House Passes Amendment to Defund FCC Net Neutrality Rules

February 18, 2011 -

The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed an amendment that essentially halts the use of any funding by the Federal Communications Commission to implement the Net Neutrality rules order it approved in December of 2010.

The amendment was approved by a 244-181 vote. The amendment was sponsored by Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore), and tacked on to legislation to fund government agencies for the rest of fiscal year 2011.

"If left unchallenged, this claim of authority would allow the FCC to regulate any matter it discussed in the national broadband plan," Walden said.

If this amendment fails, Republicans in the House and the Senate will push a "resolution of disapproval" under the Congressional Review Act. This gives lawmakers a limited amount of time to try to block the FCC's net-neutrality rules.

President Obama has threatened to veto the spending measure if it cuts too deeply into government programs, and supports the net neutrality order.

Source: National Journal


Comments

Re: House Passes Amendment to Defund FCC Net Neutrality ...

"The amendment was approved by a 244-181 vote."

Let's call this what it is: Republicans simply voting to undo anything that Obama and the Democrats have done over the last couple of years.

They may claim it's under the guise of 'less regulation, less government', but it's simply because they didn't approve of it themselves.

Re: House Passes Amendment to Defund FCC Net Neutrality ...

The one time FCC does something decent for the public and they get crap for it. 

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: House Passes Amendment to Defund FCC Net Neutrality ...

i'm still curious how an organization like the FCC even exists to a degree.

in a country that preaches free speach and no censorship (and how such things are illegal), it sure is LOADED to the rim with. though unlike in other countries that wear their censorships on their shoulders, its all hidden under a table cloth so the people don't know they've been had.

then again, thats what happens when a buncha people are given power to "translate" old texts rather than just follow them.... double meaning there if ya hadn't cought it :)

 

Re: House Passes Amendment to Defund FCC Net Neutrality ...

The FCC is primarily a regulatory agency, not a censorship bureau. They have rules about "indecency" on the mediums they oversee, but that has long been backed but the general populace.

An "organization like the FCC" is necessary in a world where the means of communication are limited (whether by spectrum or infrastructure). Otherwise, companies would be climbing over each other trying to stake out as much wireless spectrum as they could get to first, and there would be nothing to ensure the public good was maintained. It is the same for landline communications. Cities are not going to let any company that wants a piece of the market put up their own set of lines to every house. Without regulatory oversight to force things like common carrier status, whoever put the lines up first wins, forever.

This is the problem that everyone talking about "free market" preventing broadband abuses completely ignores. There is not, and can not, be a true free market in broadband, because a truly free market requires barriers to entry that are low enough for new firms to enter the market when existing firms begin pushing prices higher than the market will bear. Broadband has a nearly insurmountable barrier to entry, because spectrum is finite, infrastructure that municipalities will allow is finite, and these finite resources are largely used by the existing firms.

That is the purpose of "organization[s] like the FCC". Whether they are effectively serving their purpose is another question altogether.

Re: House Passes Amendment to Defund FCC Net Neutrality ...

i understand that, but they "regulate" based on the highest bidder, as well as tell ME what i can/can't watch/see/say.

public good should be a public issue, not a government funded organization guaranteed to sellout at the first sign someONE was offended by something mundane and everyday (such as basic cuss words like "crap")

i don't mind them dealing with the companies and regulating their stuff, but the censorship end, which is the more prominantly seen, is what irks me to the bone. that and they aid in pushing this "political correctness" bull.

Re: House Passes Amendment to Defund FCC Net Neutrality ...

Net Neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with censoring, and anybody who tells you it does is a liar or misinformed.

What Net Neutrality is meant to do is keep the people who own the lines from giving preferential treatment to different content providers.

Re: House Passes Amendment to Defund FCC Net Neutrality ...

Well, there are those who feel that once they have that amount of oversight on the network, they'll try to impose the same regulatory censorship they have on traditional broadcast media, on the internet. I don't believe it myself as it would be an impossible undertaking, but some do.

-Greevar

-Greevar

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

Re: House Passes Amendment to Defund FCC Net Neutrality ...

Wow, petty much?

-Greevar

-Greevar

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

 
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.
Technogeek"It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so." I'd say you're certainly obligated to call them out when you see it happening.09/20/2014 - 5:17pm
SleakerNow if you disagree with anything in my last 2 posts then we obviously have a difference in world view, and wont come to any sort of agreement. I'm fine with that, maybe some people aren't?09/20/2014 - 5:09pm
SleakerIt also doesn't mean that just because a news outlet says that Gamers are the problem and you self-identify as a Gamer, you're immediately the problem. It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so.09/20/2014 - 4:59pm
SleakerJust to re-iterate: People getting harassed is wrong. Just because someone is harassed by so called 'gamers' doesn't mean that all gamers are bad. nor does it mean that you need to pass laws or judgement on all gamers.09/20/2014 - 4:56pm
SleakerAnd furthermore just because someone doesn't 'crusade against the evil' that doesn't make them the problem. You can have discussion with those around you. There's a thing called sphere of influence.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
Sleaker@Conster - one person getting harassed is a 'problem' only so far as the harassee's are doing it. Just because a select few people choose to act like this doesn't make it widespread. Nor does it immediately make everyone responsible to put an end to it.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
james_fudgeno worries09/20/2014 - 4:15pm
TechnogeekI misread james' comment as "we can't have a debate without threatening" there at first. Actually wound up posting a shout about death threats and "kill yourself" not technically being the same thing before I realized.09/20/2014 - 3:59pm
james_fudgeDon't hit me *cowers behind Andrew*09/20/2014 - 3:20pm
ConsterYou take that back right now, james, or else. *shakes fist menacingly*09/20/2014 - 3:00pm
james_fudgeOur community is awesome. We can have a debate without threatening to kill each other.09/20/2014 - 2:50pm
Andrew EisenNo one's crossed a line but I just want to remind you all to keep discussions civil.09/20/2014 - 1:54pm
Craig R.tldr: I'm a gamer, and imo those who support GamerGate should feel free to take a flying leap off a cliff.09/20/2014 - 1:27pm
Craig R.Not only that, I'm pretty sure that if actual studies were done, you'd still deny them, Sleaker. After all, it's not what you'd want to hear to support your rose-colored view of GamerGate.09/20/2014 - 1:18pm
Craig R.There IS an issue. Nor do we need a study to show that if you deny it then you're part of the problem.09/20/2014 - 1:17pm
Sleakersimply oust people that do harass others.09/20/2014 - 11:34am
Sleaker@Conster - I can say the same thing if you think there's been more than a handful. Until there's an actual study on rates no one can claim to know how widespread the incidence of harassment is. Thus the best we can do is 'there might be an issue' and...09/20/2014 - 11:33am
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
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician