Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New Congress

January 7, 2011 -

The new Republican controlled House or Representatives wasted no time this week getting to its agenda which included amending the clean air act, cuts in discretionary spending, plans for hearing on the powers of the president's "czars," and a bill that would limit the power of the FCC to enforce net neutrality.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced H.R. 96, a bill "to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from further regulating the Internet."

Blackburn's new bill has 59 co-sponsors, and should have no problem passing in the House. In the Senate it has less of a chance of surviving.

Republicans in the House and Senate have vowed to find ways to curtail the powers of the FCC and other agencies. The FCC is one of many targets that lawmakers will attempt to take to task in 2011.

Source: Ars Technica


Comments

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

"wasted time this week"

Fixed that for you.

But it's good to see the Party of 'No' is back in action!

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

The thing is that the Republicans, when saying they're concerned with regulation of the internet, are not worried about content access.  Rather, they're more concerned with the Telecoms not being allowed to do whatever they want to content access.  Yeah, they want to avoid regulation, but on the business side, not on the consumer's side.  The rich lobbyists have them firmly by the balls, Net Neutrality as a concept is "bad."

I honestly can't tell if I like what the FCC is doing or not.  But I at least know the Republicans are not thinking of me on this issue.

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

Good start for this bill, as further regulation of the Internet could mean content regulation. If the new Congress is serious about cutting government spending, why not slash the FCC and FTC (tasked with stings on game stores and enforcing COPPA) entirely?

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

That's a huge leap of logic. How is net neutrality going to lead to content regulation? The FCC is not trying to regulate the internet. They're trying to put limits on what ISPs can restrict your access to and what content/services you can use uninhibited. They're trying to stop them from turning the internet into what we have with cable TV. They (The ISPs) choose what parts of the internet you get to see, for whatever they want to charge and if you want to see more, you have to buy more packages. They also get to decide if you get to watch steaming video content that competes with their cable services. So many people are dumping cable to use streaming services provided by the TV networks, they're competing with the cable giants. They also don't want you to use the cheap or free VoIP services so that you will use their expensive service. To get you to use theirs, they can just degrade your connection when you try to use it.

That's what you're asking for when you oppose net neutrality. They have a monopoly on how you access the internet and they're spreading FUD to get you to oppose it so they can keep out any competition. It's not the government trying to tell you want you can or cannot do on the internet. The ISPs are already trying to do that with usage caps, less than suitable speeds, and obscene pricing. The FCC is trying to protect consumers from absurd abuses like I stated above. It's too bad they forced them to gut the bill into a token gesture of what it was before.

Here's the difference between NN and no NN:

No NN:

-ISPs can degrade or block your connection to sites that are competitors or haven't paid for faster access to you.

-ISPs can deny access for devices that compete with their product. (e.g. modems)

-They can put caps on your usage so that it's harder to watch TV from online sources.

-They can degrade your VoIP service to force you to use theirs.

-They can charge fantastic amounts for the faster speeds.

-They can limit you to viewing a pre-selected set of websites unless you pay extra.

-They can divide interdependent services up into multiple services so they can charge for them separately.

-They can give preference to or degrade traffic they deem to do so.

Basically, as it is, they have the power to tell you what you can do, how you can do it, and what you can use on the internet.

NN:

-They can't degrade nor block access to any site, service,  software, or device regardless of whether that competes with them and/or their partners.

Basically, they become a dumb pipe that simply provides connection. The only traffic shaping that's permitted is for efficiency and it is done to all data equally.

 

-Greevar

-Greevar

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

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

Considering Barrack Obama tried to get someone to attach an amendment to a renewal of the Patriot Act to allow the Justice Department to look at everyone's email - quite literally without a warrant, not with a secret FISA warrant that you just don't like - I'd say content regulation is a very real threat with net neutrality.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

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

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

I still don't see the correlation. The Patriot Act pertains to wire-tapping, with which they don't need any form of internet regulation to employ. It has nothing to do with regulating content. Net Neutraility doesn't say what you can't access. It only says what ISPs can't block or degrade. Unless I see language in a bill that does precisely what you're claiming will happen, I'll hold to my previous statement. Without proof, you're just making speculation and possibly trying to scare people away. You really need to stop crying wolf on this whole content regulation business, as it appears that you're just making it up.

