Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF writes "Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) submitted a rider yesterday to a bill on military and veterans' construction projects. The rider would, 'prohibit the FCC from using any appropriated funds to adopt, implement or otherwise litigate any network neutrality based rules, protocols or standards.' It is co-signed by six other Republican senators. We all knew this was coming after the last election removed most of the vocal supporters of net neutrality and supplanted them with pro-corporate Republicans."

Comments

Not pro-corporate

[SuperKendall]

To call those against Net Neutrality as "pro-corperate" is a terrible mistake, because a lot of large companies back net neutrality - including Google and Amazon.

The reality is that companies want regulation passed that benefits that company - that is the point of lobbying after all. So that is why the only position you can possibly support if you are "anti-corperate" is no regulation at all.

Seeing as that is the position the Republicans are taking, those who claim Republicans are acting on behalf of corporations need to think about who THEY are actually supporting through these accusations, and what we lose when the truly open internet becomes beholden to the whims of the FCC.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[spidercoz]

I'd take the whims of the FCC over those of AT&T and Comcast any day.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[Anonymous Coward]

Google and Amazon don't control the pipe, though. Republicans are helping Comcast and TimeWarner. You may not like the idea of the FCC being able to enforce net neutrality but at least putting the FCC in charge gives the people someone to complain to. Try telling Comcast you don't like their draconian control, or at least their attempts, over the internet. They'll tell you to fuck off and to thank their dear friends, Republicans!

But I'm sure you liked warrantless wiretapping. The TSA pat downs are God's gift to man. Only corporations and Republican government can keep us safe.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[oGMo]

The reality is that companies want regulation passed that benefits that company - that is the point of lobbying after all. So that is why the only position you can possibly support if you are "anti-corperate" is no regulation at all.

False dichotomy; companies want regulation passed that benefits them, but this is not the only possible regulation. Therefore the only "anti-corporate" choice is not "no regulation." This is especially true since "no regulation" highly benefits another subset of companies (namely certain large ISPs like Comcast) who hold local monopolies, and already want anti-individual/customer/citizen measures which will raise prices and reduce quality.

Indeed, regulation that benefits individuals is "anti-corporate," or at least corporation-neutral and anti-monopoly-abuse, which is the real purpose here. Knee-jerk reactions to anything labeled "corporate" (or "regulation") aren't the answer. Preventing the abuse of individual customers is.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[dgatwood]

To call those against Net Neutrality as "pro-corporate" is a terrible mistake, because a lot of large companies back net neutrality - including Google and Amazon.

It's more accurately "pro-big-corporate". Sure, Google and Amazon kvetch about net neutrality, but the reality of the matter is that they are big enough that they aren't really affected. Comcast would never make YouTube unusable because their customers would burn the place down. And even in the worst case, YouTube et al are forced to mirror high bandwidth content using services like Akamai, which they can readily afford to do.

The folks who are penalized by lack of net neutrality are the small businesses---the next Facebook or Amazon or Google or YouTube. By limiting access to the free and open internet and essentially mandating the much more expensive distributed delivery of content, the entrenched big businesses become nearly unstoppable. Thus, although those big companies may complain about net neutrality, they're unlikely to do all that much to try to enforce it. After all, the anti-net-neutrality crowd is working in their best interests, too, at least when it comes to long-term profitability.

Don't get me wrong, in principle, Akamai is a good thing, particularly for multimedia content, as it reduces load on the backbones, reduces latency, and reduces jitter in data delivery. However, if non-Akamaized services are not merely less then ideal, but rather unusable, that tips the balance in a way that is completely unacceptable, and Comcast and cronies should be rightfully spanked with fines or, if the government is unwilling to do so, lawsuits.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[spun]

AT&T and Comcast are companies with both natural and government-created monopolies. You are quite naive if you think that they are at the mercy of the free market.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[clarkkent09]

Private companies use force all the time.
 
Really? Can you provide an example?
 
  Without force, the rich could not capture so much wealth without consequences. People would just take that wealth back.
 
See, this is your problem right there. You actually think that the economy is a zero sum game and if someone has more wealth, that means someone else must have correspondingly less. It is understandable given that we evolved as hunter gatherers and for 99% of our history the economy (consisting of a patch of berries) WAS a zero sum game. We don't do that anymore though. Of course we still use natural resources, but generally we don't pick wealth out of the nature, we produce it. When a person produces something and gets wealthy, that typically means that others have gotten wealthier too (just not as much as he did), not less wealthy. He did not take anything from them, he contributed to them indirectly. There is nothing to take back.

Re:Freedom doomed?

[KublaiKhan]

I think part of the reason why there are so many opponents to Neutrality at the moment is because of a mischaracterization--which may be the result of simple ignorance--of the FCC's actions as condoning government control of content-as-in-opinions, rather than content-as-in-format.

I've seen many people promulgating this notion (which, frankly, hasn't been helped by the FCC's past actions regarding, e.g., nipples and the superbowl) as being a 'government takeover' of the internet.

I like the idea of metagovernment, but sadly I don't think enough people are willing to put in the time and effort to make it work. Most people are lazy and content to let other people do the work of running the country, so long as it doesn't make their lives inconvenient.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[Surt]

Who on earth thought GOP/TP represented regular people?

Pro big donor

[spun]

The Republicans want absolutely no regulation of anything. Net neutrality is regulation. Without net neutrality regulations, the 'truly open Internet' becomes beholden to certain corporate interests. I would rather the Internet be beholden to the FCC, which is at theoretically accountable to US citizens, than to a few large media companies.

Regulations are like guns. They are tools. They can be used to protect or to harm. They are neither evil nor good, in and of themselves. We should never seek to get rid of all regulations, only the bad ones. Without 'regulations' the little guy is at the mercy of the rich and powerful. I support the right of the little guys of the world to band together and enact laws to protect themselves from exploitation.

You basically bring up the FCC as a sort of scary specter, "Ooga booga booga! FCC gonna getcha!" without saying what, exactly, you fear the FCC might do.

Net neutrality regulations are necessary to keep the Internet open. It will either be regulated by the FCC, or it will be controlled by a handful of huge media conglomerates. It will not stay the unregulated, anything goes wild west it is today. Either the landlords will move in and Enclose the open Internet, or we, the citizens, decide that we do not want to let them wall off the Internet, and we pass laws to stop them.

Re:Pro big donor

[h4rr4r]

Bullshit, ask them about corn subsidies.

Republicans love regulation, regulation that moves money into the welfare queen red states.

Re:Pro big donor

[mike449]

The Republicans want absolutely no regulation of anything. Net neutrality is regulation.
While they are at it, they should un-regulate the right of Cox to dig my property (private and public). If they want free market, let me name the conditions on which they can lay their cables.
So they actually want regulation, but only when it suits corporate interests and not public interests? This exposes them as shills and hypocrites.

Re:Pro big donor

[cdrguru]

Unfortunately the FCC has proven more often than not to be an advocate of communications rather than a regulator of it. Same as the FAA in many ways - if the airlines suffer the FAA isn't doing their advocacy job.

So it is very unclear what the FCC might actually do that would harm a major ISP like Comcast when there was a public outcry.

A large part of the problem is that the whole artifical monopoly which isn't tariffed like the telephone companies were but instead enforced through franchise agreements. There is no law that says there can only be a single cable provider but there are agreements in place that a municipality will contract with one and only one provider. The franchise agreements do get renewed but the scale of the physical plant that is required pretty much eliminates the possibility of a new player coming in and taking over the installed system - they would need to come in with a newly built head end. Sure, the municipality owns the cables, the nodes and the amplifiers (more or less), but the franchise agreement specifies how this equipment can be conveyed to someone else. And it isn't simple.

But nobody would make the investment in any of the physical plant without some sort of agreement that said how they were going to get paid for it all.

So whatever laws you might like are going to have to first of all not contravene existing franchise agreements. Nationwide. Each one independently negotiated with each municipality. Because should a law be proposed that nullifies some part of a franchise agreement in Chicago but not in Phoenix there is going to be nothing but trouble.

And you didn't think they would actually just pass a law forcing neutrality without things like must-carry and municipal access did you?

Re:Pro big donor

[Rakarra]

You basically bring up the FCC as a sort of scary specter, "Ooga booga booga! FCC gonna getcha!" without saying what, exactly, you fear the FCC might do.

I would very much worry about the FCC trying to screw up Internet content the same way they screwed up broadcast television. The FCC has a history of looking to expand its powers and influence, and I don't think, if it could get its hooks into the Internet, that it would stop at 'merely' Net Neutrality.

Re:Damned be these Republicans

[speedlaw]

Please. It's not even like they are a majority. They just have party cohesion which the Democrats lack. Indeed, with all three parts of the government, they STILL kowtowed to the Republicans, but really, as the Dems are also feeding at the same trough, there is little difference. The Dems don't apoligize to BP for inconveniencing them, like the Repubs, but it's still close.

Still cant believe you guys have riders...

[citylivin]

KENT BROCKMAN: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
SPEAKER: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of--
CONGRESSMAN: Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
SPEAKER: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
FLOOR: Boo!
SPEAKER: Bill defeated.

Can't believe you guys haven't fixed this yet. How can a completely unrelated thing be tacked on like that? is it really just a congressmans whim? Everytime i hear the word "rider" in american politics, i think of that simpsons skit.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[Maxo-Texas]

Aye. Jeez, they openly joked and boasted about the wealthy being "their base".

One guy a few days ago on a conservative talk show host said he was about to lose his unemployment benefits and with that, his house, car, probably family. Conversion story, right?

Nope-- he felt he did the right thing on principle to slit his own throat, even tho the wealthy will be walking away with $100,000 in tax savings alone.

It is going to take hard poverty to break these folks from the fox news and radio talk show host brainwashing. They literally identify with billionaires while they are losing everything and being tossed out to starve. When do they wake up and start voting in their own self interest?

Or will they just bypass that step entirely and go straight to violence in a couple years.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[interval1066]

"Who on earth thought GOP/TP represented regular people?"

I'm guessing the same pack of idiots who think the Democrats represent regular people.

Don't Americans know when they're getting screwed?

[kawabago]

Don't Americans notice the Republicans keep throwing wrenches into all the worthwhile legislation and promoting issues that are not in the interests of the majority of Americans? It goes beyond pulling the wool over peoples eyes, you have to be out right stupid not to see that they are not acting in the interests of the vast majority of the American people.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[brainboyz]

So, what you're saying is he should be greedy and vote for whichever politician will give him the most benefits as opposed to who he believes will do the best job running the country and handle issues in a fair and constitutional manner (as much as can be expected from a politician, anyway)? Voters like you scare me. What do you plan to do when you run out of other peoples' money?

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[Schadrach]

No, it's an almost completely different pack, because the pack that thinks the Democrats represent regular people simply won't listen to anything the Republicans say as a matter of principle, and the reverse is also true.

Re:Don't Americans know when they're getting screw

[Organic Brain Damage]

The Republicans noticed two facts:

1. The USA is a democracy and you hold power by getting most of the voters to vote for you.
2. McDonald's is the largest and most successful restaurant chain in the USA, yet the food is utter crap and kills the customers.

After they put these two facts together, they figured out that if they use mass advertising campaigns and catchy slogans to appeal to emotion with a pack of lies, they can hold power while simultaneously raping and pillage The Middle Class and The Middle Class would thank them and ask for some more. Ya gotta hand it to them, since Reagan started it, they've been remarkably effective while the Democrats have better, more honorable ideas, they are completely ineffective mass communicators.