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

Did Microsoft pay too much ($2.5 billion) for Minecraft developer Mojang?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
ConsterSleaker: if you think there's only been "a handful of" incidents, you have your head stuck *somewhere* - I'm assuming it's sand.09/20/2014 - 5:38am
prh99Most of it's agitprop clickbait anyway.09/20/2014 - 5:27am
prh99A good reason to stop reading reguardless of view pointhttp://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli.09/20/2014 - 5:22am
Andrew EisenWell this is unique! A musical critique of the Factual Feminist's "Are Video Games Sexist?" video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K4s7cV4Us409/20/2014 - 2:41am
Andrew EisenSome locked threads. Some let them be. So, no, I'm not seeing a problem here. No corruption. No collusion. No ethical problem with privately discussing ethics.09/20/2014 - 12:48am
Andrew EisenAnd still, in the end, Tito made up his own mind on how to handle his site. All 150 or so members went off to handle their own sites in their own ways. Some talked about it. Some didn't. Some changed disclosure policies. Some didn't.09/20/2014 - 12:40am
Andrew EisenThere were two comments other than Kochera and Tito's. One pointed out the Escapist Code of Conduct, another comment was in support of Tito.09/20/2014 - 12:40am
Andrew EisenKochera privately expressed his disagreement on how Tito decided to do something. No, I don't consider that crossing a line nor do I consider the exchange an example of the group pressuring him.09/20/2014 - 12:36am
Kronotechnical reasons. Anyways, I need to get to sleep as well.09/20/2014 - 12:29am
KronoAnd he wasn't the only one pushing Tito to censor the thread. If Tito had bowed to peer pressure, we likely wouldn't have gotten this http://goo.gl/vKiYtR which grew out of that thread. Said thread also lasted until a new one needed to be made for09/20/2014 - 12:28am
Krono@Andrew So it's an example of Kuchera crossing the line from reporter to advocate. And an example of the group pressuring for censorship.09/20/2014 - 12:21am
E. Zachary KnightAnyway, I am off to bed. I will probably wake up to all of this being knocked off the shout box.09/20/2014 - 12:20am
E. Zachary KnightKrono, that is the type of reading too much into things that bugs me. Ben did no such thing. Greg had the last word in that part of the exchange. The rest was about how to approach the story and Quinn.09/20/2014 - 12:19am
Andrew EisenSo?09/20/2014 - 12:13am
KronoExcept that the forum thread wasn't harassment, and Kuchera continued to push for the thread's removal after Tito made it clear he didn't consider it harassment.09/20/2014 - 12:12am
Andrew EisenPersonally, I see nothing wrong with someone offering their opinion or the other person making up their own mind on how to run their site.09/20/2014 - 12:06am
E. Zachary KnightKrono, I read nothing of the sort in that email chain. I read Ben giving advice on what to do when a forum thread is used to harass someone and spread falshoods about them and others.09/20/2014 - 12:05am
KronoThat's exactly what Ben Kuchera was doing to Greg Tito.09/19/2014 - 11:58pm
Krono@EZK So you see nothing wrong with one journalist pressuring a journalist from a different organization to not only not run a story, but to censor a civil discussion already taking place?09/19/2014 - 11:56pm
E. Zachary KnightI write for a number of blogs and talk to people who write similar blogs all the time for tips and advice. I see nothing wrong with that.09/19/2014 - 11:50pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician