House Votes To Overturn FCC On Net Neutrality

suraj.sun writes with this quote from CNet: "House Republicans voted unanimously today to block controversial Net neutrality regulations from taking effect, a move that is likely to invite a confrontation with President Obama. By a vote of 241 to 178, the House of Representatives adopted a one-page resolution that says, simply, the regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Commission on December 21 'shall have no force or effect.' 'Congress did not authorize the FCC to regulate in this area,' Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.), said during this morning's floor debate. 'We must reject any rules that it promulgates in this area... It is Congress' responsibility to delegate that authority.'"

Comments

No Force or Effect

[Sonny Yatsen]

It's a good thing, then, that a House Resolution, by itself, also has "no force or effect". It seems our current House of Representatives thinks that it is good to waste time and money passing House Resolutions defunding or outlawing everything that they don't like, all the while knowing that each resolution they pass has no chance to get past the Senate or the President. Why are they wasting time with this? Isn't there a governmental shutdown deadline this Friday? Shouldn't they be working on the budget instead of killing time with small-fry legislation that goes nowhere?

Re:No Force or Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

"Obama's thugs"

Yeah, you're not objective at all. Next time say that in the very beginning so we know to write you off as a partisan nitwit.

Re:No Force or Effect

[PopeRatzo]

It seems our current House of Representatives thinks that it is good to waste time and money passing House Resolutions defunding or outlawing everything that they don't like, all the while knowing that each resolution they pass has no chance to get past the Senate or the President.

Get this: it is now being reported that the most recent "compromise" offered by the House Republicans on the budget is if the Dems agree to an additional $13billion in budget cuts (above the $33 billion already agreed to which was their last demand) and if they agree to provision to the budget bill that will outlaw the use of federal funds for abortion even though it is already federal law that funds cannot be used for abortion, then they will go for that compromise.

It's a hostage situation where the ransom demands keep going up. And "abortion"? Really? I thought this was a "budgetary crisis". Why are they demanding this provision (which is already the law) unless the whole thing is just theater?

Next, they will demand that there be a special provision which makes it illegal to be President if you're black and all muslims required to eat pork chops.

I'm really glad the voters are getting a chance to see this play out. Yeah, most of them are oblivious, but between this "budget battle" and the terms of the new Ryan budget, we're getting a rare opportunity to see the GOP dropping pretense. A rare exposition of the stark difference.

Re:No Force or Effect

[gewalker]

So, it is magically OK for the FCC to issue regulations for which it has no congressional authority to act? I don't care whether net neutrality is in fact a good idea or not, I don't like unconstitutional power grabs by federal bureaucrats. I think the EPA deserves a rejection of their carbon rules on the same basis.

If congress wants to out-source the research needed to craft a useful and proper bill, they can do that and then take a stand (right on wrong) when they enact the corresponding law, but they should not escape the responsibility for actually making the decisions as to what will become law.

Re:No Force or Effect

[Sonny Yatsen]

The House Republicans kept none of their campaign promises, really. They promised to "repeal and replace" the Healthcare reform bill. The only thing they've managed to do is vote to defund portions of it, which isn't a repeal at all. A repeal requires the Senate and and the President to sign on board, which Congressional Republicans haven't managed to even come close to achieving. Secondly, they've failed to "replace" the Healthcare reform bill with their own reform bill, because there is no replacement bill proposed by the House thus far. Remember, the promise is to "repeal and replace", not "make an attempt at repeal and replace".

Oh, and their other major campaign promise of cutting $100 billion for fiscal year 2011? Yeah, that looks like it's going nowhere as well. Right now, the House Republicans are playing the "lower your expectations game" with their base right now.

Thirdly, laws must be made by the House and Senate - so that the House and Senate must work together and compromise in order to get a law passed. Just because the House passed a budget doesn't mean their role is over and it's completely up to the Senate. Both houses still need to negotiate on the total number of budget cuts to be done, which is what is being done right now, although all indicators point to stalemate.

Re:No Force or Effect

[DJRumpy]

Only if the Republican party gains more power in the next election. They currently hold a third of the cards, not the whole deck. I agree it's a bad sign but expected. The republican party has always looked out for business interests and this is no exception.

I'm just surprised that they got 10 Democrats to vote with them. That's just as troubling.

Also, wasn't the FCC key in getting the special treatment these broadband companies now enjoy?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20004392-266.html?tag=mncol;txt

Re:No Force or Effect

[sumdumass]

"Obama's thugs" took nothing away from the intellectual points he made.

While the statement was presented in a confrontational biased light, it still remains factual and correct. Please do not dismiss facts because you don't like who they hurt or how they were mentioned.

Re:No Force or Effect

[sumdumass]

It should be unanimous in the senate too.

The issue is not one of right or wrong with regard to net neutrality here. It's not about protecting the consumer or corporation in the politicians eyes.

It's about a constitutional power given to congress specifically being usurped by the executive and the one thing that congress usually unites on no matter what's at stake, is the retention of their powers.

This really is something that congress will unite on because the underlying fact is not what's trying to be accomplished, but the process that it's being done in.

Re:No Force or Effect

[Grishnakh]

It seems our current House of Representatives thinks that it is good to waste time and money passing House Resolutions defunding or outlawing everything that they don't like, all the while knowing that each resolution they pass has no chance to get past the Senate or the President. Why are they wasting time with this? Isn't there a governmental shutdown deadline this Friday? Shouldn't they be working on the budget instead of killing time with small-fry legislation that goes nowhere?

