Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

September 28, 2010 -

Republicans who may want to support net neutrality are caught between interest groups and the Tea Party, according to The Hill. A bill floated by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is probably not going to survive the process as a result.

Net roots groups are probably happy to hear that – many, but not all - consider the bill to be a watered down measure that takes authority away from the FCC and makes many concessions to telecom companies. Nevertheless, Republicans who avoided the ire of the Tea Party during primaries are afraid to be on the wrong side of the issue.  

"I hope [GOP House members] keep in mind that the fired-up group of people this cycle is the Tea Party," Seton Motley told The Hill. Motley runs the group Less Government, which is against what it sees as "government regulations."

While Democratic lawmakers involved with the legislation are trying to get GOP support during the lame-duck session, signs point to an uphill battle.

"Speaker Pelosi and President Obama have taken measures to control the healthcare industry, the auto industry, the banking industry and the insurance industry," Culberson told The Hill on Monday. "It comes as no surprise that they attempt to control commercial activity over the Internet before they lose control of Congress."

Supporting a bill that creates new rules will be a hard vote for Republican members to make because they have been opposed to the policy. Active opposition from Tea Party groups could make it even tougher for Republicans to support it.

Thirty-five Tea Party groups spoke out against net-neutrality rules earlier this year in a letter to the FCC , and vowed to organize around the issue.

More details on the groups that will provide Republicans in the house cover (should they need it) can be found in this Hill Report. But as the report points out, it won't protect them from the Tea Party.


Comments

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

 You know, net neutrality doesn't need to be regulated by the government.

It's called a free market.  If an ISP blocks or throttles specific traffic, people are likely to switch providers.  It's just good business practice to keep all channels open.

Just because the government doesn't clamp down on ISPs doesn't mean the ISPs are going to suddenly start making it harder for you to visit the websites you want.  If they did, I'm sure there would be a zillion First Amendment lawsuits over it.

Let's face it, every time the feds have gotten heavily involved in something that wasn't their job, they've screwed it up royally.  I honestly don't trust them to get something like net neutrality right either.  Given the prevailing corruption in Congress over the past couple of decades, I'd bet that the Big Evil Telecoms (TM) that some people seem to hate so much would get some sort of exemption anyway.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

To add to what the other commenters have said: according to Consumer Reports, 96% of America has 2 or fewer broadband providers.

Where there's no competition, there's no free market.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

I fail to see how a lack of competition means that the federal government needs to get involved.  That's just another step down a slippery slope of government overregulation that we're suffering under right now.

I'm not saying that the ISPs are flawless institutions.  I just don't trust Capitol Hill to "fix" anything, especially not with the irresponsible morons currently running the place.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

ISPs tend to enjoy natural monopolies (which aren't any kind of antitrust violation) because the cost of a competitor stringing their own service lines usually isn't justified by the shared profit potential. Just like electricity service providers, who also enjoy natural monopolies.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

"people are likely to switch providers."

As has been pointed out MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY times, there IS NO COMPETITION for most people.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

Free Market only works if there is competiton.

There are lots of places where there isn't really competition for ISPs, if your in the wrong area and your ISP decides to throttle and there aren't ISPs that don't throttle around, you're stuck with them or nothing.

 

Also, EVERY time the government gets invovled in something that's not their job they screw it up royally?

So should we go back to the old system of free market competative firehouses?
You know, where there are competing firehouses in your town and you pay one to protect your house, and if your house catches on fire the other other companies will just pass your house and not bother to help?

Sure the government has screwed some things up, but let's not start tossing absolutes.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality needs to be talked about in terms of guaranteeing free market capitalism on the Internet and tiered service being an example of picking winners completely apart from the laws of supply and demand. Those should be it's defender's talking points, that is what Tea Party people care about.

Instead it's being couched in typical leftist "Rich vs Poor" tripe in which all coporations are evil and the wonderful benevolent wise government needs to save us from the evil corporations. Don't be surprised if the idiots on the right are smart enough not to fall for that crap. Guarantee competition, free markets, individual free enterprise! That's what net neutrality should be about!

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

Your rhetoric's obnoxious but your core point is right: net neutrality is necessary to ensure fair competition, and the Democrats need to be hammering that.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

Well, both sides have their idiots.  After all, on the right you have many people who believe corperations are good (after all, if you make lots of money, you must be superior) and thus they know what is really good for us.  So they fall for just as much crap.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

NN needs to focus on being a dumb pipe for data/information anythign mroe than that allows the snake oil, anti consumer and other bad for us all groups in to make it something it is not.

