Skip to comments.GOP lawmakers threaten to repeal Net neutrality
Posted on 12/21/2010 3:42:42 PM PST by NoLibZone
Less than an hour after the Federal Communications Commission approved net neutrality rules, Republican lawmakers began staking their claim in the next potential leg of the debate: repeal.
The first calls to roll back the FCC's new net neutrality order came Tuesday from the House's most senior Republicans: House GOP Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, as well as the incoming leaders of the chamber's top tech and telecom committees.
The members each threatened to limit the agency's funds or restrict its jurisdiction in the aftermath of the FCCs vote, with Boehner proclaiming the "new House majority will work to reverse this unnecessary and harmful federal government power grab next year."
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), soon-to-be chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, later elaborated to reporters Tuesday afternoon that he plans to bring all five commissioners before the panel to discuss net neutrality at "the first hearing out of the box" next year. He even signaled the possibility that Republicans may pursue repeal through the Congressional Review Act an avenue that allows members to reject agency rules without threat of filibuster, provided they can secure a majority support against net neutrality.
Joining Upton's calls for strict scrutiny and eventual repeal were Reps. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). Walden, who will soon lead the House's top tech subcommittee, stressed the need to rebuff any FCC "power grab that'd allow the commission to regulate" other areas of broadband. Blackburn also floated the possibility of blocking agency funds for use on net neutrality, adding: "You will see activism on each of these levels."
Congressional furor follows Tuesdays 3-2, party-line vote on Genachowski's plan to adopt basic net neutrality protections for broadband networks. The order will prohibit Internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from blocking access to lawful content and websites. It also prohibits traditional wired broadband providers from unreasonably discriminating against any traffic, though there will be no similar rule in place for wireless providers.
Following the vote, the chairman said he was ready to take on any criticism.
"We adopted today a strong and balanced order that has widespread support and that focuses on the importance of Internet freedom," he said. "It's a strong and balanced order and I look forward to speaking about it with anyone who is interested.
Some Democrats hail the FCC's vote on Tuesday as the next step in ensuring that high-speed Internet networks remain open. Supporters included Sens. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Mark Warner of Virgnia, Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Doris Matsui of California.
President Barack Obama also backed the FCC, saying the decision is an important component of our overall strategy to advance American innovation, economic growth and job creation.
But those statements of approval may not be enough to stave off critics already interested in undoing Genachowski's work as early as next month.
Other Republican leaders also sounded off Tuesday against the FCC's net neutrality order including Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who first signaled during a floor speech that he and others in his party would "push back against new rules and regulations." Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), ranking member on her chamber's Commerce Committee, signaled she would revive her efforts to derail the FCC's latest move.
Terry, meanwhile, told POLITICO the vote "certainly sets our agenda for the Energy and Commerce Committee," as he and others, including Upton, plan to discuss their next steps very soon.
"The first thing we'll do is call Julius up and have him explain himself, we need to study the proposal, and then we'll draft legislation to undo it," he said in an interview.
"We'll use everything available to us so yes, we'll use Appropriations, we'll use the legislative process," he continued. "This is really a war against Congress. ... this is a power grab by an agency almost to unheard of levels. So we have a constitutional obligation to fight this order to the death."
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), who will lead the Energy and Commerce oversight subcommittee, also joined his GOP colleagues in vowing to heavily scrutinize the agency if it ever moved forward with Genachowski's proposal.
"I will exercise strong oversight on the FCC on this and other issues," Stearns said in a statement Tuesday.
"Also, working with Chairman Walden, we will outline that Internet regulation is out of the FCC's jurisdiction and that regulation will hamper economic growth and job creation," he added, noting he too would pursue a resolution of disapproval next year.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46685.html#ixzz18n9TsoOU
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46685.html#ixzz18n9KIx39
Also I love how Politico tries to white was this power grab as a good thing just trying to keep the interwebs open for everyone, and how they only quote republicans as being against it. Yet the courts and the current congress have overwhelmingly ruled against it.
Sure, just as the GOP rallied together and stopped the START treaty!
Sounds like someone has started taking their “Low T” pills!
Go get’em! And let’s start with a zero-based budget for FCC, make them justify everything they’re doing and I’ll bet you could cut the size of that agency to a fraction of what it is and still deliver the services, such as spectrum licensing and enforcement that people see as necessary and worth paying for. Cut the rest.
I can already see 2012 dem election adds saying something like: GOP supports porn.. GOP doesn’t protect our kids.. I think it’s a setup on these low rent terms.
“Boehner Says FCCs Internet Regulation Would Kill Jobs, Undermine Economy
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
By Melanie Hunter-Omar
Todays action by the FCC will hurt our economy, stifle private-sector job creation, and undermine the entrepreneurship and innovation of Internet-related American employers, Boehner said in a statement.
The FCC voted 3-2 for the new rules, known as net neutrality,
The American people are asking Where are the jobs? They arent asking for yet another government takeover that imposes more job-killing federal regulations and puts bureaucrats in charge of the Internet, Boehner added.
Boehner pledged that the House would work to reverse the FCCs action.
Federal bureaucrats should not be in the business of regulating the Internet, and the new House majority will work to reverse this unnecessary and harmful federal government power grab next year.
>>>It is not a law, it is a ruling by the FCC.
Duh. I know that. Congress can pass legislation removing the FCC’s jurisdiction, they can de-fund... and they can talk out their collective arse until their all blue in the face - results matter.
Cmon now. Wheres all the GOP haters? Cmon? Wheres the spineless comments?
This is a power grab which the left hopes to use to shut down conservative talk radio and web sites like Free Republic. Remember...the left doesn’t believe in free speech...they are fascist/commies...pure and simple. They are building a structure here to use to shut down opposition. Google it or visit Mark Levin’s site.
Sadly...this is somewhat of an empty threat from the Republicans. Not all Pubbies mind you, but until the leadership adopts a more conservative attitude, they will just be a different shade of Democrat.
How about PROMISE!!!
Cut the FCC’s budget 90% in 2011 and make it retroactive so they are defunded immediately. No empty threats GOP.
perhaps it is time that the FCC be “sunseted.” The reason for it alotting the airways of the 1930s is long past expired.
Like ALL Democrat sponsored legislation and rule making, you can be certain that the actual intent is precisely the opposite of the way it is described.
Net neutrality? That’s just what we already had. How can the FCC’s interference possibly increase freedom and net neutrality? The actual intent is to impose something like the Democrats’ perception of “fairness”, i.ow., no criticism allowed.
Another intent is to free up the ISPs to charge more for access to certain services than others: You want Skype? 5.95 a month. You want Netflix? 6.99 a month. You want Free Republic? Sorry, no can do, “hate sites” are censored.
This is “net neutrality” for the “progressives” aka “the scum of the earth” in our society.
Cut off the money for the FCC.
Net neutrality isn’t a bad thing — it’s what we’ve enjoyed for years.
‘Net neutrality’ is no different than the ‘common carrier restrictions’ that telephone companies currently operate under. When you dial in a phone number (type in a web address), the telephone company (ISP) isn’t allowed give your call a higher or lower priority than someone else’s (except maybe 911 calls.)
If I place a call from my home AT&T number to my mom who happens to be a Verizon customer, Verizon can’t charge AT&T extra or bump my call to make room for more Verizon-to-Verizon calls. As long as I pay AT&T the agreed fee for the agreed upon service, who I call using that service is none of their business.
The telephone companies still have complete control over how much they charge you for their service.
Same with the ISPs. Many already offer high bandwidth packages and if you pay for it and want to access Netflix with it, they have no business degrading or blocking the signal just because they would rather you use their movie service.
>> It is not a law, it is a ruling by the FCC. <<
Sorry to disagree, but regardless of whether it’s called a “regulation” or a “ruling” or something else, it most definitely has the full force of “law” as that term is commonly understood both by lawyers and by laymen — unless/until overturned by a court or the Congress. In other words, it is a law.
100% and work with donation and reasonable fee's.
If amateur radio can do it, the brilliance of government can do it.
Why threaten ?
Just do it.
My pastor was explaing that net neutrality is what we have right now. I would like to enjoy the internet without having to pay more for certain sites.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.