-Greevar

-Greevar

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

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

It could make a difference if a content restriction ever makes its way to SCOTUS. The Justices can say, "Due to the laws giving the FCC broad power to regulate Internet access, we can determine that Congress decided to give broad reach to the FCC as a whole." The original intent in the establishment of the FCC was to distribute licenses for radio broadcasting, but over the years, their powers have been increasingly broadened in scope to where they can regulate "indecency" (FCC v. Pacifica). There has been an overall trend of giving them more, not less, power, so Congress could one day see that with all the responsibilities they have, it would be acceptable to give them one more.

I don't necessarily believe that giving ISP's the power to block access to others' content is a good idea. However, giving more power to a governmental agency that SCOTUS has decided is constitutional to be in the censorship business is never a good idea.

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

I think it's fine that SCOTUS and Congress wish to deprivethe FCC of the power to censor content. That's great! What I don't like are people claiming that clearly stated rules intended to keep someone else from doing the same isn't worthy of having. So fine, strip them of their censorship powers and give them the power and the mandate to stop others from doing the same. Open and free communications should be the primary goal of the FCC.

Parents should be the sole and primary censors of content when it comes to their children. Adults have the right and power to not view content they deem offensive. The FCC shouldn't be the morality police for an entire nation. Maybe they should then have their name changed to the Federal Communications and Anti-Censorship Commission (FCAC)?

-Greevar

-Greevar

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

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

Oh boy kill it because it dose not give enough to corporations...


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/

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
ConsterWell, I guess it makes sense for your iPad to be capitalist scum.01/25/2015 - 7:10pm
WonderkarpMy Ipad likes to capitalize every word when I'm on game politics.01/25/2015 - 6:29pm
ConsterI Was Talking About You Capitalizing The Starting Letter Of Each Word.01/25/2015 - 5:56pm
WonderkarpI didnt know we were talking about Capitalism. What do mass shootings have to do with trade and industry that is controlled by private owners for profit?01/25/2015 - 3:28pm
ConsterYou do realize that what you're doing right now isn't what capitalism means, right?01/25/2015 - 2:39pm
WonderkarpActual Thing, Never Proven :P We All Know That You Dont Need Evidence For Something To Be Real, Huh.01/25/2015 - 9:40am
ConsterAh, that explains it - since the second thing you named is an actual thing, I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic.01/25/2015 - 7:39am
WonderkarpConster, I was quoting Anita Sarkeesian01/24/2015 - 10:39pm
ZippyDSMleeodd its not wanting to post half the time 0-o01/24/2015 - 10:21pm
ZippyDSMleetest01/24/2015 - 10:21pm
ConsterWonderkarp: did the US actually bomb Japan back to traditional values? My history lessons were eurocentric, so I wouldn't know.01/24/2015 - 9:39pm
ZippyDSMleeeffect like confusion,ect. QTEs are a gimmick that can easily be shallow because you are looking to mess with conditioned responses and nothing messes with them more than random gameplay changes..01/24/2015 - 7:58pm
ZippyDSMleeWonderkarp: They tried to be natural with God Of Wars QTE’s, sometimes it felt random which I hate the most in QTEs. The way you interface with gameplay (press X to get X result) should never rely on randomly generated mechanics unless it’s a status01/24/2015 - 7:57pm
Andrew EisenI've passed your comment on.01/24/2015 - 5:45pm
Neo_DrKefkaHey GamePolitics staff can you guys work out the way the ads are delivered via mobile? Sometimes any attempt to do anything on this site automatically forwards you to download "Flappy bird" on a shady site or another thing. It just hijacks my Safari01/24/2015 - 3:47pm
WonderkarpI feel like the only good QTEs were the ones in the God of War series. I dont know why though.. maybe its the visceral carnage01/24/2015 - 1:13pm
ZippyDSMleeprh99: QTEs are dumb I ever understood the need for them outside being cheap and wanting to pad mechanics with scripted events that use only a few buttons.01/24/2015 - 12:58pm
InfophileAnd a more detailed breakdown of expenses here: http://imgur.com/L46SUMw01/24/2015 - 12:42pm
InfophileFor anyone still complaining about where the funding for Tropes vs. Women went: https://www.dropbox.com/s/q4z6qa561roidh5/femfreq_annualreport2014.pdf?dl=0 (page 16) Not that this will actually stop claims of fraud, but it's good to have a counter.01/24/2015 - 12:38pm
prh99Linux kernel patch breaks Witcher 2. Apparently it was a wrapped Windows version instead of native port. http://m.slashdot.org/story/21270301/24/2015 - 11:12am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician