Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:56 PM ET, 12/16/2010

Sen. Hutchison moves to block funds for FCC on net neutrality rules

By Cecilia Kang


Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), ranking member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee filed an amendment to an appropriations bill aimed at preventing the Federal Communications Commission from adopting net neutrality regulation.

Hutchison's amendment, co-signed by John Ensign (R-Nev.) and six other Republican lawmakers, would "prohibit the FCC from using any appropriated funds to adopt, implement or otherwise litigate any network neutrality based rules, protocols or standards."

An FCC spokeswoman declined comment on the amendment.

The legislation comes from an emboldened Republican party that has taken the majority in House. They have promised to repeal regulations such as open-Internet rules that they say would harm the communications industry's growth and ability to create jobs.

The FCC's five commissioners are deliberating draft rules proposed by Chairman Julius Genachowski that would prevent Internet service providers from blocking access to Web sites or favoring the access to some content over others.

Hutchison's ammendment is to a bill for military and veterans construction projects.

Related stories:
Lawmakers take up debate on net neutrality rules

Net neutrality expected to pass, investment analyst says

Pay as you go Internet prices raises questions

By Cecilia Kang  | December 16, 2010; 5:56 PM ET
Categories:  FCC, Net Neutrality  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rep. Walden tweets in Morse code that he will chair high-tech subcommittee
Next: Comcast asks for limited online video conditions to merger with NBC

Comments

Not surprising 2 Republicans are trying to rig the internet for their corporate overlords (yeah I know it's hyperbolic rhetoric but I couldn't resist... it is after all true).

Posted by: Observer001 | December 16, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse


Hello,

Send Christmas Gifts. Buy more to send. On this site==== == http://www.1shopping.us/ ,

good place for shopping, fashion, sexy, personality, maturity, from here to begin. Are you ready?

===== http://www.1shopping.us/ ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15

New era cap $12

accept paypal and free shipping

====== http://www.1shopping.us/ ====

Posted by: shoestrade1930 | December 16, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Hooray for Senator Hutchinson, R-TX! The FCC has been stopped by courts, twice in efforts to impose regulation of content on the Internet. They do NOT have the power to do so, but they continue to push! Freedom of Speech transcends political affiliation. The actions of the FCC must be carefully monitored, and any attempt to impose "net neutrality" must be exposed and thwarted.

Posted by: oldtexgal | December 16, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Is this the freedom that the Tea Party folk were campaigning for? This just looks like good ol' corporate greed to me.

Posted by: JimZ1 | December 16, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

oldtexgal, how is net neutrality anti free speech?

i'd actually say it's the exact opposite by ensuring that the internet remains as it is and all sites are treated equally by the service providers. service providers shouldnt be able to discriminate against websites. access to espn, washingtonpost, or redstate should be the same. allowing them to discriminate (which they currently can't) reduces freedom of speech.

Posted by: PindarPushkin | December 16, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

One only needs to look for the source of campaign contributions to verify that Republican senators are doing the biding of their money master. Government of the moneyed, for the plutocrats, by the corporate interests.

Posted by: drlatham22 | December 16, 2010 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Better yet, just shut down the FCC. It's a relic — at best, counterproductive; at worst, destructive.

Posted by: thebump | December 16, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Anyone notice that any law that the pubes or their corporate masters oppose these days, their claim is always the same? "It will affect job creation" I'm surprised they haven't rolled it out on DADT! Fricken lying sacks of s#%t!!

Posted by: greg_brockway | December 16, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

oldtexgal's comment shows how effective Repos have been at convincing America that black is white.

Posted by: scientist1 | December 17, 2010 12:24 AM | Report abuse

Most of the world has faster Internet connectivity than the US. Pay as you go pricing will stifle any incentive the cable companies have to catch up. Which is precious little to begin with, since they would like nothing more than to stifle the Internet, as it cuts into their monopoly control on content delivery. And guess which side politicians, both Republican and Democrat, are already lined up on? Hint: they are not lined up on the side of the American people. We can never funnel the amount of cash to them that (for example) Time-Warner can.

Posted by: chaos1 | December 17, 2010 1:04 AM | Report abuse

Note: I had originally tried to post my comment on pay as you go pricing to the article specifically on that topic, but got this message:

Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:

Comments are not allowed on this entry.

This notwithstanding that there was a comment form that accepted my input and other comments were already posted. Post technical staff, take note.

