Republican FCC Commissioners Oppose Net Neutrality Plans

December 9, 2010 -

Republican Federal Communications Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker and fellow Republican Robert McDowell are already voicing their opposition to FCC chairman Genachowski's net neutrality proposal, set for a vote at the agency's next meeting on December 21. The biggest complaint of the two commissioners is that the chairman is not putting the proposal out for public comment.

"I’m afraid we are endangering a really important agenda. . . by pushing forward with a partisan, big-government regulatory issue that has no immediate need for us to act," Baker told Politico earlier this week. "We’re still in our preliminary assessment as to what it says, what it does, what the implications are, which is another reason why McDowell and I say it should be put out for comment," Baker said. "For something this major, we’re trying to figure out what the implications are."

On Monday, Baker's staff discussed ways to express her criticism of the Net neutrality plan. Baker may write several op-ed pieces in the two weeks leading up to the agency's meeting and find ways to reach out to media.

A senior (unnamed) FCC official told Politico that "the draft order was circulated to all of the commissioners a full three weeks in advance of the vote, a courtesy that Chairman Genachowski has consistently extended. I'm sure that Commissioner Baker can appreciate hard-working FCC staff burning the midnight oil—that's exactly what it took to get a draft order circulated. We are particularly perplexed by Commissioner Baker's call for yet more time, given that it took her less than 24 hours to read the order and publicly declare her flat opposition to the proposal."

Meanwhile, McDowell is also working on a strategy to express his concerns about the latest proposal.

"Commissioner McDowell has been speaking and writing about net neutrality issues for several years now – beginning with his dissent on the ‘open access’ component in the 700 MHz Order in July 2007," said Angela Giancarlo, McDowell’s chief of staff and senior legal advisor. "It's a safe bet that he will continue to do so."

Source: Politico


Comments

Re: Republican FCC Commissioners Oppose Net Neutrality Plans

this latest proposal is a sham and genachowski is a failure for even bringing it up.

Re: Republican FCC Commissioners Oppose Net Neutrality Plans

The only reason these guys oppose it is because they're Republicans who want a hands-off, let corporations screw everybody approach.

They believe in "free market" solutions when there is in fact no free market.

Re: Republican FCC Commissioners Oppose Net Neutrality Plans

I hate to say this but I agree with them. This NN framework is the weakest possible and caters exclusively to the duopoly providers that are quite literally the gatekeepers of the Internet. The headline is misleading though.

Honestly I think after all the big talk Genachowski just wants to get something out there, no matter how crappy it is.

I think we are better off with nothing than with this mess he calls NN. Wait for the ISPs to step over the line then regulate if necessary. After watching the FCC at work I have totally flipped my position on this. No NN until the ISPs make it necessary.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
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
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
Matthew WilsonIf you have not read http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/ you should. It is a bit stats heavy, but worth the read.04/16/2014 - 2:04pm
Matthew Wilsonthe issue is when is doesn't work it can screw over millions in new york city's case. more often than not it is better to let the free market run its course without market distortion.04/16/2014 - 9:36am
NeenekoTrue, and overdone stagnation is a problem. It is a tricky balance. It does not help that when it does work, no one notices. Most people here have benifited from rent controls and not even realized it.04/16/2014 - 9:23am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/04/15/riaa_files_civil_suit_against_megaupload04/16/2014 - 8:48am
ZippyDSMleeEither way you get stagnation as people can not afford the prices they set.04/16/2014 - 8:47am
Neenekowell, specifically it helps people already living there and hurts people who want to live there instead. As for 'way more hurt', majorities generally need less legal protection. yes it hurt more people then it helped, it was written for a minority04/16/2014 - 8:30am
MaskedPixelantehttp://torrentfreak.com/square-enix-drm-boosts-profits-and-its-here-to-stay-140415/ Square proves how incredibly out of touch they are by saying that DRM is the way of the future, and is here to stay.04/16/2014 - 8:29am
james_fudgeUnwinnable Weekly Telethon playing Metal Gear http://www.twitch.tv/rainydayletsplay04/16/2014 - 8:06am
ConsterTo be fair, there's so little left of the middle class that those numbers are skewing.04/16/2014 - 7:42am
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician