House passes amendment to block funds for FCC ‘Net Neutrality’ order

ZAGGmate iPad case“The House passed an amendment Thursday that would bar the Federal Communications Commission from using any funding to implement the network-neutrality order it approved in December,” Juliana Gruenwald reports for NationalJournal.

“The amendment, approved on a 244-181 vote, was offered by Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., to legislation that would fund government agencies for the rest of fiscal year 2011,” Gruenwald reports. “Walden and other critics of the FCC’s net-neutrality order argue it will stifle innovation and investment in broadband. The order aims to bar broadband providers from discriminating against Internet content, services, or applications.”

Gruenwald reports, “If the defunding effort fails, Republicans are pursuing a second route to try to block the FCC’s open-Internet order. Walden and other Republicans in both the House and the Senate introduced on Wednesday a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which would give lawmakers a limited amount of time to try to block the FCC’s net-neutrality rules.”

Read more in the full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]

Related articles:
Rasmussen: Just 21% of likely U.S. voters want FCC to regulate Internet – December 28, 2010
FCC cites Android ‘openness’ as reason for neutered ‘Net Neutrality’ – December 22, 2010
U.S. FCC approves so-called ‘net-neutrality’ regulations – December 21, 2010
Tim Lee on ‘network neutrality’: Libertarian computer geeks should forge a third way – December 16, 2010
Google and Verizon propose ‘Net Neutrality’ rules, but exempt wireless’ – August 9, 2010
Big win for Comcast as US court rules against FCC on authority to impose ‘Net Neutrality’ – April 6, 2010

94 Comments

  1. In sum:

    o I’m in favor or real net neutrality.

    o I’m not necessarily in favor of every proposal labeled by its proponents as “Net Neutrality.”

    If I’m paying for a certain amount of bandwidth, and my carrier prevents ANY service that I request from using that bandwidth, that’s implied breach of contract. What we really need is something that voids any provision of any service contract to the contrary, because you can bet that your service contract lets the carrier do that (read the fine print).

    This may not be the best bill. It may produce more problems than it solves (like many bills). But if you simply oppose it, without supporting what you REALLY want (strongly, vocally, and POLITELY), the political perception will be that the public opposes net neutrality in any form.

    Don’t contribute to that perception.

    (BTW, may I suggest “net neutrality” (all lower case) for the basic concept of “everyone hands off,” and “Net Neutrality” (capitalized) for this bill with many more provisions than the simple fix.)

  2. I wish this issue could surface above the 8th grade political ideologies and that people could look at it on its own.

    A packet is a packet. It isn’t conservative, Marxist, libertarian, liberal, or green. It has a starting point and a destination point. It should start at point a and travel unmolested, un-throttled, un-blocked, un-prioritiezed, un-tiered, un-packaged, un-deep-inspected, by conservatives or liberals, to its destination.

    Net Neutrality is not regulation my passionate and zealous Mac loving brethren.

    Net Neutrality is more appropriately seen as the foundation upon which an Internet user’s “Bill of Rights” is constructed. If anything, it is like the first shot at an exclusion clause of such a document.

    I for one will fight long and hard for a neutral core.

    I would fight just as hard for the rights of a core service provider to create competitive services to Google, NetFlix, FaceBook, etc., just as long as they don’t use their power to coerce my Internet usage.

  3. My fellow conservatives. We cannot simply put blinders on and tow the party line like a team of dumb thoughtless clydesdales, snorting out our propaganda as we go. We have core beliefs that we should not abandon, however we must examine every issue and apply rational thought to it.

    I mean yeesh, Net Neutrality is Marxism? Come on, seriously?

    Seriously?

    I do not wish to see the government in control of the Internet. I do not want them having “kill switches,” and I do not want the FCC doing anything more than working to increase bandwidth and ubiquity and insuring neutrality. At the same time I do not want 4 or 5 major ISPs acting as self interested profit oriented regulators either.

    You know it and I know it. If the ISPs win, we will be counting our roll over bits for Internet usage in the future.

    1. I agree, I skipped over 99% of the responses here.

      BOTH sides here are wrong when they start the name calling.

      It’s not right/republican/conservative vs left/liberal/democrat (or Marxism or socialism or what ever else)

      I personally am against NN, I see the argument for it. I just don’t agree with it.
      I’ll argue the legality of NN, which is the only argument here.. I won’t argue that Obama is part of this. He may have a role in it this time, but this pre dates him… how many on the right can admit this?
      How many on the left can agree the FCC was never given this power to begin with?

      This isn’t a political right vs left debate. There are those on BOTH sides that think it is…

      http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html

      This is the last time net neutrality was tested, it failed. Why? No authority granted to the FCC by congress. Nothing has changed, except the FCC decided to do it again.
      It will fail again, not cause of republicans. Not cause of democrats.

      It will fail cause the FCC has no authority to implement NN. Period.

      We all can argue if this needs to be done or not… That’s a DIFFERENT argument. The debate at hand is only the authority.

  4. Sounds like the boss who hired a new kid, then changed his mind and fired him the day he arrived. Big expense and headache for everyone to make an executive order and then rescind it — or in this case, yank funding — 3 months later. The kid/program may well have created more value than expense. We’ll never know.

    If Congress really wants to save money, then stop wasting time on chump change items. The elephant that they refuse to acknowledge was identified by Eisenhower 50 years ago:
    DEFENSE SPENDING.

    Paranoia is an expensive habit.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.