Posted by: chaos1 | December 17, 2010 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Block net neutrality and the following come into play:

Tiered pricing by Internet Service Providers, be they cable, satellite, or telephone company providers will price everyone but the wealthy right off the internet.

This of course is what the cable and satellite companies want, to force more people to pay their exorbitant rates to have movies to watch, rather than let consumers stream off the internet relatively cheaply.

As ticento points out every byte will count against the caps with tiered pricing. The pop ups on websites, the streaming ads, animation, your software updates, everything will count, not to mention the pictures you send/receive to/from your family/friends, every web page you look at, every move you make. You can forget streaming movies from any source, you won't be able to afford the bandwidth.

Same thing applies to streaming music that you have already paid for from a legal site, you will be absolutely amazed how these seemingly small things add up in a huge hurry to the monthly cap you will be forced to pay for.

I'm retired, living on a small fixed income. I am in the habit of streaming movies from Netflix and TV from Hulu because I cannot afford cable or satellite service where I live and over the air TV is inaccessible in the mountains. Those of us up here do not have fast broadband, indeed it is fairly poor as speeds go and we pay 29.00 a month just to have DSL (those of us close enough to a switch which most are not). Everyone else is on dialup and can barely get websites to load, forget streaming movies or music.

Caps would really hurt my ability to get news, purchase things online, stream from Netflix and Hulu, look things up on Google and Wikipedia, look at the weather forecast, do my online banking, especially with all the stuff that comes in from websites unsolicited.

Everyone who runs anti virus software and Media Defender knows those programs update definitions daily. One wonders how many days one could be on the net before being shut off at the cap (provided one can afford to pay at a cap level in the first place).

Our bought and paid for Congress seems to want to penalize consumers and reward big media. Shame on them. How many small content providers will they put out of business? No one will want the ads coming so no one will see them cause they block them. Who will want to pay for internet advertising under those conditions? How many small content providers will cease operations cause they can't sell advertising, even as cheap as it is.

Lets face facts, the economy is bad enough as it is, too many of us have to decide what to give up to have internet service at any level. Raise the prices significantly and you create a huge number of 'have nots'.

The wealthy will always be able to afford what they want.

A good synonym for greed is big media. Another is the U S Congress.

Posted by: fiamma | December 17, 2010 1:53 AM | Report abuse

Right, the FCC in glorious fashion has gone along with decades of commercialization of the electromagnetic
spectrum and now they have a small chance of doing something positive for the little guy/gal. The party that steps in to prevent is the party to wet
nurse the rich. Right.

Posted by: n7uno | December 17, 2010 4:46 AM | Report abuse

Were doomed!

Posted by: shamken | December 17, 2010 6:46 AM | Report abuse

pindarpushkin wrote>>>oldtexgal, how is net neutrality anti free speech?
i'd actually say it's the exact opposite by ensuring that the internet remains as it is and all sites are treated equally by the service providers


It IS the exact opposite - but Frightwing media has duped oldtexgal and other Righties into believing the FCC wants to "take away their freedoms" - when NET NEUTRALITY is the exact opposite!

Yet another reason for Righties to get off the Fox crack and get the Facts!

No doubt, one of Frightwing media's greatest fears is that Righties will join with Democrats in fighting FOR Net Neutrality! - and not allow corporations to hold the keys to the internet.

Posted by: angie12106 | December 17, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

fiamma wrote>>>Our bought and paid for Congress seems to want to penalize consumers and reward big media

Apparently you meant Congressional Republicans since Congressional Democrats are fighting FOR Net Neutrality.

Posted by: angie12106 | December 17, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

The real bad guy here behind Hutchinson is Comcast. This evil giant corp. has a conflict of interest that's unacceptable in light of the gov't subsidies and tax breaks it received for initially running cable connections to homes. Comcast's conflict is between its interest in selling its TV content, and its interest in selling broadband internet service. This is why internet service must be regulated as a telecommunications utility like landline telephones. It is the same thing: signals over landlines. "Tele" = distance; "communication" = transmitting signals. "Durr, okay. But no," says FCC.
The FCC has clear undisputed authority to regulate telecommunications, but only if it classifies the service as such. The problem is that the Repubs in the FCC refuse to classify pure internet transmission (communicating the signal packets, regardless of content) as telecommunications. This defies logic and this is the thing that needs changing by Congress.

Or hey, let's blame it on the President, like they did Hurricane Katrina. Yes, I see it now, it's the President who caused millions to live in a sinking sandpit vulnerable to storm surges. It's so simple. :)

Posted by: Religulosity | December 17, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

We know that these two are owned by business and not the people.

Posted by: MARKHAGNER | December 17, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

"Net Neutrality" is an orwellian term that doesn't mean what it connotes. Oppose it unless you want the Internet to become another regulated tool of the government and the current party in power.

Posted by: DoTheRightThing | December 17, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

you have to wonder how much 'undocumented' campaign 'donations' er bribes she and the Party of the Corporations (used to be the Party of Lincoln) have pocketed from ComBlast and Verizon, etc. Too bad we don't have a "Wikileak" about that hmmm? jccampb

Posted by: jccampb | December 17, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

you have to wonder how much 'undocumented' campaign 'donations' er bribes she and the Party of the Corporations (used to be the Party of Lincoln) have pocketed from ComBlast and Verizon, etc. Too bad we don't have a "Wikileak" about that hmmm? jccampb

Posted by: jccampb | December 17, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Here we go again with that same Bush-era republican shenanigans in Congress to control the airwaves and the internet by making it the next CASH COW FOR THE COMMUNICATION INDUSTRY. They are not satisfied with getting enormous tax cuts for 12 years straight and an estate tax cut, but now want to make more money at the expense of the American public once again by cutting funding for the FCC to fight the giant communications industry giants by sneaking in this amendment pass the American public by attaching it to a military construction project bill. HOW SHAMEFUL AND DISGUSTING CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE, BUT EVERYONE WHO VOTED FOR THESE DEMONS IN CONGRESS SHOULD BE THE ONES SUFFERING, NOT EVERYDAY HARDWORKING AMERICANS, struggling to survive in the midst of unbridled greed and corruption mirroring that of the 1920s. We have Al Capone and his friends in Congress passing themselves off as upstanding citizens, but watch their actions -- they just don't have a machine gun in their hands, but their actions are just like any notorious gangster. Watch them steamroll America and the U.S. Treasury in the process.

Posted by: hotezzy | December 17, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

OK. All of you for net-neutrality explain one simple thing to me. If bandwidth demands of streaming video start pushing 50% or more, who is supposed to pay for upgrading the infrastructure of the internet to support that growth? Tiered pricing allows those who are consuming most of the resources to PAY for using them. That is the only way progress can happen. There is no magic fairy going to make it magically happen. It has to paid for by someone. All of you for net-neutrality must think it'd be OK for you to use as much gasoline or heating oil or electricity as you want for an unvarying "low monthly fee".

If the lame Obama administration had used say $200 billion of the failed stimulus in wiring the country with fiber optic cable, or at least more backbones for providing faster service with more bandwidth, even Republicans would have approved of it. Unfortunately, they did not.

Posted by: moonwatcher2001 | December 17, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Dear Senator Hutchison,

You represent the ideals and aims that level headed citizens find offensive.

Texas sent you to the Senate to represent the interests of the people not of certain business interests.

Posted by: mbudnick1 | December 17, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

eliminating net neutrality (since currently we are operating under net neutrality standards) would stifle innovation and impose significant burdens on small businesses. start ups would be discriminated against in the form of massively increased costs. service providers are not hurting economically. there are already good incentives for increasing bandwidth, the market is working. if we stifle small businesses we stifle job growth and lose economic innovation. if we stifle individual speech by making it not equal we lose intellectual innovation.


republicans got just as much crappy pork
in the crappy stimulus bill as democrats. blame congress for wasting the stimulus, blame obama for letting them and blame the republicans for lying about their active complicity.

Posted by: PindarPushkin | December 17, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Want to know what a futuristic, controlled Orwellian society looks like?

You don't have to imagine, it's here.

Which party is systematically dismantling the middle class?

The justifications the Republicans come up with for exploiting us would be laughable if it wasn't so scary how easily people swallow up this nonsense as evidenced by comments in this section.

Posted by: rjberka | December 17, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

It figures that Hutchison & Ensign are the SCUM BAGS THAT ARE TRAITORS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!

WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO TRADERS IN THE END TOO...I HOPE THEY GET THEIRS SOONER RATHER THAN LATER!

YOU CAN NEVER TRUST A REPUBLICAN EVER AGAIN...THE WHOLE REPUBLICAN PARTY ARE SCUM OF THE EARTH & TRAITORS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!

Posted by: imZandor | December 17, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

It figures that Hutchison & Ensign are the SCUM BAGS THAT ARE TRAITORS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!

WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO TRADERS IN THE END TOO...I HOPE THEY GET THEIRS SOONER RATHER THAN LATER!

YOU CAN NEVER TRUST A REPUBLICAN EVER AGAIN...THE WHOLE REPUBLICAN PARTY ARE SCUM OF THE EARTH & TRAITORS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!

IT'S TIME TO RUN THE REPUBLICANS OUT OF TOWN ON A RAIL...IN TAR & FEATHERS AS AN EXAMPLE TO OTHER POLITICIANS WHO CHOOSE TO BETRAY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR PERSONAL GAIN!

Posted by: imZandor | December 17, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Cecilia Kang, Google's Reporter and Lobbyist at The Post, again trumpets advertiser Google's corporate agenda by falsely claiming that regulation of the Internet would be beneficial to consumers. The fact is that such regulation would harm the public in every conceivable way: higher prices, lower quality of service, less competition, less availability. But Ms. Kang seems only to care about biasing the news so as to please her corporate sponsor Google, whose monopolies would benefit from the restrictive and unnecessary rules. Time for The Post to drop Ms. Kang and allow her to move on to a position at Google or one of its astroturf lobbying firms in DC.

Posted by: LBrettGlass | December 17, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Hey, you idiot repugs - you actually WANT to pay more for going online???

You are truly beyond stupid.

You love corporations so much that you want to pay them more and more for less and less of everything.

MORONS.

Posted by: solsticebelle | December 17, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Hey, you idiot repugs - you actually WANT to pay more for going online???

You are truly beyond stupid.

You love corporations so much that you want to pay them more and more for less and less of everything.

MORONS.

Posted by: solsticebelle | December 17, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Dear Senator Hutchison,

You represent the ideals and aims that level headed citizens find offensive.

Texas sent you to the Senate to represent the interests of the people not of certain business interests.

Posted by: mbudnick1 | December 17, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Hey solsticebelle, OK, WHO is going to pay the money necessary to beef up the internet infrastructure? I guess the com companies could just let it get so bogged down that the flow of information and emails just stops. Who would that benefit? Tiered pricing is already here, and is here to stay. Even the Democrats' FCC commissioner is not opposed to that. TANSTAAFL. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Posted by: moonwatcher2001 | December 17, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Everyone needs to read Tim Wu's The Master Switch! Read the history of how cyclical all of this current conversation regarding control of the web really is.....So many of the above comments regarding the FCC and their affiliation with telecomms is true. Net neutrality is absolutely essential, but the devil will be in the details.

Posted by: dleithaus | December 17, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: oldtexgal:

Hooray for Senator Hutchinson, R-TX! The FCC has been stopped by courts, twice in efforts to impose regulation of content on the Internet. They do NOT have the power to do so, but they continue to push! Freedom of Speech transcends political affiliation. The actions of the FCC must be carefully monitored, and any attempt to impose "net neutrality" must be exposed and thwarted.
---------------
Not sure if you've read about Net Neutrality, but the proposed FCC regulation isn't about regulating content, it is about regulating how providers can limit their own content and bandwidth to paying customers, thereby turning the Internet as we currently know it into an extension of cable TV. If you've got plenty of $ to pay for your content, then you have nothing to worry about. For the rest of us, it is a big issue.

This isn't an issue of Freedom of Speech either... The Cable companies have that, we don't.

Posted by: jgmann | December 17, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

The last thing on earth we need to do is to let dimwitted bureaucrats and left-wing law professors make engineering decisions and strangle innovation.

Shut down the FCC.

Posted by: thebump | December 17, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Hey moonwatcher2001,
Please do yourself a favor and actually educate yourself about Net Neutrality before posting your badly uninformed opinions. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with capacity. The rules being debated have everything to do with maintaining EQUAL access for everyone, including small companies. NN was designed to ensure companies like Comcast do not make exclusive deals to grant Company X's traffic priority over every other packet traversing the part of the Internet under their control. Once we go down that path, there is nothing to stop Comcast or Verizon or AT&T from stopping traffic until a company or individual pays extra fees, usually through the nose.

Posted by: blbower | December 17, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

blbower, you stated, "under their control". OK, why is it under their control? Because THEY paid for the construction of that infrastructure and deserve to be compensated for that and for it's upkeep. If that infrastructure starts getting swamped due to Netflix, Vudu, Amazon On Demand, and even YouTube, then somebody has to pay to upgrade that infrastructure in order to support that amount of data transfer. Once again, all you pro-NN people expect someone else to pay for your entertainment choices. Get a life. If companies can charge a bit extra and it allows them to invest in making the internet faster and fatter, everyone benefits. And come on, yes costs might go up for some heavy users, but for others mainly using email and doing some browsing, costs could go down. The companies aren't going to price it such that they lose subscribers. There will be a price point at which they can maximize profits and subscribers. That is simply supply and demand at work. Life will go on. The sky will not fall.

Posted by: moonwatcher2001 | December 17, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

thebump - we currently operate under net neutrality rules and innovation has flourished. removing those rules and allowing discrimination would stifle innovation not increase it.

moonwatcher - service providers will upgrade their infrastructure without this because they need to maintain customers and want to increase them. they will then pass these costs onto customers just as they do now. just as dialup begat dsl begat cable begat fios. the internet is currently as close to an actual free market as we have. eliminating net neutrality distorts the market and will make it less efficient by imposing increased and complex regulations (the current regulation is a pretty simple rule) and eliminating the market incentive for infrastructure improvement.

Posted by: PindarPushkin | December 17, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Pindar - you have no idea what you're talking about. There are no "net neutrality rules." Innovation has flourished because there ARE NO RULES, and till now there has been a strong consensus that the political elite and assorted busybodies need to keep their cotton-pickin' HANDS OFF.

Posted by: thebump | December 17, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

actually bump there is one rule. you cant discriminate among websites. currently the sort of discrimination proposed by the anti net-neutrality folks is not allowed. the pro net-neutrality side of the argument is trying to keep things as they are now while the anti side is trying to change things. pro net neutrality wants to keep the internet like the phone system (all numbers are given equal treatment) while anti net neutrality wants to make it like cable tv (some channels are given priority). all net neutrality does is codify the current system.

Posted by: PindarPushkin | December 17, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

PindarPushkin, I hope you are right. My point is that infrastructure has to be paid for. It doesn't drop from the sky like mana from heaven. Companies have invested in their infrastructure to obstensibly service their own customers, not other people who are not a revenue source for them. Expecting the companies to shoulder a bandwidth burden without getting compensation for it is incredibly naive. If you want all bits to be treated the same, then tiered pricing is the only thing that makes any sense or seems workable. All those pushing NN still haven't come up with a real-world business solution to the problem of all the increase in data traffic due to high definition video delivery.

Posted by: moonwatcher2001 | December 17, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Pindar, I don't need you to explain the concept to me, because you don't know what you're talking about.

Posted by: thebump | December 17, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

moonwatcher - i understand your point but i tend to think that the providers are overstating their hardship and are just looking for easy money that would come at the detriment of individual consumers and small businesses (things would be more homogenized and big business oriented). there currently is tiered pricing for download speed and i see nothing wrong with that. heavy streaming will require faster speeds which will require infrastructure improvements. to get the higher speeds people will pay more which will pay for the infrastructure (combined with tax incentives for investment). competition will make them respond and invest instead of pocketing the profits.

removing the principle of neutrality eliminates the incentive to invest by allowing them to discriminate and bring in fees from big players. increased profits bring in more money while ghettoization of sites allows them to preserve speeds without infrastructure investment. theoretically they would have more money to invest but there would be less incentive to do so at the cost of removing the very thing that has made the internet such an innovative force (equality of access).

Posted by: PindarPushkin | December 17, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Bump - it is not at all apparent that you have any idea what the issue is about so forgive me if your statements made it appear as if you needed some basic remedial information on the issue.

maybe it just comes down which innovation one thinks is more important, content or delivery and whether one thinks that definitely sacrificing one for potentially improving the other is, on the whole and from a public policy perspective, worth it or not. like it or not this is a defining issue for the future of the internet, do we keep things as they are or do we try and change them.

Posted by: PindarPushkin | December 17, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Wow...

...this is a real coin-toss!

On the one hand, each political party will attempt to use any internet control to block the other party's propaganda when either has enough of a majority to do so.

On the other, my Charter cable and internet was $68 2.5 years ago and went to $120 this month.

Posted by: deadmanwalking | December 17, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Wow...

...this is a real coin-toss!

On the one hand, each political party will attempt to use any internet control to block the other party's propaganda when either has enough of a majority to do so.

On the other, my Charter cable and internet was $68 2.5 years ago and went to $120 this month.

Posted by: deadmanwalking | December 17, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Rabid reactionary radical conservatism can only be maintained in an atmosphere of ignorance on the part of the populace. Any pathway to enlightenment must be stopped!

Posted by: rsh43 | December 17, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Yes, we Texans sent Kay Bailey Hutchinson to the Senate, and now I'm proud that we did. We conservatives are not "owned" by anyone. We're free, and we want the FCC, like all government agencies, kept in check--or socialists will succeed in damaging the true American spirit.

Posted by: Forward11 | December 17, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Perfect! This is just what we need... the telecom companies who had their networks subsidized by the government in 1994 to build broadband networks can do as they wish.

They can charge content creators money to have their data delivered over their networks.

Hopefully as a stockholder in one of these telecom companies I will make more money as they will begin to charge people for metered internet usage.

Only problem is my Netflix bill will probably skyrocket.

Posted by: getjiggly2 | December 17, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

When the FCC makes regulations to KEEP our Internet Free from Comcast, Google, etc. CONTROL it Ain't Orwell's Big Brotherhood,. . . GOP dummies, It's same as the FDA protecting us from poisons in food and water - protection that is certainly needed!

Geeze- Corporate owned Congress (GOP & Blue Dog Democrats).

Posted by: lufrank1 | December 17, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: oldtexgal
". . .The actions of the FCC must be carefully monitored, and any attempt to impose "net neutrality" must be exposed and thwarted. "

Au contraire, oldtexgal, We need to have the FCC to keep Comcast, Verizon, Google, etc. from CHOOSING what is available and not available on (what should be) OUR Public internet!

Geeze! Wall street has announced current bonuses and perks for their executives to be $143,000,000,000 BILLION THIS YEAR!
That would TOTALLY pay for the 2011 tax shortfall OF ALL 50 STATES, and dramatically raise employment!

Wouldn't it be GREAT for OUR nation if people like you and your backward State helped to imposed at least SOME degree of regulation of immoral Wall Street and other Immoral Corporations- instead of literally being OWNED slaves to such Donors!
Hutchison = just as destructive as Phil Graham and Tom Delay, and Blue Dog Democrats.

Posted by: lufrank1 | December 17, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

ATTACK OF THE GOP POLITICAL HACKS

Like a smudged and grainy B-movie, the Bush-era GOP political hacks are at it again-- this time, the cast includes Sen. John Ensign (R, AZ), demoted to second mate, and Sen. Hutchinson (R, KS), a confirmed, wholly-owned subsidiary of corporate oligarchy.

Their playbill is titled, "Freedom"-- but freedom for whom? More to the point, whose freedom is at stake? Hypocritically, Ensign and Hutchinson would insist all Americans have equal freedom, but some are more equal than others.

The GOP bozos whining, Glenn Beck-style, about "tyranny" from Commissioner Genachowski should remember it was the GOP, and no other party, which brought this country the most damaging regime of Big Brother ever seen in this country.

Yes, there was torture, all manner of malfeasance, high crimes and misdemeanors under the fig leaf of "secrecy", spying on our private conversations (with help from AT&T, BellSouth, SBC, Verizon, Cingular (owned by AT&T and BellSouth) and MCI (owned by Verizon)), rampant banana-republic corruption with government contracts, and a Nixon-style imperial executive.

At stake is the freedom of the American people to a free and open internet. At the creation of the FCC in 1934, we were reminded the public interest-- not private interests of Verizon and SBC/AT&T-- is always paramount.

A salute to Commissioner Genachowski and our other officials who remain true to their office, and keep the internet free and open for all Americans.

Posted by: alphaa10 | December 18, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

GOP CAPTIVE INTERNET DEFIES LOGIC

Religulosity said, "... The FCC has clear undisputed authority to regulate telecommunications... the problem is that the Repubs in the FCC refuse to classify pure internet transmission (communicating the signal packets, regardless of content) as telecommunications. This defies logic and this is the thing that needs changing by Congress..."
---

Exactly. The GOP is slavering lapdog to a narrow, hyper-wealthy cabal with the cash to fund its next campaign.

Accordingly, the GOP will do anything and say anything for which it is paid by wealthy corporate interests.

Interestingly, that isolates the GOP even further from the great majority of the American people.

As if by design, the Great Recession of 2007 was a gift from this same party of lessez faire economics and public policy-- as if in a botched public relations campaign titled, "See What Our Unregulated Free Market Can Do!"

The recovery of some 10 million working-class American jobs costs reinvestment money, but after Bush left us with a $10.7 trillion national debt, the GOP forgot all about that and has campaigned for what it calls "fiscal austerity".

Hypocritically enough, the GOP even held extension of jobless benefits hostage to its demand for tax cuts for the rich (adding more than $1 trillion greater deficit over 10 years).

Nor will the GOP so much as pay attention to the overwhelming need of Americans for a free and open internet-- not even to look for jobs.

Posted by: alphaa10 | December 18, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

ATTACK OF THE GOP POLITICAL HACKS

Like a smudged and grainy B-movie, the Bush-era GOP political hacks are at it again-- this time, the cast includes Sen. John Ensign (R, NV), demoted to second mate, and Sen. Hutchinson (R, TX), a confirmed, wholly-owned subsidiary of corporate oligarchy.

Their playbill is titled, "Freedom"-- but freedom for whom? More to the point, whose freedom is at stake? Hypocritically, Ensign and Hutchinson would insist all Americans have equal freedom, but some are more equal than others.

The GOP bozos whining, Glenn Beck-style, about "tyranny" from Commissioner Genachowski should remember it was the GOP, and no other party, which brought this country the most damaging regime of Big Brother ever seen in this country.

Yes, there was torture, all manner of malfeasance, high crimes and misdemeanors under the figleaf of "secrecy", spying on our private conversations (with help from AT&T, BellSouth, SBC, Verizon, Cingular (owned by AT&T and BellSouth) and MCI (owned by Verizon)), rampant banana-republic corruption with government contracts, and a Nixon-style imperial executive.

At stake is the freedom of the American people to a free and open internet. At the creation of the FCC in 1934, we were reminded the public interest-- not private interests of Verizon and SBC/AT&T-- is always paramount.

A salute to Commissioner Genachowski and our other officials who remain true to their office, and keep the internet free and open for all Americans.

Posted by: alphaa10 | December 18, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

ATTACK OF THE GOP POLITICAL HACKS

Like a smudged and grainy B-movie, the Bush-era GOP political hacks are at it again-- this time, the cast includes Sen. John Ensign (R, NV), demoted to second mate, and Sen. Hutchinson (R, TX), a confirmed, wholly-owned subsidiary of corporate oligarchy.

Their playbill is titled, "Freedom"-- but freedom for whom? More to the point, whose freedom is at stake? Hypocritically, Ensign and Hutchinson would insist all Americans have equal freedom, but some are more equal than others.

The GOP bozos whining, Glenn Beck-style, about "tyranny" from Commissioner Genachowski should remember it was the GOP, and no other party, which brought this country the most damaging regime of Big Brother ever seen in this country.

Yes, there was torture, all manner of malfeasance, high crimes and misdemeanors under the figleaf of "secrecy", spying on our private conversations (with help from AT&T, BellSouth, SBC, Verizon, Cingular (owned by AT&T and BellSouth) and MCI (owned by Verizon)), rampant banana-republic corruption with government contracts, and a Nixon-style imperial executive.

At stake is the freedom of the American people to a free and open internet. At the creation of the FCC in 1934, we were reminded the public interest-- not private interests of Verizon and SBC/AT&T-- is always paramount.

A salute to Commissioner Genachowski and our other officials who remain true to their office, and keep the internet free and open for all Americans.

Posted by: alphaa10 | December 18, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Only FASCISTS hate internet freedom!

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | December 22, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Hutchinson's allegiance and grandstanding for a communications giant (Verizon), who has a huge corporate presence in Texas shouldn't come as a surprise. When politicians like Ms. Hutchinson are regularly bought and paid for by these mega corporations, who also would love to control your Internet, the public's interests are going to suffer.

Deep pocketed corporate behemoths, after buying their favorite politician, are even frequently invited to sit at the table when the rules are written. Surprise. Surprise. Who do you think benefits most with this kind of arrangement? Something about this smells like day old fish.

Senator Hutchinson's recent kowtow to Verizon (and other communications giants) is obvious. Her announcement of this blocking amendment appears to be just a quick public reassurance to Verizon, “Hey, I'm looking out for you... and by-the-way...thanks again for all those campaign contributions.” Shameless. Another shill pretending to represent the American people. Barf!

Where's 60 Minutes when you need them?

Posted by: FlarkDunro | December 22, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company