iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

House Republicans Move To Block FCC Internet Regulations

Greg Walden

JOELLE TESSLER   02/18/11 12:07 AM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday moved to block the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing new rules that prohibit broadband providers from interfering with Internet traffic on their networks.

With a 244-181 vote, Republican leaders succeeded in attaching an amendment to a sweeping spending bill that would bar the FCC from using government money to implement its new "network neutrality" regulations.

The rules prohibit phone and cable companies from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services, including online calling services like Skype and Web video services like Netflix that could compete with their core operations. The FCC's three Democrats voted to adopt the regulations late last year over the opposition of the agency's two Republicans.

The rules are already facing court challenges from Verizon Communications Inc. and Metro PCS Communications Inc. Republicans in both chambers of Congress have introduced legislation to try to repeal the rules outright.

Republicans argue that the net neutrality rules amount to onerous and unnecessary regulations that will discourage phone and cable companies from continuing to upgrade their broadband networks by making it too hard for them to earn a healthy return on those investments. They also maintain that the FCC overstepped its authority in adopting the rules.

Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., the sponsor of the spending bill amendment and chairman of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, said his measure is "about keeping the government out of the business of running the Internet."

The FCC had no comment Thursday.

The new FCC rules require broadband providers to let subscribers access all legal online content, applications and services over their wired networks.

The rules do give providers flexibility to manage data on their systems to deal with network congestion and unwanted traffic, including spam, as long as they publicly disclose those practices. But they prohibit unreasonable network discrimination – a category that would likely include "paid prioritization," which favors the broadband providers' own traffic or the traffic of business partners that can pay extra.

The regulations also prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any websites or competing services such as Internet calling applications on mobile devices, and they require carriers to disclose their network management practices, too. Still, they do give wireless companies more flexibility to manage data traffic because wireless systems have less network bandwidth and can become overwhelmed with traffic more easily than wired lines.

While Republican efforts to repeal the FCC rules are likely to face an uphill battle in the Senate, where Democrats remain in control, the regulations may be harder to defend in court.

Both Verizon and Metro PCS are challenging the rules in federal appeals court in the District of Columbia. That is the same court that ruled last year that the FCC had exceeded its legal authority in rebuking cable giant Comcast Corp. for blocking its subscribers from accessing an Internet file-sharing service used to trade online video and other big files. Comcast maintained that traffic from the service was clogging its network.

The agency said Comcast had violated broad net neutrality principles first established by the commission in 2005. Those principles served as a foundation for the formal rules adopted by the FCC late last year.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday moved to block the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing new rules that prohibit broadband providers from interfering with Internet traffic ...
WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday moved to block the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing new rules that prohibit broadband providers from interfering with Internet traffic ...
Filed by Carly Schwartz  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,309
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (72 total)
09:57 AM on 02/22/2011
So who should control the internet? The government or the ISPs? Remember we can always change providers. If your not happy with comcast there are plenty others out there.
03:16 AM on 02/22/2011
There are so many fatal flaws in the Repubs argument, so I'll only list a couple of the most obvious.
1. If a carrier has finite bandwidth and it's clogged, it means that they are receiving 100% revenue for the bandwidth they provide. If they want to earn more revenue they should expand their bandwidth. This is purely a matter of business economics as the extra banwidth is chargeable anyway.
2. Capping is the logical way to prevent clogging if a carrier has bandwidth limitations.

What the carriers are after is a way to prioritize their own content delivery which is where the money is, not provide an open access to the public internet. What we are seeing is an attempt for the carriers or gatekeepers as some else called them, to turn the internet into an alternative delivery system to cable TV.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:25 AM on 02/22/2011
I just don't get it with these terrorists. They get voted back in as the majority in the house, yet it seems like they continue to throw mud back in the face of most Americans. What is their logic? Are they just self destructive? Based on their actions to date, I'm just waiting for one of them to look into the camera and justify why it's okay for Gaddafi to be bombing his own people. How can anyone give total authority of how the internet will be handled to the foxes who are now guarding the hen house? What a bunch of losers.
08:17 PM on 02/21/2011
Makes you want to tie them to a chair and hit them repeatedly with a whiffle-ball bat.
photo
johngary66
Accused of heresy and decided to go with that.
10:28 AM on 02/21/2011
"Republicans argue that the net neutrality rules amount to onerous and unnecessary regulations that will discourage phone and cable companies from continuing to upgrade their broadband networks by making it too hard for them to earn a healthy return on those investments." Well gosh darn does that mean that Comcast hasn't made enough profits to buy another Television network to go along with NBC? Why that's just plain unfair. Probably even UnAmerican. People leave Madison imediately and come to Washington to help us make things right in the face of this terrible injustice. We owe the Republicans a big thank you for bring this to our attention.
02:14 AM on 02/21/2011
So now the repugs are giving big corporations control over our public airways - unbelievable.
Layman23
Do we want to live in the past?
11:26 AM on 02/20/2011
Pretty soon when these corporate overlords drive on the road, the traffic will be stopped to let them pass without hinderance. Afterall, regulating traffic is also government intrusion into our lives. Atleast according to the GOP. What a bunch of neanderthals !
photo
Morgantheaxe
Eisenhower Republicans don't drink tea!!
06:03 AM on 02/20/2011
Seems folks are kind of missing the big picture here. These "barrons" don't own the band in which they transmit in. That is public property just like a river. These guys simply own the toll gate you pay to get on to the band. This bill esentially says the government can't take action against a company that is not letting certain people through their gates OR are impeding them as they do. Folks we really have to do something about the GOP before they destroy what little government that's left that ISNT a direct funder of their own.....well funders.
photo
johngary66
Accused of heresy and decided to go with that.
10:40 AM on 02/21/2011
I think it is quite clear that the only hope for future generations is that Republicans, particularly Teabaggers, and Blue Dog Democrats must be sterilized before they reach puberty. While castration is preferable, this may prove unfair to Teabaggers and that will have to be taken into consideration. The sure signs a child is probably carrying this tendency are complete lack of empathy, greed, intolerance, low I.Q., extreme shortsightedness, self righteousness, fundamentalist tendencies, selfishness, bad breath, desire to live under bridges and general unpleasantness. We need to stamp this out now so that our children can live in a just and free society free from today's fascists.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bush-Rolled
America is being put in the clearance bin.
02:06 PM on 02/19/2011
Unfortunately, Walden is my representative in Congress. He is a low-information slogan spouter and has been a reliable rubber-stamp for the corporate wing of the GOP. His newest maneuver is to pander to the ultra-right. Equally unfortunate, his is a very safe seat.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:50 PM on 02/19/2011
we are all hamsters on neocon "financially engineered" wheels...

1/24/11

Justice Department seeks mandatory data retention

""Data retention is fundamental to the department's work in investigating and prosecuting almost every type of crime," Jason Weinstein, deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division, will say, according to his written testimony.

The Bush Justice Department endorsed such proposals under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Tomorrow's announcement demonstrates that the Obama Justice Department is following suit and appears to be its first public statement embracing mandatory data retention.

That aligns the Justice Department with data retention's more aggressive supporters among House Republicans and places it at odds with privacy advocates, civil libertarians, and the Internet industry. Those groups have questioned the privacy, liability, cost, and scope, including whether businesses such as coffee shops would be required to identify and monitor whoever uses their wireless connections.

