Posted on 04/10/2019 10:06:19 AM PDT by NobleFree
The House voted Wednesday (April 10) 232 to 190 (with one Republican voting aye) to pass the Democrat-backed Save the Internet Act (HR 1644), which would restore FCC's Title II based rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization adopted under the previous, Democratic, administration, plus reinstate a general conduct standard to get at future conduct unbecoming an open internet but not falling under those rules.
But the victory looks to be short-lived. Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said the bill will be DOA in the Senate (echoed Wednesday by house Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy [R-Calif.]) and the Office of Management and Budget has recommended the President veto the bill if it does somehow get to the President's desk.
Even hard-core net neutrality activists at Fight for the Future, which has been pushing hard for the bill, were talking about the next fight. While Deputy Director Evan Greer pointed out that some thought the FCC would never impose Title II regs--it did--and that the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) would become law--it didn't--Greer also said: "[I]t's important to understand the significance of this bill as a tool for getting lawmakers on the record in support of strong net neutrality rules, moving us closer toward victory, whether it comes this year or after 2020 with a new FCC chair."
Greer pointed out that millions had followed the previous hearings and markups on the bill, as well as the floor debate, via Twitch--House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also talked about that streaming audience and the support it showed for strong net neutrality rules.
House passage came after an hour of debate Tuesday (April 9) and after votes on a dozen amendments over two days--out of 19 amendments submitted. Democrats supported a number of the Republican amendments "in the spirit of bipartisanship," and with the tongue-in-cheek tweak that they hoped that now meant the Republicans would join them in voting for the bill--they didn't. Republicans also supported some of the Democrat's amendments, though in some cases saying the did not agree with them.
Ultimately, all the amendments were approved, either unanimously by voice vote or by strong majorities in recorded votes.
One amendment that was accepted unanimously called for a GAO study of "all entities on the virtuous cycle of the internet ecosystem and whether such rules protect the access of consumers to a free and open internet." That would include Facebook, Google and YouTube. Doyle said he agreed there were problems on the edge, and while the bill was on a different subject, Democrats would work with Republicans on the issue.
Another amendment agreed to on a bipartisan basis requires the FCC to improve and correct its broadband availability data, another issue on which there is bipartisan support, as well as one mandating a GAO report on rural broadband.
Given that the bill almost certainly will not become law, if they are going to study the impact of the edge on a neutral net and broadband deployment, or light a fire under the FCC to collect better broadband data, it will have to come via some other vehicle.
The sound and fury of the debate on the bill, and the heated proceedings Wednesday surrounding its passage, showed just how divided the divided Congress is on the issue, despite talk about net neutrality being bipartisan and the actual bipartisan agreement that some form of rules are needed to end the legal back-and-forth over the government's authority to regulate the 'net.
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, said the bill was a carefully crafted attempt to balance the needs of having a cop on the beat without weighing the industry down.
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), ranking member of the committee, called the Democrat-backed bill "another plank in their socialist agenda" that would allow the FCC to "run amok" with regulations.
As the bill moved to a final vote Wednesday, Walden also said it could open the "floodgates" to an internet tax cash grab by state and local governments.
He proposed sending the bill back to committee to make sure it did not do that.
Rep. Doyle said nothing in the bill gives the FCC the authority to modify federal law, specifically the Internet Tax Freedom Act. "This is a complete non-issue" and a "last-ditch "effort to delay and confuse people. Doyle said the Republicans want a consumer-be-damned "wild, wild West." He pointed out that the Republicans aren't in charge now (to cheers from the Democrats), and called for the motion to be defeated and shouted for passage of the bill.
The motion was defeated 216 to 204.
Tuesday's debate had made clear that the sides would not be coming together anytime soon.
Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) said the bill was not a socialist initiative, but an "American" one, and a way to promote rural broadband deployment.
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) said the Republicans don't want a cop on the beat. She also said stood up for the edge providers she represents. "We don't want any mitts on the internet," she said.
Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) said it was humorous that Republicans say they don't want a government takeover of the Internet when the only one talking about that was the President when he talked about nationalizing 5G. Walden countered that the only potential nationalizing of 5G was contained in the bill.
He agreed that there was consensus on rules against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, bu that Republicans didn't want any other rules so ISPs could find ways to game the system. "I didn't come to Congress to work for internet service providers," he said, implying Republicans may have. He signaled that the reason he wanted a general conduct standard was so the government could say "you can't do that," about zero rating plans and interconnection issues. "The three bright lines don't cut it anymore," he said, adding that the bill was on "the right side of history."
Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio), ranking member of the Communications Subcommittee, said the bill was not about net neutrality at all. He said there is agreement on principles to protect and open internet. He called for a "no" vote and a return to negotiations. He aaid he did want a cop on the beat, which should include on edge providers, and one who would not use its club on pro-consumer prioritization.
Pelosi said she was defending the open internet as well as standing with Anna Eshoo, who she called the "godmother of network neutrality," to restore protections "destroyed" by the Trump Administration and check discriminatory conduct by ISPs. She said the debate was not just about net neutrality, but about the quality of life.
Rep. Bill Johnson, another Ohio Republican, called the "disingenuous" bill "Another Big Government Attempt to Grab the Internet Act." He said the bill would create additional barriers to deployment. "The only saving the Internet needs is from heavy-handed Washington regulations.
With Senate passage a nonstarter and both sides apparently dug in--Democrats say the general conduct standard is a must and Republicans say it is a nonstarter--it is hard to see where a bipartisan bill emerges unless one side or the other gives on that key point.
Absent that, the battle over the 'net will continue to be waged in the courts, where both sides are awaiting a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on the challenge to the FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom Act, which nullified the rules Democrats are attempting to restore.
None of this addresses yourube, screwgle, fakebook, and shtter downthrottling conservatives does it?
I’m surprised they didn’t name the “Act” after Al Gore.
Don’t underestimate this issue. Stupid or not, it is YUGE amongst Millenials.
The House Louses pretending they know how the internet works.
LOL
Love the headline - Should be “Democrats force net neutrality bill on party line vote”
I'd like to congratulate republicans for a rare example of sticking to their principles here on an unpopular position, but I doubt most understand it any better than millennials and are simply responding to the wealth of telecom contributions. If only they showed this level of spine for more important issues like cutting spending, immigration, getting rid of obamacare, etc..
I believe in “net neutrality” in abstract, in the sense that Comcast Xfinity should not be allowed to technically kneecap its competition from Netflix.
But that’s not what the Democrats are proposing either.
D O A
As I said, it wasn’t intended to pass.
It’s intent is to rile-up Millenials to get them
out to the polls.
My real point is this is a dumb hill for Republicans to die defending. At worst, net neutrality has mixed outcomes.
The original Net Neutrality scheme as implemented under Obama kneecapped the further deployment of true high speed Internet in most areas. It made Verizon stop deploying FIOS, it stalled AT&T Gigapower and it basically ended Google Fiber. Sure, they kept existing deployments and finished build-outs that were too far advanced to make sense to stop, but that is where they ended it.
The original Net Neutrality policy made it so there was no point for any ISP to ever upgrade a system - much like the public utility rules it is based on make it so there’s little pressure for utilities to upgrade elements of service. Case in point, ‘smart meters’ were invented in the 80s and perfected in the late 90s. They were only mass deployed 20 years later because until the government got interested in pressuring the utilities to install them, the utilities had little incentive to upgrade and government pressure to *not* upgrade.
..... which would restore FCC’s Title II based rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization adopted under the previous, Democratic, administration, ....
**********
Next steps: in the name of equality, block the USPS from offering paid priority mail, and block local governments from offering toll roadway express lanes where people who really have to get there in a hurry can pay for that right.
And don't forget fast-pass lines at amusement parks. And, I suppose, different tiers of service at the car wash.
“net neutrality” in abstract”
I am in favor of making sure that nobody can be denied an internet connection because they host a website or say things that are not PC. Now that so many have been deplatformed and demonetized, pulling the plug would be the last step in silencing them completely. I seriously doubt that anything the Dens would come up with would prevent that.
I disagree that it kneecapped deployment, unless Verizon and AT&T planned to block Netflix, or charge customers extra for access to Netflix. In which case, good. Net Neutrality specifically didn’t block rate increases, so if it made economic sense for Verizon to keep rolling out FIOS, they could have.
The democrat controlled House is a circle jerk.
Nothing but mental masturbation.
5.56mm
They didn’t plan to block NetFlix - but by the letter of the policy, they couldn’t run an extra cost content service on their network to help pay for the network expansion. That’s why all of these projects stopped. Verizon went even further and sold off all their non-East Coast landline networks to Frontier, which is the worst telco in America - and who is no longer expanding FIOS coverage and will run it into the ground instead.
Net neutrality: Obamacare for the internet.
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.