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
I'm saying the threat to the internet from any (IMO) minor traffic management practices by ISP's is much less than the potential threat to internet freedom from government via the FCC.
Throughout recorded human history, it has been GOVERNMENT that fears free speech, not private enterprise. The Holy Roman Church and the Gutenberg Bible. The King of England's licensing of printers. The FCC throttling of broadcast via the Fairness Doctrine.
To expect all of a sudden that the FCC would become a benign master of the World Wide Web does not square with logic or history.
Do some research on early radio history and see where the Marxists almost succeeded in turning commercial radio into a 1930 version of NPR.
As I understand it, the new regulation merely applies the same standards to ISPs that already apply to phone companies. Do you feel like the FCC has acted to control what you can say or send over the phone?
[I don’t know which I would trust less — the FCC or the Cable company.]
If you don’t like your cable company, go dsl or satellite or whatever.
If you don’t like the FCC, go to jail.
Do you see any difference now? What pornographic Russian video are you currently blocked from seeing?
You people have too much faith in government.Amazing. This is a conservative forum for crying out loud.
Leftist organizations including Soros is behind this net neutrality BS. Need to know any more?
No, I have little faith in government. At the same time I am not a blind ideologue. I wanted to hear rational arguments against and for the FCC ruling. I got what I wanted.
Remember many people on this forum back Romney, Huckabee, and McCain (although the latter was the only choice against the munificent Zero)
LIke Reagan said :”Government is not the solution. Government is the problem”.
I don’t know if you are one but there seem to be a lot of paid Soros and democrat idiots backing this FCC unelected , Soros funded tyranny.
FCC Internet Takeover Funded By Soros - Net Neutrality Research “Manufactured”
FCC Internet Takeover Funded By Soros - Net Neutrality Research “Manufactured”
The Net Neutrality Coup
The campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who’s who of left-liberal foundations.
The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney’s agenda? “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies,” he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. “But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”
http://brian-therightperspective.blogspot.com/2010/12/fcc-internet-takeover-funded-by-soros.html
You seem to understand this issue. Tell me, why do csrriers want to block our access to Google or force us to use software that they provide? Why are these internet providers opposed to allowing all of their users unfettered access to the whole web?
I don't always trust government, but have you ever tried to get a problem solved by Time Warner?
Money. By controlling your surfing experience, every software producer is attempting to control how and where you spend your money online. You may not be purchasing something from the provider, but if you got to the online retailer through their software, then the provider will get a cut of your purchase. It is the way the web works.
At best this “net neutrality” b.s. is inserting the FCC into areas that have no need of government oversight - where is the problem now??
As the saying goes, “the power to regulate is the power to destroy” — why are all the lefty foundations and law professors having wet dreams over “net neutrality”??
b/c it puts the FCC and federal judges in the position of adjudicating every kind of issue that comes up in the future about internet traffic flows.
I found this detailed overview (which is from 2004 but still seems highly relevant):
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa507.pdf
The socialists want to control the Internet - that’s enough reason for me to want to keep them far away from any more legal oversight.
Ironically (at end of paper linked above) even a lefty like John Conyers could not see any good reason for extending govt oversight in this area. Don’t know whether he and some like him have been changed by pressure groups, but this “net neutrality” b.s. has always been lefty pressure groups searching for a way to grab more oversight of Internet traffic issues.
or as John Fund says in the WSJ,
“So the “media reform” movement paid for research that backed its views, paid activists to promote the research, saw its allies installed in the FCC and other key agencies, and paid for the FCC research that evaluated the research they had already paid for. Now they have their policy. That’s quite a coup.”
Reid will not let it even come to a vote. The only way to get any movement with the next congress will be for the house to threaten BO with complete shutdown of all his agenda. The next two years will be messy.
Threatened to repeal? How about ‘promise’ to repeal. Trusting now, even fewer of them; given this lame-but-flying duck session that just, mercifully, ended.
“Frankly, I think the intent IS good”
________________________________________
Well, we all know where the road paved with good intentions leads.......
Don't argue this if all you have is red herrings. Obviously if you want to see wikileaks there's not a damn thing that your carrier, the government or anyone else can do to stop you. So that's not the issue at all. The only pertinent question is whether carriers should be allowed to charge stupid users more for services that use more bandwidth. Smart users won't be affected since they will route around it. The big advantage is that it frees up more bandwidth for everyone else.
The even bigger advantage is that the carrier overcharges stupid people and smart people can choose another carrier. That's the beauty of the market, no government needed. OTOH, if you want government provided dial-up, then sign up for net neutrality.
The ISP's can certainly charge you as much as they want. How does $5000/month sound? Don't like that? Switch to a different ISP or start your own. Your "certain things" argument is even more spurious, if you want to do "certain things" on the internet, then run a tunnel to your own server ($8/month) and proxy those "certain things" there. There's no a damn thing your ISP can do to stop that short of cutting the line.
What I want from ISP's is simple, I want them to provide decent bandwidth when I need it which means they will have monitor stupid users whose kids are downloading streaming porn and cut off the streaming video feeds. If those kids are smart enough to route around that, more power to them, but mostly they are not and the ISP will be able to cut them off to preserve decent service for everyone else.
THEY HAD BETTER DO MORE THAN THREATEN!!! THEY HAD BETTER DO IT!!!
lol Well, I’m not a GOP hater, but I’ll throw in a chip for the sake of discussion.
All they are doing so far is making promises, and threats, and promising to threaten later.
Let’s see if they walk the walk when it’s time to act!
“They can threaten all they want. Until both houses of congress pass it, and 0bama signs it, or doesn’t and it becomes law - it don’t mean shinola.”
Wrong, They can defund the FCC by simply not passing a funding bill. That can happen in either house. It does not require both with a Presidential signature.
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.