No, it's more important to do things that look good, while not really changing or improving anything. That's how politicians show their constituents that they're doing something. Obama's a master of this: just look at all his campaign promises that he's broken or succeeded in. The ones he's succeeded with are small-fry stuff that doesn't really affect many people, while all the ones he's broken are the big things (like oh, shutting down Gitmo, getting out of the expensive and useless wars in a timely manner, etc.). It isn't just the Republicans currently in the House that do this, it's ALL politicians. What's funny about Obama is that his supporters will vigorously defend him and his spinelessness and inaction, usually blaming it on the Republicans (even though they were a minority in Congress for two years, during which time the Democrats should have reasonably been able to get through anything they wanted). I'm sure the Republican voters will do the same for these do-nothings in the House right now.

Meanwhile, while the politicians "fight" over small-fry, inconsequential stuff, the deficit goes further and further out of control, while we continue to waste trillions of dollars on useless wars on the opposite side of the planet, bloated and ineffective social programs that pay people to not work and have lots of kids out of wedlock, hand-outs to giant corporations, and a gigantic "war on drugs" that's repeating all the same mistakes as the first Prohibition including making us #1 in per-capita incarceration, which again is highly beneficial to corporations.

Re:No Force or Effect

[AlamedaStone]

Next, they will demand that there be a special provision which makes it illegal to be President if you're black and all muslims required to eat pork chops.

I think facetious and unwarranted accusations of racism ought to be condemned just as harshly as racism itself. Despicable.

Racism has been a powerful tool for Republicans for ... well, ever. Or anyway, at least through the 20th century. Obama birthers are frothing at the mouth based on race, and another fantastic example is immigration debate. I mean, let's be real here: many Americans are pretty effing racist, and Republicans have shown themselves perfectly willing to manipulate their base using any tool available, irrespective of ethical concerns.

A quick summary of every past article on this:

[Anonymous Coward]

'Net Neutrality' doesn't mean what we think it means, the proposed bill doesn't satisfy nerds or corporations, and each side is in the hands of the big businesses anyway.

As an addendum:
  - This isn't really an issue because there is no sign of tiered internet yet anyway
  - Oh wait, there is
  - But this bill wouldn't stop it even if it did pass
  - F*ck.

Re:how did net neutral equate to fairness doctrine

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't bother to find out what it actually means, the term "net neutrality" sounds something like the fairness doctrine. The Republicican base is pretty much defined as those who don't bother to figure stuff out. The GOP knows this, and shamelessly exploits it at every opportunity.

Merger of Corporations and the State

[catchblue22]

When I watch the seemingly flagrant way that Republicans seem to turn away from the Public Good these days, for example in network neutrality, financial regulation, or global warming, I am reminded of this quote

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

I don't like this bill, nor the alternative...?

[asylumx]

I don't think this is the FCC's place, either. They already spend too much time & money deciding what can and can't go on our television and radio airwaves, for example. The FCC should be regulating communication so that providers aren't stepping all over each other's signals and that's pretty much it. Maybe I misunderstand the original intent of the FCC so please correct me if I'm wrong there.

On the other hand, I also don't want Big ISP regulating my internet connection, deciding what I can get and when I can get it. I want an internet connection without artificial limitations. I already pay Comcast far too much for their less-than-consistent service (and the reason I don't switch is because where I am the competitors fastest speeds aren't even close to as good as Comcast's slowest) and I don't need them practically filtering my connection based on how much the company I'm trying to connect to has paid them. I'm already paying Comcast! That's enough!

So... I guess I don't really know where I should stand on this issue. Any advice?

Re:I don't like this bill, nor the alternative...?

[nrozema]

The FCC should be regulating communication so that providers aren't stepping all over each other's signals and that's pretty much it.

I see great overlap between this statement and proposed Net Neutrality regulation. One could argue that ensuring Comcast or any other ISP doesn't "step all over" my clear and unobstructed path to various Internet destinations ("channels") is much the same as doing it for the public airwaves.

The question to answer is whether or not we want to treat the Internet as a shared public resource like we do radio spectrum or a free-for-all controlled by government endorsed regional monopolies.

I hope you like walled gardens..

[hairyfeet]

Because that is exactly what you have without net neutrality. look upon my present and see your future! i'm on Cox (perfect name since they're dicks) and the caps are 36Gb residential, 76Gb commercial and the commercial line is nearly $200 a month, any going over? That's $1.50 per Gb please. Oh and Vonage, Linux and Mac updates? They all count against your cap. The "offerings" by Cox and Windows? they DO NOT.

So I hope you like walled gardens ala the old AOHell, because at $1.50 a Gb it doesn't take too many $200+ bills to put your ass in your place. And before anyone uses the old "vote with your dollars!" meme I'd point out my choices are Cox, AT&T DSL that MAXES at 756Kbps and which they've said they have NO intention of ever upgrading, or a WISP whose security is so damned bad you can surf the shares of everyone on a node through network neighborhood (and the head tech is so dim I never could get him to understand why that's bad, he still swears its a "feature") and who has a worse TOS than HughesNet.

So all you Time Warner and Comcast users, better be filling your boots, your time is running out. Once Cox rolls this out nationwide and the others see they get away with it? that's your ass Mr User, you are well and truly fucked. While the rest of the world surfs the information superhighway we are gonna be on the short bus to walled garden shittown. But hell the corps won't be happy until the USA is a third world country, so why not just pull the plug? More profits in walled gardens anyway!