Or it could be more intrusive, sweeping in online service providers, and involve keeping track of e-mail and instant-messaging correspondence and what Web pages users visit. Some Democratic politicians have previously called for data retention laws to extend to domain name registries and Web hosting companies and even social-networking sites. An FBI attorney said last year that the bureau supports storing Internet users' "origin and destination information," meaning logs of which Web sites are visited. "

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20029423-281.html?tag=nl.e703
photo
Harvee Wallbanger
Republicans... I got no use for you.
04:38 PM on 02/19/2011
The friggin cia already copies every packet that runs across the internet.
photo
Morgantheaxe
Eisenhower Republicans don't drink tea!!
06:03 AM on 02/20/2011
That would be the NSA.
photo
johngary66
Accused of heresy and decided to go with that.
10:47 AM on 02/21/2011
Welcome to the Obama administration, Same as the Bush Administration with improved fascist techniques. Care to prove any different Obamabots? Hey, what happened to that constant Obama promise to restore Rule of law if he were elected President? Come on, you must have an answer. Why don't you start with Habeas Corpus?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
edejan
10:34 PM on 02/21/2011
Because McCain would have been so much better.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wardropper
New empty micro-bio
12:38 PM on 02/19/2011
Of course the GOP backs the broadband barons.

That's what it does, bless its little cotton socks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GunnyJ
I do my best every time.
06:43 AM on 02/19/2011
Another obstacle to modernization, REPUBLICANS! The never offer an idea to progress, to improve or to assist. They only offer means to take, hinder and roll back...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ex-eye-in-the-sky
South Jersey Progressive Piney
08:40 PM on 02/19/2011
..ain't it the truth!
photo
johngary66
Accused of heresy and decided to go with that.
10:49 AM on 02/21/2011
Unfortunately, the Democrats have been learning bad habits from them.
luminavi
Love kicking over anthills on both left and right.
02:58 AM on 02/19/2011
People may take it for GRANTED, but bandwidth is not unlimited. Bandwidth is to a carrier what power is to an energy company. Bandwidth IS their product.

Why do you think AT&T and Verizon have started putting 2 GB quotas in place? Bandwidth is not magic, it's not like the air we breathe. It is a resource, a commodity, and unlike air, it's not free, every byte sent and received has an associated cost, and it certainly isn't a RIGHT that mandates the state stepping in.

So if Time-Warner Cable wants to shut off Netflix for poaching on their bandwidth, so be it. It's called competition. It's called the free market. It doesn't warrant the government stepping in to a purely business situation.

P.S. Full disclosure: I use Netflix :)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Downix
04:11 AM on 02/19/2011
Your argument reveals a fundimental flaw in the whole system. It's not a business situation at all, that's the problem. We're trying to make it a business situation. What is happening is, the need for bandwidth is outstripping the rate for businesses to absorb, due to their outmoded business models. It is the same issue which existed for electricity back in the early 20th century, peoples demand for it outstripped the ability for power companies to build grids to supply it. So, we have to make a choice, do we keep the business arrangement, and deal with our falling further behind the rest of the world in capacity, as well as the implications of letting a business censor data; or do we make the same choice the government did back then, and absorb the core into the Government? The government then takes over all core bandwidth, and enables the various ISP's to act as agents, same as how the electric companies work nowadays with government owned electric grid, electric companies handling the domestic distribution only.
luminavi
Love kicking over anthills on both left and right.
07:20 AM on 02/19/2011
It's not so much a fundamental 'flaw' as recognizing that every and any technology has its LIMITS. The need for additional bandwidth is greater than what existing technical infrastructure can supply right now. The current limits won't stay that way for long, as technology continues to improve and infrastructure outlays are expanded.

But demand is always going to stay one step ahead of supply. Once we got 9600 baud modems, we wanted 14.4K. Then DSL. Then cable, and so on. Used to be on a cell phone, making a phone call on the road was enough. Now it's text, 'face time' or mobile videoconferencing, and internet. 3G. 4G, and so on. It's always got to be better, faster.

"Letting a business censor data ..." CENSOR data? Come on. The business could care less about what the content is. It's NOT censorship. If AT&T tells you, you've exceeded your 2 GB a month data quota on your iPhone, and now you need to pay a higher rate for any additional data after that, is THAT censorship?

NO, it's AT&T telling you - "Our system and current technology can't handle everyone streaming videos down to their iPhones all at the same time."

Is government supposed to step in there, and tell AT&T, hey you can't do that, what about "net neutrality" and all that stuff? Come on.

Technology is FINITE. It's also neutral. It's apolitical. It's business. Not politics --- BUSINESS.
luminavi
Love kicking over anthills on both left and right.
07:33 AM on 02/19/2011
And yeah, about the government taking over all core bandwidth? No, can't happen, shouldn't. We'd be setting ourselves up for another Egypt. Or Libya. An internet "kill switch" controlled by the state. Is that really what we want? That would be the ultimate censor, and the complete opposite of 'net neutrality.'

Government takeover of core bandwidth doesn't expand bandwidth -- it would just add a ton more bureaucracy and slows down the administrative speed of a system that relies so much upon the guided autonomy of free market players doing things for their best interests.

If government wants to help, it needs to:
a) Stay out of it. If one company doesn't like the way the other is behaving, there's always the court system, right?

b) Subsidize and offer incentives to small technology companies to expand internet availability coverage everywhere, sort of like fill in the gaps or empty spaces where current net infrastructure doesn't reach.

And that's it. If people don't get their Netflix fixes online any more, it's NOT the end of the world.

Not to mention, I'm not exactly sure that having people's faces jammed so much into their TVs, BlueRays, computers, cell phones and iPads is really such a good thing for society.

Does everything have to be online, all the time? Get up, mail that DVD back. The exercise would do you good, and it wouldn't kill you to wait 3 days to get the next movie on DVD in the mail.
09:43 AM on 02/19/2011
Same false argument as in another comment.

Netflix cannot poach ANYTHING. T-W customers choose how they use internet services from external content providers, whether low-bandwidth or high-bandwidth.

When T-W infrastructure cannot handle their current customers' use of bandwidth, they can do what all businesses do: Get more efficient, or charge more for higher usage. T-W is welcome to try to charge customers for their data usage. That is an entirely reasonable mechanism for managing the limited resource.

Discriminating against "this" external content source while preferring "that" external content source is collusion and anathema to a free market.

Full disclosure: I get Netflix DVDs in the mail and use my internet service to transact business, most commonly VPN to work, as I've been doing for 30 years (back then, it was dialing in to a modem-bank at the office...).
luminavi
Love kicking over anthills on both left and right.
01:41 PM on 02/19/2011
I hear your points.

I'm a systems engineer - and like I said, there's no stuffing 10 people in a car that can only hold 5. Charging for more doesn't help. If your technology's at its limits, you can't throw money at it. And economies of scale still aren't where you can start laying down OC3 and DS3 lines down to every household. If a client tells me, they want a system to carry a workload and response time I know the servers can't handle, I tell them, "That's not possible." They may scream and holler, or tell me to buy more servers, but I explain to them - the requirements have gone beyond what the core technology can SCALE UP to meet.

In both cases, would government intervention make one iota of difference?

A solution would be for Netflix to broadcast their movies, rather than downloading them into homes upon demand. That's a little easier on the net than pumping down gigs of data all at once everywhere.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stape45
No brag, just fact.
02:33 AM on 02/19/2011
The GOP had no choice. It was either, back the plutocrats of back the people they are (supposedly) representing. No contest there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stape45
No brag, just fact.
02:42 AM on 02/19/2011
Silly typo alert! OR - not of.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard in CO
02:21 AM on 02/19/2011
What else can you expect from the newly anointed "majority" of GOP after the last election? They think they have a MANDATE to continue empowering top Corporations and their officers in all respects, while de-fanging Federal Regulatory Agencies, leaving ALL CONSUMERS in the LURCH, if they ever have a problem. Typical Republican mindset. Eat cake! Go down deeper in those coal mines, and don't even question us if it's safe! How DARE you ask for a RAISE!

Might as well turn the clock back 130 years. Here we go....
photo
Harvee Wallbanger
Republicans... I got no use for you.
04:58 PM on 02/19/2011
They are attempting to eliminate child labor laws and a woman's right to choice. They are radical extremists and crazy.