The FCC needs to make the case that ISPs are tele/cable communication and thus need some form of basic regulation to keep profiteers out and data/information flowing steadily.


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

I don't see why the FCC hasn't bothered to re-classify cable and DSL back to common carrier status so that they do have the authority to enforce neutrality.

-Greevar

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

To put it simply, it's illegal.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

Since when was it illegal to force restrictions on monopolies?  

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

The trouble comes from what ISPs that own thier lines (i.e., all broadband ones today) are classified as.  The FCC is allowed to regulate common carriers, but who gets to decide what a 'common carrier' is, is a bit less clear.  So for the moment they have escaped regulation because judges deciced they are 'information services' rather then 'telecommunication services'.  

Given how arbitrary the distinction is, it will probably get reviewed at some point, esp as VoIP becomes more popular and thus current ISPs start feeling more like telcos to aging judges who are not familiar with the technology.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

Ever since Congress decided that the FCC had to do what they said, not what the FCC wanted to do.  Unless Congress says they can, they can't.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

All independent regulatory commissions created by Congress work that way. The emphasis is more accurately placed on "commission," not "independent."

The "ever since" you refer to goes all the way back to the '34 Act which created the FCC. 

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

"Speaker Pelosi and President Obama have taken measures to control the healthcare industry, the auto industry, the banking industry and the insurance industry."

...regardless of what you think of the actual legislation the Dems have passed, is the very IDEA of those industry's having some government regulation really that bad?

Anyway, yet another example of the Democrats screwing the pooch by not passing popular legislation when they had the chance.  Remember when a majority of people on all sides of the political spectrum favored net neutrality?  It wasn't that long ago.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

SOME regulation?  Probably not.

Making it a CRIME to not purchase health insurance?  Yes.

The President of the United States firing the CEO of one car company and forcing another to be bought by a foreign company?  Yes.

Blaming banks for the economic crisis because they followed the law that a lot of these same politicians wrote in the first place (I'm looking at you, Barney Franks)?  Yes.

You see, there's a difference between "a little government regulation" and doubling the government debt in a matter of two years.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

Hi Jedi,

What do any of those things have to do with what this article is about?

 

 

Love,

 

Thad

 

 

 

PS: Ack, just noticed the typo in my OP.  "Industries", not "industry's".

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

Well, to be fair, you can't really blame the banks on Obama, as those were before him.  You also can't blame the first $750 bil bailout on him either, since it was Bush that pushed for it.

Everything else, though....yeah, he kind of screwed the pooch on that one.  Republicans could have realized that it was going to happen anyways and put in their own $0.02, thus potentially mitigating some of these things (yeah right, let's face it - both parties screw up, but not nearly as much as when they try and work together), but instead they just decided to do jack shit and complain about everything.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

"you can't really blame the banks on Obama"

He didn't, he called out Barney Frank.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

And called him out quite unfairly, in my opinion. It was the repeal of Glass-Steagall by a bill introduced by Gramm and Leach (two Republicans) and which passed the Senate on a vote split evenly along party lines that effectively allowed the banking industry to engage in sub-prime lending and Wall Street to trade those junk sub-prime mortgages as derivatives and which in turn caused the meltdown of the financial markets.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

Barney Frank is the one who's been touting for the decade previous to the crisis that this deregulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was good for the country - you know, that same deregulation that everyone decries as the cause.  He's also the one who - after the crisis - still believes that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did nothing wrong.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

The verb "tout" is not synonymous with the verb "write." You accused Barney Frank of writing the legislation that caused the 2007 cluster-fuck in the financial markets. Perhaps as a gay Democrat, Sen. Frank presents himself to you as an easy target, but you really are barking up the wrong tree on that one. I'd be surprised if he even voted for Gramm-Leach. 

Re: Why Republicans May Not Support Net Neutrality

According to some folks, yes, any government regulation is bad for anything.

Now, I disagree with that concept, but there are folks out there who earnestly believe it.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteNumber 3: Night Dive was brought to the attention of the public by a massive game recovery, and yet most of their released catalogue consists of games that other people did the hard work of getting re-released.04/17/2014 - 8:46pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 2: If Humongous Entertainment wanted their stuff on Steam, why didn't they talk to their parent company, which does have a number of games published on Steam?04/17/2014 - 8:45pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 1: When Night Dive spent the better part of a year teasing the return of true classics, having their big content dump be edutainment is kind of a kick in the stomach.04/17/2014 - 8:44pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician