawmakers began staking their claim in the next potential leg of the debate: repeal.

The first calls to roll back the FCC's new net neutrality order came Tuesday from the House's most senior Republicans: House GOP Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, as well as the incoming leaders of the chamber's top tech and telecom committees.

The members each threatened to limit the agency's funds or restrict its jurisdiction in the aftermath of the FCC’s vote, with Boehner proclaiming the "new House majority will work to reverse this unnecessary and harmful federal government power grab next year."

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), soon-to-be chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, later elaborated to reporters Tuesday afternoon that he plans to bring all five commissioners before the panel to discuss net neutrality at "the first hearing out of the box" next year. He even signaled the possibility that Republicans may pursue repeal through the Congressional Review Act — an avenue that allows members to reject agency rules without threat of filibuster, provided they can secure a majority support against net neutrality.

Joining Upton's calls for strict scrutiny and eventual repeal were Reps. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). Walden, who will soon lead the House's top tech subcommittee, stressed the need to rebuff any FCC "power grab that'd allow the commission to regulate" other areas of broadband. Blackburn also floated the possibility of blocking agency funds for use on net neutrality, adding: "You will see activism on each of these levels."

Congressional furor follows Tuesday’s 3-2, party-line vote on Genachowski's plan to adopt basic net neutrality protections for broadband networks. The order will prohibit Internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from blocking access to lawful content and websites. It also prohibits traditional wired broadband providers from unreasonably discriminating against any traffic, though there will be no similar rule in place for wireless providers.

Following the vote, the chairman said he was ready to take on any criticism.

"We adopted today a strong and balanced order that has widespread support and that focuses on the importance of Internet freedom," he said. "It's a strong and balanced order and I look forward to speaking about it with anyone who is interested.”

Some Democrats hail the FCC's vote on Tuesday as the next step in ensuring that high-speed Internet networks remain open. Supporters included Sens. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Mark Warner of Virgnia, Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Doris Matsui of California.

President Barack Obama also backed the FCC, saying the decision is “an important component of our overall strategy to advance American innovation, economic growth and job creation.”

But those statements of approval may not be enough to stave off critics already interested in undoing Genachowski's work as early as next month.

Other Republican leaders also sounded off Tuesday against the FCC's net neutrality order — including Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who first signaled during a floor speech that he and others in his party would "push back against new rules and regulations." Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), ranking member on her chamber's Commerce Committee, signaled she would revive her efforts to derail the FCC's latest move.

Terry, meanwhile, told POLITICO the vote "certainly sets our agenda for the Energy and Commerce Committee," as he and others, including Upton, plan to discuss their next steps very soon.

"The first thing we'll do is call Julius up and have him explain himself, we need to study the proposal, and then we'll draft legislation to undo it," he said in an interview.

"We'll use everything available to us — so yes, we'll use Appropriations, we'll use the legislative process," he continued. "This is really a war against Congress. ... this is a power grab by an agency almost to unheard of levels. So we have a constitutional obligation to fight this order to the death."

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), who will lead the Energy and Commerce oversight subcommittee, also joined his GOP colleagues in vowing to heavily scrutinize the agency if it ever moved forward with Genachowski's proposal.

"I will exercise strong oversight on the FCC on this and other issues," Stearns said in a statement Tuesday.

"Also, working with Chairman Walden, we will outline that Internet regulation is out of the FCC's jurisdiction and that regulation will hamper economic growth and job creation," he added, noting he too would pursue a resolution of disapproval next year.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46685.html#ixzz18n9TsoOU

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46685.html#ixzz18n9KIx39


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: 0bamacare; 0bonazism; 0pansyqueer; 0panzinomics; 111th; bhofcc; dems4mediacontrol; fairnessdoctrine; fcc; freepress; google; internet; netneutrality; soros; spookydude; telecom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-139 next last
To: ProudFossil

Please read this morning’s article in the WSJ by John Fund to learn the truth about ‘net neutrality’. It will chill you to the bone. The link is in post #100.


101 posted on 12/22/2010 5:10:12 AM PST by houeto (Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LaineyDee

If the Supreme Court has already ruled that the FCC doesn’t have the authority, why does Congress need to repeal anything?


102 posted on 12/22/2010 9:28:42 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
If the Supreme Court has already ruled that the FCC doesn’t have the authority, why does Congress need to repeal anything?

Because, if the FCC chooses to exert its non-existent authority, the industry it regulates must still comply. As As Andrew Jackson observed, the court has no way to enforce its decision.

The industry can bring suit, of course. Or they can just go along -- as the smaller members of the industry will choose, due to the massive legal expense involved in a court challenge. But shouldn't that burden be an unneccesary expense?

On balance, this affair is an object example of why "Big Government" begets "Big Business". It's a matter of self-defense.

103 posted on 12/22/2010 9:39:01 AM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Aroostook25

Hear, hear. I’m with you on that. Out with the RINO’s and in with the conservatives.


104 posted on 12/22/2010 10:08:43 AM PST by GrandmaPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: okie01

hear hear. WELL SAID. It is obvious as to what they are wanting to do.....


105 posted on 12/22/2010 10:36:42 AM PST by murrie (For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Talk’s cheap. We’ll see if the new Congressmen and Senators have the balls for hand-to-hand with Obama and his fascists. The smirk on the face of that little liberal weenie FCC chairman was the icing on the cake for me.


106 posted on 12/22/2010 12:50:50 PM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YankeeReb

By the time they can get around to this the Soros Coup will have done at least 5 more things that are just as bad.

It’s Cloward-Piven on the legislative level. Bombard the country with so many crap sandwiches at once that we can’t even swallow before the next thing is going down. Keeps us unable to fight back. At least legislatively.

The galling thing about this, if I understand correctly, is that the FCC has already been told by the federal courts that they can’t do this.... but the Soros Coup is once again ignoring the rule of law.

See, that’s the difference between us and the thugs. No matter how crooked the judge is, if the court rules it we abide by it. The thugs own the courts but wouldn’t do anything differently even if they didn’t, because the thugs just ignore the rule of law.

Reminds me of the saying, “Locks are for honest people.”

The Soros Coup and the dems that enable it are lawless thugs and we the people need to find a way to MAKE them obey the rule of law.


107 posted on 12/22/2010 12:56:29 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

It had better be a sight more than a “threat,” but grateful they are thinking this way.


108 posted on 12/22/2010 1:00:09 PM PST by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
>I don’t really want Comcast and AT&T deciding what sites. I can visit or what I can download.
Do they do that now?

Comcast was caught limiting certain kinds of traffic a couple of years ago. Which meant they had to examine what kind of traffic it was, in order to limit it.

But the fact Obama is for it and Boehner is against it tells me a lot right there.

I fear that may just be a function of who gives money to whom. Content providers (Google, Amazon) have generally been in favor of net neutrality, and the ISPs have been against it. I bet if you scratched the surface you'd find that the former supported Obama and Democrats, and the latter supported Republicans.

I understand how you feel, but I'd rather make my decision on the merits of the proposal than on who's on which side. Net neutrality is more or less what we've had up til now, and the Internet seems to be working fine. The ISPs want to change that so they can make us pay more for certain things. Without further information, I can't see why that's in my best interest.

109 posted on 12/22/2010 1:05:31 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

The Republicans can stuff it up their anuses. Where were they for START, DADT, etc.

Screw them, every single one of them.


110 posted on 12/22/2010 1:07:00 PM PST by rlmorel ("If this doesn't light your fire, Men, the pilot light's out!"...Coach Ed Bolin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Frankly I’m not interested in anything Obama, Pelosi or you are selling. Let’s leave the internet alone the way it is and let the marketplace decide.


111 posted on 12/22/2010 1:15:26 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

What you’re missing is that enforcing net neutrality *is* leaving the Internet the way it is. It’s the opponents of net neutrality that want to change things.


112 posted on 12/22/2010 1:37:27 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Wrong. I am not missing anything. You are. We don’t a 3-2 FCC to mess with the internet. You can side with the liberals if you wish. Hopefully the Republicans in the new congress will undo this order.


113 posted on 12/22/2010 1:49:34 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Isn’t net neutrality what we have now?

Some recent ISP violations of the principle aside, net neutrality is what we have now. It's all basically been "how the Internet has always been" so far with a gentleman's agreement, but the ISPs have shown they don't want to act gentlemanly anymore. For me, the question is how to maintain it with the ISPs desiring to destroy it. I don't believe that the market can solve this with the powerful monopolies and duopolies the ISPs often have. On the other hand, I don't trust the FCC either. It's tough.

114 posted on 12/22/2010 1:53:22 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
...but the ISPs have shown they don't want to act gentlemanly anymore.

You're going to have to come up with some concrete examples other than the ancient ones you cited yesterday. Who says the ISP don't want to act gentlemanly? The FCC? Jay Rockefeller? Henry Waxman?

Do you believe them?

115 posted on 12/22/2010 1:58:38 PM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: abb
You're going to have to come up with some concrete examples other than the ancient ones you cited yesterday.

They are historical examples, which is all that is necessary.

116 posted on 12/22/2010 2:24:30 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
They are historical examples, which is all that is necessary.

I don't agree. Businesses and customers have honest disagreements every single day and usually they are resolved without government involvement. Isolated examples of these disagreements do not a pattern make. Such a 'pattern or practice' might require government intervention, but to date it just ain't happening.

I've had problems with my ISP over the years, but I pick up the phone and we work it out. I'm a good customer that pays the bills on time and they respond.

But to bring in a government agency with a history of censorship (see 'Fairness Doctrine') and put them in charge because of something that might happen in the future just not jive with libertarian/conservative dogma.

117 posted on 12/22/2010 2:35:04 PM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: TexNewMex

You must realize that Apple was founded on closed architecture.

Control is Woz’s basic belief.

Had Apple won the PC battle there might never have been a web.

I submit the need to go through Itunes to purchase apps or even get free ones for an Iphone.

I love Apple.

My first PC was a IIci and I have two Iphone4’s but he is wrong about his control theories.


118 posted on 12/22/2010 2:51:42 PM PST by NoLibZone (Homosexuals oppose diversity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Okay - work on your little bill.

It’ll never get through the Senate.

Here’s our middle finger and have a nice day. :)

-your friends on the left


119 posted on 12/22/2010 3:40:57 PM PST by Tzimisce (It's just another day in Obamaland.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb
Businesses and customers have honest disagreements every single day and usually they are resolved without government involvement.

But the examples given aren't issues with individual customers at all, or even groups of customers. They're issues with types of Internet traffic. You seem to be assuming that the ISPs wouldn't ever do that again, or that they wouldn't ever do it to a type of traffic you're interested in. I think that confidence is misplaced.

120 posted on 12/22/2010 3:52:07 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-139 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson