Slashdot Mirror
FCC Republicans Refused To Give Congress Net Neutrality Documents (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The two Republican members of the Federal Communications Commission have refused to give Congress documents needed to complete an investigation into the FCC's net neutrality rule-making process, according to a lawmaker. "Your refusal to cooperate with the Committee's request is unacceptable, it obstructs our investigation, and it prevents the Committee from having a complete or accurate understanding of the circumstances surrounding this rulemaking," U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) wrote in a letter to FCC Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly yesterday. There are "serious questions" about "Pai's efforts to organize opposition to the proposed rule with outside parties," Cummings' office said in a related press release. "Pai previously worked as associate general counsel for Verizon, one of the major opponents of the open Internet policy, and he reportedly 'enjoys the support of conservative think tanks like the Phoenix Center, the Free State Foundation and TechFreedom,'" the press release said. O'Rielly wrote an op-ed on the net neutrality rules in 2014, but only after he "sought edits on [the] draft op-ed from three individuals outside the FCC with professional interests that could be affected by the rule," the press release said. The Republican lawmakers claimed that President Obama had "an improper influence" over the FCC's decision and demanded documentation of all communication between FCC personnel and the White House, as well as calendar appointments, visitor logs, and meeting minutes related to meetings with the White House, plus all internal documents discussing the views and recommendations of the White House. They also asked for all documents and e-mails related to views of FCC personnel about the net neutrality proceeding. A Cummings staff member told Ars that the "request has the backing of the full committee and all the enforcement mechanisms the committee has, including issuing a subpoena." The committee has schedule a hearing for September 27 on the status of outstanding document requests to different federal agencies, and could seek updates on the requests to the two Republican FCC commissioners at this hearing, a Democratic aide for the Oversight Committee also said.
GOP has been investigating the hell out of Hillary's emails and boogers for the last 3 years. At least return the favor.
Table-ized A.I.
No matter where you are on the political spectrum, you have to admit to the obstructionism which the Republicans have used over the last 8 years.
This has effectively meant that nothing has been done (mostly) except the bare minimum, for the last 8 years. Now we see it in this particular issue- which should be considered by people in the "IT world" to be a primary issue: Net Neutrality.
It's like this: Without net neutrality the Internet becomes a walled garden for businesses who are already there. Which is good for those businesses. But it's also bad for consumers. You see it now with veiled attempts at cutting out media providers through data caps. If this issue is not resolved in favor of a level playing field or all involved- the promise of the internet could be lost in this country.
Which is to say- whatever services you use over your connection- will be those mandated by whomever has the power that week to reach customers at the lowest cost.
And guess what: It won't be the startups. That is a problem.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Srsly, why isn't this considered an acceptable option to this crap? It seems to happen every other month with each party simply refusing to give documents and testimony to investigating committees, then everyone bitches and moans and lets it go.
Why are there not more findings of Contempt of Congress, and why is Contempt of Congress seemingly punished with a slap on the wrist?
Don't threaten to daydream about thinking about maybe issuing a subpoena.
Issue the fucking subpeona. When he doesn't immediately comply, charge him with inherent contempt of congress and have the sergeant-at-arms drag him forcibly in front of the committee to answer questions and jail him if he doesn't comply.
Congress really ought to build a Plexiglas jail cell in the Capitol visitor center specifically for government officials who refuse to recognize the subpoena authority of congress. Nothing would compel their compliance more than knowing that the alternative outcome may be high visibility detention facility where tourists come to learn about the many powers of the US Congress.
*sigh
Throw the assholes in jail.
Seconded. And let's figure out who has been bribing them and throw them in jail too. I'm sick of every single government agency being completely crippled by internal corruption.
It seems you haven't been paying attention for the last 8 years or so.
Pretty sure DC would have to build more jail cells. Figure at least 2/3 of each party plus half of the various alphabet agencies based in DC gets thrown in the slammer.
Indeed. It is my understanding that the US Congress inherited the British Parliament's right to find someone in contempt, and to indeed throw them in prison should they continue to refuse Congress's request.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It would give the Sergeant at arms something to do. Technically speaking, you could just find an empty meeting room, post armed guards at the door, it doesn't have to be an actual lock up.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Even then nothing could be done without a filibuster proof majority. When in the minority the republicans waged the filibuster to block just about everything. While both parties make use of it, the republicans brought it to a whole new level. The whole art of compromise has been lost to them. It's either give me everything I want or nothing.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Actually- it was only two terms of congress. 2 years- which you are referring to.
If you think it's a lie- then you and I have a different understanding of what truth is. That legislation was blocked because of amendments by the Republicans.
Why is your party holding hostage legislation by amending it with items that the Democrats would not pass? That seems obstructionist to me.
I'll answer the question for you: Because they can whine (like you) in the press and on comment sections- about how the Democrats torpedoed Zika legislation.
And why not? It's good for the Republican base- because they really don't care about anything that doesn't fit their agenda. It's good for the party because they can wave the flag about "stopping the evil Democrats".
And whether it's either party doing this- I don't care. Compromise is the core of constitutionality in the United States. THIS obstructionist move is the fault of Republicans.
You've also made the mistake of thinking I'm partisan. I'm not. But you need to call anyone who disagrees with you a Democrat.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Why are there not more findings of Contempt of Congress, and why is Contempt of Congress seemingly punished with a slap on the wrist?
For the same reason that incoming presidents have a tendency to pardon and/or overlook the crimes of outgoing ones. Any politician who reminds people that their peers can actually be punished, might eventually find themselves facing punishment too. Can't have that. Much easier to "live and let live."
If I may quote from a previous generation "Give me liberty or give me death!".
If I may quote, then "While he loved liberty, he detested the crimes that had been committed in its name."
The Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority (barely) for about 5 months between the time Al Franken was sworn in and Ted Kennedy died.
That was it. And there are more obstruction techniques than just filibustering.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.