Republican legislators, cellular industry launch attack on FCC net neutrality provisions

Posted:
in General Discussion edited April 2015
Net neutrality has once again come under fire from a number of groups, including 14 Republican representatives who introduced a bill Tuesday to let Congress review net neutrality rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission -- and potentially halt them.




Proposed by Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the bill claims that the rules are "heavy-handed" and would "slow Internet speeds, increase consumer prices and hamper infrastructure development," as first noted by IDG News. He and the bill's co-sponsors are specifically pursuing a "resolution of disapproval," which can't be amended or filibustered, and which forces quick action by the Senate.

Republicans have tried to block net neutrality in the past, but without much success. While most of the FCC's 2010 rules on the matter were ultimately tossed by a US appeals court ruling, Democratic control of the Senate blocked a Republican House resolution in 2011.

At the same time, the CTIA -- an industry organization representing cellular companies -- filed a lawsuit in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to block the new rules. In a blog post, the association argued that it hopes to "protect the competitive mobile marketplace that thrived under a deregulatory framework for decades," and charged that the FCC's rules will let "government bureaucrats" dictate the success of mobile services.

Both measures are in response to the rules being published in the Federal Register on Monday. There is a 60-day window before they take effect.

The FCC is seeking to classify Internet service providers (ISPs) as Title II common carriers and stop them from preferring some traffic over others. A company like Comcast, for instance, would not be able to slow down access to Netflix in favor of its own streaming services, or charge extra to use Facebook or Reddit.

ISPs will already escape the full scope of Title II provisions, such as rate regulation and the unbundling of last-mile infrastructure. Mobile data providers, in fact, will only have to obey provisions against prioritizing different forms of traffic. That could nevertheless quash things like T-Mobile's exemption of music services from datacaps.

In late March, a broadband industry group called USTelecom and a regional ISP, Alamo Broadband, filed their own lawsuits to block the FCC.
«1345678

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 141
    gregqgregq Posts: 62member
    Here we go...
  • Reply 2 of 141

    Consumer prices always keep going when it comes to ISPs, but nice try, Mr. Collins, acting like *this* is the catalyst for such. Only surprise is that the phrase "job-killing" wasn't used.

  • Reply 3 of 141
    I prefer elected officials being involved to bureaucrats. Bureaucrats have no accountability.
  • Reply 4 of 141
    frankiefrankie Posts: 372member

    Republican politicians caring more about money for their corporate owners more than people and the planet?  Say it isn't so!  What a shocker!

  • Reply 5 of 141
    macwisemacwise Posts: 78member
    Idiots that championed the law are now all raising the alarms that the government's heavy-handed control is dangerous to the growth and development of the internet. Prices will go up, speeds will go down, progress will be hamstrung, and people are surprised? When has the government decided to stick its grubby mitts in anything where this hasn't been the outcome?

    My goodness, people. When will you learn that the noble ideals upon which these hostile takeovers are pitched are nothing more than that: ideals to woo the masses. Who's talking about "making sure the integrity and openness of the internet is maintained" now? HINT: it's not the bureaucrats who now hold the reins. Duh.
  • Reply 6 of 141
    The open internet is one of the most democratizing things we have in our modern society, why is this even up for debate? What benefit would society have in enabling "Fast lanes" or "premium" connections or other nonsense? What do we get protecting commercial interests?
  • Reply 7 of 141
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,525member
    The open internet is one of the most democratizing things we have in our modern society, why is this even up for debate?

    Your question answers itself.
  • Reply 8 of 141
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,293member
    macwise wrote: »
    Idiots that championed the law are now all raising the alarms that the government's heavy-handed control is dangerous to the growth and development of the internet. Prices will go up, speeds will go down, progress will be hamstrung, and people are surprised? When has the government decided to stick its grubby mitts in anything where this hasn't been the outcome?

    My goodness, people. When will you learn that the noble ideals upon which these hostile takeovers are pitched are nothing more than that: ideals to woo the masses. Who's talking about "making sure the integrity and openness of the internet is maintained" now? HINT: it's not the bureaucrats who now hold the reins. Duh.

    The government did a fine job with the interstates. And it bombs foreign people effectively but republicans kinda like that state power.

    This is regulation. Not control. We've had regulation for centuries.
  • Reply 9 of 141
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,293member
    The open internet is one of the most democratizing things we have in our modern society, why is this even up for debate? What benefit would society have in enabling "Fast lanes" or "premium" connections or other nonsense? What do we get protecting commercial interests?

    If all the corporations had their own internet 9/11 wouldn't have happened. And there would be no sick kids.
  • Reply 10 of 141
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    If the cellular industry can have MVNOs why can't internet providers? I want my dumb pipe!

  • Reply 11 of 141
    macwisemacwise Posts: 78member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post





    The government did a fine job with the interstates. And it bombs foreign people effectively but republicans kinda like that state power.



    This is regulation. Not control. We've had regulation for centuries.



    Let me get this straight: you're using the crumbling roads in America (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/10/new-report-says-many-rural-roads-are-in-poor-condition/12416359/) and U.S. bombings that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people (considered "collateral damage") as your defense of government's further intervention into what is a more restricted and less open market than it was before they got involved in the latest step?  Great points.

  • Reply 12 of 141
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,617member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macwise View Post



    Idiots that championed the law are now all raising the alarms that the government's heavy-handed control is dangerous to the growth and development of the internet. Prices will go up, speeds will go down, progress will be hamstrung, and people are surprised? When has the government decided to stick its grubby mitts in anything where this hasn't been the outcome?



    My goodness, people. When will you learn that the noble ideals upon which these hostile takeovers are pitched are nothing more than that: ideals to woo the masses. Who's talking about "making sure the integrity and openness of the internet is maintained" now? HINT: it's not the bureaucrats who now hold the reins. Duh.



    I pay $x/mo for Y bandwidth, Netflix pays $/mo for Y bandwidth.  It's as simple as that.  Companies like Comcast are double-dipping by charging companies like Netflix more because users (like me) use it?  Bullsh!t.



    I'm all for the government keeping their paws off of stuff.  I don't trust them.  However, in this very rare instance, I think this is a perfect example of why we need legislation for companies to NOT do that.  Sure, you'll complain that it will harm the industry more, but I flat-out don't believe that propaganda.  It's certainly not hurting companies like Google from doing its own fiber service.  I think its the industry being scared to death that the FTC will handcuff their gravy-train.  



    I, the end-user should have access to any website I choose to visit on the bandwidth I am paying for.  Netflix - and other popular services - are paying for their bandwidth too and folks like Comcast are saying "You want to reach our customers at the speeds you already paid for?  Well, it will cost you extra now!"  Flat out wrong.



    I hate libtards just as much as the next... this is the one exception where government needs to get involved.  The FTC just better not make it all political, and just do their job.



     

  • Reply 13 of 141
    mrshowmrshow Posts: 151member

    Not very shocking that Republican's are on the wrong side of an issue, again. 

  • Reply 14 of 141
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Spend enough money, and you can get people to vote against their own interests :)

    Wealth plus dishonesty is powerful indeed!

    Throw in some emotional buzzwords, and you can control your supporters without requiring them to even think :)
  • Reply 15 of 141
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,293member
    macwise wrote: »

    Let me get this straight: you're using the crumbling roads in America (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/10/new-report-says-many-rural-roads-are-in-poor-condition/12416359/) and U.S. bombings that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people (considered "collateral damage") as your defense of government's further intervention into what is a more restricted and less open market than it was before they got involved in the latest step?  Great points.

    The interstates were a good idea, badly maintained now but wonders in their day. And clearly I am not pro war but most republicans are.

    The ISPs act as local monopolies. They want to strangle your internet for commercial reasons. Treating them as common carriers gives the consumer the power.
  • Reply 16 of 141
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    I prefer elected officials being involved to bureaucrats. Bureaucrats have no accountability.

    nonsense -- the courts are the check to the executive branch. the courts have been used in this very issue.
  • Reply 17 of 141
    bobringerbobringer Posts: 105member
    That awkward moment when nobody actually mentions *NET NEUTRALITY* and *NET NEUTRALITY VIS A VIS TITLE II* are not the same thing...
  • Reply 18 of 141
    Can't the cellular industry just buy the votes they need to turn FCC regulations into a farce to protect its own interests? /s
  • Reply 19 of 141
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    macwise wrote: »

    rural county rounds are not interstates.our interstates are pretty amazing compared to most of the world. travel a bit and see.
  • Reply 20 of 141
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,564member
    People just need to vote out these idiots.
Sign In or Register to comment.