Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New Congress

January 7, 2011

The new Republican controlled House or Representatives wasted no time this week getting to its agenda which included amending the clean air act, cuts in discretionary spending, plans for hearing on the powers of the president's "czars," and a bill that would limit the power of the FCC to enforce net neutrality.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced H.R. 96, a bill "to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from further regulating the Internet."

Blackburn's new bill has 59 co-sponsors, and should have no problem passing in the House. In the Senate it has less of a chance of surviving.

Republicans in the House and Senate have vowed to find ways to curtail the powers of the FCC and other agencies. The FCC is one of many targets that lawmakers will attempt to take to task in 2011.

Source: Ars Technica


Comments

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

"wasted time this week"

Fixed that for you.

But it's good to see the Party of 'No' is back in action!

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

The thing is that the Republicans, when saying they're concerned with regulation of the internet, are not worried about content access.  Rather, they're more concerned with the Telecoms not being allowed to do whatever they want to content access.  Yeah, they want to avoid regulation, but on the business side, not on the consumer's side.  The rich lobbyists have them firmly by the balls, Net Neutrality as a concept is "bad."

I honestly can't tell if I like what the FCC is doing or not.  But I at least know the Republicans are not thinking of me on this issue.

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

Good start for this bill, as further regulation of the Internet could mean content regulation. If the new Congress is serious about cutting government spending, why not slash the FCC and FTC (tasked with stings on game stores and enforcing COPPA) entirely?

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

That's a huge leap of logic. How is net neutrality going to lead to content regulation? The FCC is not trying to regulate the internet. They're trying to put limits on what ISPs can restrict your access to and what content/services you can use uninhibited. They're trying to stop them from turning the internet into what we have with cable TV. They (The ISPs) choose what parts of the internet you get to see, for whatever they want to charge and if you want to see more, you have to buy more packages. They also get to decide if you get to watch steaming video content that competes with their cable services. So many people are dumping cable to use streaming services provided by the TV networks, they're competing with the cable giants. They also don't want you to use the cheap or free VoIP services so that you will use their expensive service. To get you to use theirs, they can just degrade your connection when you try to use it.

That's what you're asking for when you oppose net neutrality. They have a monopoly on how you access the internet and they're spreading FUD to get you to oppose it so they can keep out any competition. It's not the government trying to tell you want you can or cannot do on the internet. The ISPs are already trying to do that with usage caps, less than suitable speeds, and obscene pricing. The FCC is trying to protect consumers from absurd abuses like I stated above. It's too bad they forced them to gut the bill into a token gesture of what it was before.

Here's the difference between NN and no NN:

No NN:

-ISPs can degrade or block your connection to sites that are competitors or haven't paid for faster access to you.

-ISPs can deny access for devices that compete with their product. (e.g. modems)

-They can put caps on your usage so that it's harder to watch TV from online sources.

-They can degrade your VoIP service to force you to use theirs.

-They can charge fantastic amounts for the faster speeds.

-They can limit you to viewing a pre-selected set of websites unless you pay extra.

-They can divide interdependent services up into multiple services so they can charge for them separately.

-They can give preference to or degrade traffic they deem to do so.

Basically, as it is, they have the power to tell you what you can do, how you can do it, and what you can use on the internet.

NN:

-They can't degrade nor block access to any site, service,  software, or device regardless of whether that competes with them and/or their partners.

Basically, they become a dumb pipe that simply provides connection. The only traffic shaping that's permitted is for efficiency and it is done to all data equally.

 

-Greevar

-Greevar

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

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

Considering Barrack Obama tried to get someone to attach an amendment to a renewal of the Patriot Act to allow the Justice Department to look at everyone's email - quite literally without a warrant, not with a secret FISA warrant that you just don't like - I'd say content regulation is a very real threat with net neutrality.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

I still don't see the correlation. The Patriot Act pertains to wire-tapping, with which they don't need any form of internet regulation to employ. It has nothing to do with regulating content. Net Neutraility doesn't say what you can't access. It only says what ISPs can't block or degrade. Unless I see language in a bill that does precisely what you're claiming will happen, I'll hold to my previous statement. Without proof, you're just making speculation and possibly trying to scare people away. You really need to stop crying wolf on this whole content regulation business, as it appears that you're just making it up.

