Republican Senate Resolution to Kill FCC Net Neutrality Rules Fails

November 11, 2011 -

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's (R-Texas) effort in the Senate to kill the FCC's net neutrality rules has failed. The Senate voted, 46-52, against moving forward with a resolution that would have overturned federal regulations enacted in 2010 that govern anti-competitive behavior online.

"It's time to push back" against federal agencies that are overreaching their authority and enacting burdensome regulations, she argued before the Senate voted on a motion to proceed.

In the end, Hutchison was unable to gather enough support for the measure, which the White House would have vetoed if it had passed. The GOP-controlled House approved a resolution in April, but Democrats in the Senate promised to stop Hutchison's effort. As ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Hutchison did an end-run around the committee by gathering 40 signatures to force the full Senate to consider the resolution. The measure failed along party-lines.

Democrats argued that the FCC's new rules were necessary to prevent large corporations from throttling Internet access.

"The FCC's Open Internet rules mean that small entrepreneurs will not have to seek permission from broadband providers to reach new markets and consumers with innovative products and services," Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said during debate on the Senate floor on Wednesday. "Far from preventing investment, the FCC's Open Internet rules will foster small businesses and support their demonstrated ability to create jobs."

Source: The Atlantic


Comments

Re: Republican Senate Resolution to Kill FCC Net Neutrality ...

I support anything that makes Kay Bailey Hutchison look like an idiot. Speaking as a Houstonian she represents almost everything bad about Texas. Conversely Rick Perry represents the rest of the bad things about Texas that Kay Bailey Hutchison somehow missed.

Re: Republican Senate Resolution to Kill FCC Net Neutrality ...

The great burden of not doing something most of them hadn't started doing yet anyway. Mmm mmm that's some political baggage right there. Those poor corporations.

Re: Republican Senate Resolution to Kill FCC Net Neutrality ...

No, Ms. Hutchison, we didn't vote you in to make consumer-unfriendly legislation.  We voted you in to make JOBS happen.  This doesn't make JOBS.  This just makes things anticompetitive.

Re: Republican Senate Resolution to Kill FCC Net Neutrality ...

Burdensome? Oh boy.

Re: Republican Senate Resolution to Kill FCC Net Neutrality ...

"It's time to push back" against federal agencies that are overreaching their authority and enacting burdensome regulations,"

 

You mean like telling someone who they can and cannot legally marry?

Re: Republican Senate Resolution to Kill FCC Net Neutrality ...

Oh, snap!

Re: Republican Senate Resolution to Kill FCC Net Neutrality ...

Ssssshhhhh, you have to present that reality to some of them slooowly.

 

Re: Republican Senate Resolution to Kill FCC Net Neutrality ...

Screw slowly, There's times I want to tattoo the truth onto their foreheads. It seems like that would be the closest alot of politicians would come to it.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
 
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