Republicans Vow to Take Down FCC's Net Neutrality Rules
The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday approved net neutrality rules, but that will be a short-lived victory if congressional Republicans have anything to say about it. Members from both chambers this week pledged to fight the FCC's rules in the next Congress and push back against what they say are job-killing, unnecessary regulations.
"Today's action by the FCC will hurt our economy, stifle private-sector job creation, and undermine the entrepreneurship and innovation of Internet-related American employers," Rep. John Boehner, the incoming House majority leader, said in a Tuesday statement.
"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," he said.
The order provides three high-level rules: transparency; no blocking; and no unreasonable discrimination. The order received support from Chairman Julius Genachowski and Democratic commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn, but was not approved by Republican commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith A. Baker.
The incoming leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee echoed Boehner's concerns. Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, who will serve as committee chairman, urged members to "use every resource available … to strike down the FCC's brazen effort to regulate the Internet."
Upton suggested that any industry support the commission has received for its net neutrality proposal "are really cries of 'uncle' resulting from threats of even more onerous regulation."
Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, who will serve as chairman of the communications and technology subcommittee, said the FCC's move was a "power grab" that could prompt the commission "to regulate any interstate wired or wireless communication on barely more than a whim."
Walden said he will "look at all legislative options for reversing this decision." His committee will also hold hearings on the issue early next year on the substance, process, and claims of authority involved in the net neutrality proceeding, he said.
Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska, who will be vice chairman of the same subcommittee, said the FCC is trying to "fix something that isn't broke."
Upton, Walden, and Terry last week wrote to the FCC asking Genachowski to release the full text of the net neutrality rules. The document was kept private during commissioner deliberations and was expected to be released at Tuesday's meeting. But according to FCC rules, the commission is required to include a response when any commissioners dissent. Since both Republican commissioners opposed the rules, the FCC will have to add its response before releasing the final rules.
In the Senate, GOP members had a similar reaction. Sen. John Ensign of Nevada is joining forces with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas to introduce a resolution of disapproval regarding the net neutrality rules.
Under the Congressional Review Act of 1996, a resolution of disapproval lets Congress disapprove of regulatory rules issued by federal agencies. If enacted, the rule may not take effect and the agency can't issue similar rules with statutory authorization, according to the Congressional Research Service.
"As the rest of the world forges ahead, the United States will face a technological 'Lost Decade' as these new FCC rules restrict access to the Internet and stall this type of innovation in our country," Ensign said.
"The FCC is attempting to push excessive government regulation of the Internet through without Congressional authority and these actions threaten the very future of the technology," Hutchison said.
Hutchison has twice filed amendments to prevent the FCC from regulating the Internet, but those efforts have thus far been unsuccessful.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, meanwhile, said the there will be "an opportunity in the new Congress to push back against new rules and regulations" regarding net neutrality.
Republican Commissioners McDowell and Baker expressed similar concerns during Tuesday's meeting, arguing that the commission does not have the authority to hand down such rules and that it is side-stepping Congress. Democrats Copps and Clyburn said they also had concerns about the rules, but their issues were that they did not go far enough. Ultimately, however, Copps and Clyburn decided to vote in favor of the rules.
Genachowski argued Tuesday that the "freedom and openness of the Internet is unprotected."
The rules crafted by the commission will protect basic Internet values, provide a process for monitoring Internet openness and a recourse for innovators, consumers, or speakers harmed by improper practices. It will also provide predictability for Internet service providers so they can manage and invest in networks, he said.
"On one end of the spectrum, there are those who say government should do nothing at all. On the other end of the spectrum are those who would adopt a set of detailed and rigid regulations," Genachowski said. "I reject both extremes in favor of a strong and sensible framework – one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment."
REALLY?! SRSLY?! Can he be that FUCKING STUPID?! It's nothing like the "fairness doctrine" So, what he thinks is better then, is the current system where a handful of access companies can collude to block competitors. Comcast has been threatening to throttle back Netflix in order to make their service less competitive with it's own video services. In the recent programming dispute with Time Warner, Fox forced Hulu to block it's shows from TWC Internet customers. The current system is anti-competitive and anti-Capitalist. Net Neutrality is far closer to antitrust laws we currently have than the "fairness doctrine". Net Neutrality will foster competition and innovation, not hinder it. Otherwise we will have a situation where 3 or 4 access companies are in a position to block competitors from delivering their product, or at the very least sabotage them. Net Neutrality needs to pass, and quick. Oh, and BTW, I'm pretty far right. I am a fierce free marketeer. However, the current system undermines the free market. Net Neutrality will allow for a fair and competitive marketplace, not monopolies. (which are really anti-capitalist, BTW) The people who are against this are either in bed with one of the big access companies, or are woefully ignorant.