-Greevar

-Greevar

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

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

It could make a difference if a content restriction ever makes its way to SCOTUS. The Justices can say, "Due to the laws giving the FCC broad power to regulate Internet access, we can determine that Congress decided to give broad reach to the FCC as a whole." The original intent in the establishment of the FCC was to distribute licenses for radio broadcasting, but over the years, their powers have been increasingly broadened in scope to where they can regulate "indecency" (FCC v. Pacifica). There has been an overall trend of giving them more, not less, power, so Congress could one day see that with all the responsibilities they have, it would be acceptable to give them one more.

I don't necessarily believe that giving ISP's the power to block access to others' content is a good idea. However, giving more power to a governmental agency that SCOTUS has decided is constitutional to be in the censorship business is never a good idea.

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

I think it's fine that SCOTUS and Congress wish to deprivethe FCC of the power to censor content. That's great! What I don't like are people claiming that clearly stated rules intended to keep someone else from doing the same isn't worthy of having. So fine, strip them of their censorship powers and give them the power and the mandate to stop others from doing the same. Open and free communications should be the primary goal of the FCC.

Parents should be the sole and primary censors of content when it comes to their children. Adults have the right and power to not view content they deem offensive. The FCC shouldn't be the morality police for an entire nation. Maybe they should then have their name changed to the Federal Communications and Anti-Censorship Commission (FCAC)?

-Greevar

-Greevar

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

Re: Republican Lawmakers Target FCC in First Hours of New ...

Oh boy kill it because it dose not give enough to corporations...


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Zenhttp://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130614/OFFDUTY02/306140030/New-Xbox-sin-against-all-service-members-06/18/2013 - 7:33pm
ZenBeen out for a few days, but has anyone brought up the possible ban on Xbox One on military bases because of security concerns that it could be a listening device by Commanders?06/18/2013 - 7:33pm
Andrew EisenSleaker - Fixed.06/18/2013 - 6:34pm
MechaTama31CMiner: Another issue is that every camera/webcam combination is going to be pretty different, in terms of the software/hardware exploits available. A homogenous hardware/software combo like a console, in millions of homes, will be a much juicier target.06/18/2013 - 6:31pm
SleakerVox pay what you want link is busted.06/18/2013 - 6:27pm
ZippyDSMleeMics have to breath put tape over it.06/18/2013 - 6:25pm
NyuRenaYou nailed it James! Yikes..06/18/2013 - 1:56pm
james_fudgeWith MS willing to share with the government, an always listening device should give everyone pause.06/18/2013 - 1:37pm
james_fudgeyou can't turn off the Microphone on the Kinect and it has to be plugged in. It's not rocket science.06/18/2013 - 1:35pm
E. Zachary KnightThe Humble Bundle Guys just don't like me having money in my pocket do they? https://www.humblebundle.com/06/18/2013 - 1:12pm
E. Zachary KnightCMiner, I know that my Android camera is off unless I am using an application that turns it on. Same with the microphone.06/18/2013 - 12:38pm
CMinerCan you turn off the camera on an iPhone? Like, -really- turn it off, not just change a setting that -tells- you the camera is off?06/18/2013 - 12:13pm
james_fudgewhen they make it a requirement, yes they are06/18/2013 - 12:10pm
CMinerI just don't think Microsoft bears any more (or less) responsibility for privacy with its Kinect camera than do the makers of laptops or smartphones with integrated cameras.06/18/2013 - 12:00pm
ImautobotThe ability to operate the console without the camera is key. It's a peripheral, not directly integrated into the console, and yet it behaves as if it is. Thankfully I don't have kids, and won't have an Xbone either.06/18/2013 - 11:49am
CMinerOh, I agree that the decision to make the kinect mandatory/always listening is terrible.06/18/2013 - 11:48am
E. Zachary KnightCMiner, and the easier the provider makes to do such things, the better. The fact that the XBone will not even funtion without it plugged in and turned on in some fashion makes a world of difference from a PC Webcam.06/18/2013 - 11:38am
CMinerIt takes steps on the user's part to ensure 100% privacy (unplugging, uninstalling, putting tape over it, not putting it in the kid's rooms, etc)06/18/2013 - 11:29am
CMinerMy point is that no webcam producing company can guarantee that no one will ever ever ever be able to access video from that webcam without your knowledge and permission06/18/2013 - 11:28am
E. Zachary KnightOf course at that point, you are still opening up yourself to Windows zero day vulnerabilities and back doors that they are happy to share with the government before Windows users.06/18/2013 - 11:26am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician