iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Timothy Karr

Timothy Karr

Posted: March 9, 2011 11:39 PM

House Goes Nuts Over Net Neutrality


Late Wednesday, Republican members of a key House Commerce subcommittee decided to give phone and cable companies absolute, unrestricted power over the Internet.

By a party-line vote of 15 to 8 they passed a "resolution of disapproval" that would strip the FCC of its ability to protect Internet users -- freeing up companies like Verizon and Comcast to block our right to speak freely and share information on the Internet.

This reckless action opens the door even wider to corporate abuse of Net Neutrality, the principle that protects our ability to connect with everyone else online.

Already, cable giants like Comcast are maneuvering to restrict access to competitive video services like Netflix; wireless carrier MetroPCS has unveiled a plan to block users' access to most video and audio sites.

The majority rammed this vote through without weighing widespread concerns -- coming from public interest and consumer advocates, and across the tech industry -- that this resolution is an extreme overreach that gives away our basic Internet freedoms.

The Lies Republicans Tell about the Internet

The House is already set to pass this resolution; it moves next to full committee and the floor. Hopefully, the Senate can muster enough common sense to kill the resolution when it crosses Capitol Hill.

House Republicans, on the other hand, seem determined to give phone and cable companies a degree of power over our Internet that is unprecedented in the history of U.S. telecommunications policy.

"Unfortunately, the debate around [Net Neutrality] has become immune to the calming powers of historical fact," said Free Press research director (and colleague) Derek Turner in testimony before the subcommittee.

The line of questioning from members of the subcommittee bore this out. At one point Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-AT&T) claimed that "there was no federal governance of the Internet" before the FCC moved an open Internet order last December.

I'd like to see Rep. Blackburn prove that right-wing whopper. Unfortunately, her time for questions ran out. Had subcommittee witnesses more time to respond, one of them might have told Blackburn that the Nixon administration put in place strong nondiscriminatory rules to ensure that abuses of market power would not stifle the growth of an infant network computing industry.

This successful framework was later improved upon by both the Carter and Reagan administrations. And with the Telecom Act of 1996, a bipartisan Congress recognized that in order to foster new industries, we needed the FCC to act to ensure everyone had open access to the information superhighway.

These facts are merely unfortunate road bumps for a House majority determined to ignore history.

Will the Senate Step Up?

It's now left to the Senate to stop this resolution. If they fail, the FCC could be barred from preventing these companies from blocking any website, banning any speech, and charging you anything they can get away with.

American Internet users need to choose between the open Internet that lets us view any content, anywhere, and the walled garden that the big phone and cable companies want to build around us.

If you choose openness, you had better do what you can to get your senators to reject this resolution.

 

Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr

 
 
  • Comments
  • 17
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
07:46 AM on 03/13/2011
As far as I can tell either political party is as likely to vote for this measure as the other. When free speech is equated with money. Politicians are all about the rights of free speech in this country. So long as they are the ones benefiting from it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Philozopher01
Fear of the unknown is wasted effort
05:44 PM on 03/10/2011
Having Congress make decisions about tech/medical issues is like asking the janitor to perform neuro-surgery. More than likely it would make a mess of things and kill the patient.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
PCMartin
Bullish on cat food and refrigerator boxes
06:56 PM on 03/11/2011
Congress is supposed to make the policy decisions; the FCC and other administrative agencies are supposed to implement policy through technical decisions.
10:02 AM on 03/12/2011
I suppose that you think that oil companies should be in charge of environmental policy too, huh?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SithRose
Mommy, I need Cthulhu. He keeps bad dreams away.
03:16 PM on 03/10/2011
It occurs to me that "House Goes Nuts" would have been an effective headline.

When did facts EVER get in the way of profits for this set of legislaturalists?
02:40 PM on 03/10/2011
This issue is clearly full of hype and hyperbole on both sides. This article just fuels it. It is wrought with inaccuracies. The Comcast - Netflix issue is not a net neutrality problem. The article also insinuates that the passage of this measure will remove regulations that have protected users in the past and that simply is not true. Both sides have good arguments to net neutrality. This article does not contain any of them. The problem with net neutrality is that it is a distraction from real problems http://www.hostmycalls.com/2011/03/01/net-neutrality-%e2%80%93-the-pot-holed-road-to-nowhere/
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Timothy Karr
Free Press Campaign Director. Follow @TimKarr
03:45 PM on 03/10/2011
Jim -- The Resolution of Disapproval not only voids the order the FCC voted on in December 2011 but it also but it also prevents the agency from creating rules of "substantially the same form." I wrote this about Netflix:

"Already, cable giants like Comcast are maneuvering to restrict access to competitive video services like Netflix."

No where did I say that was a Net Neutrality violation, but that this action is representative of increasing efforts by ISPs to impose themselves as gatekeepers to online content. Should the RoD pass the FCC would not only be prevented from implementing its recent order, but also from acting on similar violations that are of "substantially the same form," according to the Congressional Review Act.

FCC efforts to stop an ISP that blocks, or discriminates against, a legal competitive video streaming service could easily be denied should their rule be interpreted as "substantially the same form" as the Open Internet order.

There's nothing "inaccurate" about that.

Did you read pages
11:05 AM on 03/10/2011
Tim, Net Neutrality regulations are unwarranted. As Tim Berners-Lee says - it's baked into the architecture. If so, why regulate? Rep Eshoo was only able to give 4 examples - over trillions & trillions of packets exchanged. And even these examples are questionable. So, we're going to regulate - an entire industry, 3,000 or so ISPs, because of 4 specious examples. Wow. That's a takeover in my book.

Where's the angst this past December when y'all called it "fake net neutrality". I guess that was just spin? So, what to believe from you now?

Mike Wendy - mediafreedom.org
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wayne Caswell
Consumer Advocate & Founder of Modern Health Talk
09:34 AM on 03/10/2011
So the GOP says new FCC rules would “discourage phone and cable companies” from upgrading their networks and make it too hard for them to earn "a healthy return on those investments.” But Texas, like about a dozen other states, banned municipal fiber networks so incumbents wouldn’t have to compete… with public interests. The network upgrades were built with over $300 Billion in USF dollars from monthly phone bills. Heck, it was OUR money!

See "Public Infrastructure or Private Monopolies" (http://www.cazitech.com/bigbroadband.pdf).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ldcook
Gay Harvard Grad
09:06 AM on 03/10/2011
So when the government stomps on our rights the GOP is all for it (think patriot act), but when the government steps in to protect that citizens' rights the GOP calls it a government take over of the internet?

I try so hard to make sense of this stuff... but they really boggle me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Victor3
08:33 AM on 03/10/2011
The zombified spirit of George Orwell marches on, having been stripped of its sarcasm and enshrined as a model of truth. AND, naturally, big profits will be made destroying our freedom to communicate.
07:16 AM on 03/10/2011
Why does Marsha Want Congress to Regulate the Internet? Why not just say NO FEDERAL branch (the FCC and congress and the federal courts included) has any authority to decide or rule on any aspect concerning the Internet?

BUT Marsha Blackburn did Vote FOR: Patriot Act Reauthorization, Electronic Surveillance, Funding the REAL ID Act (National ID), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, Thought Crimes “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Warrantless Searches, Employee Verification Program, Body Imaging Screening, Patriot Act extension; and only NOW she is worried about free speech, privacy, and government take over of the internet?

Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
See her “blatantly unconstitutional” votes at :
http://mickeywhite.blogspot.com/2009/09/tn-congressman-marsha-blackburn-votes.html
Mickey
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SithRose
Mommy, I need Cthulhu. He keeps bad dreams away.
03:19 PM on 03/10/2011
Free Speech is only important when it's paid for.

It does seem unlikely that you voted for her. Maybe the rest of this country will start waking up in the next year?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tabuism
05:49 AM on 03/10/2011
End in end, the user pays more. It's ridiculous, we pay far to much as it is, end of story !
03:26 AM on 03/10/2011
There is no reason why this JR should go anywhere outside of the subcommittee. I think it's safe to say that even if it does make it out of committee and the House, it will never make it through the senate, nor get a signature from the President. Should we be more concerned about the appropriations bill?

Read more: http://bit.ly/fCOFHk
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
PCMartin
Bullish on cat food and refrigerator boxes
02:16 AM on 03/10/2011
It's time, I think, for someone to do a good, user-friendly summary of (a) telecoms donations to members of Congress, (b) telecoms-related employment and investments of their family members, and (c) positive coverage of anti-network-neutrality policy and politicians by telecoms-controlled media networks. (If you think hard, you should be able to identify at least *one*.) Tragically, we won't see the revolving-door deals for legislators and aides themselves until after the fact.

Senators Al Franken and Maria Cantwell introduced what appears, at first blush, to be a decent network neutrality bill back in January, but since the Senate failed to reform the filibuster, it is probably no more than a symbolic gesture to appease us network-neutrality diehards. The best we can probably hope for, for now, is for the Senate to leave the FCC with its existing, self-limited authority and its crappy, loophole-ridden, pseudo-network-neutrality regs.

Republicans and a number of covert Democratic allies are handing over control of what information we can access on the Internet to a handful of corporations with regional oligopolies or monopolies. How their constituents are buying into that as a *good* thing is beyond me...
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:31 AM on 03/10/2011
You like Netflix? Comcast can now block it.