Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 7:05 PM ET, 02/17/2011

House votes to stop FCC funding for net neutrality

By Cecilia Kang

House Republicans voted Thursday to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from using funds to carry out net neutrality regulations created last December.

The vote was on an amendment to the continuing resolution introduced earlier this week by Communications and Technology subcommittee chairman Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.).

Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and John Ensign (R-Nev.) on Wednesday introduced a similar amendment aimed to knock down the FCC's rules that prohibit Internet service providers from blocking or arbitrarily slowing traffic on their networks. Ultimately, the amendment needs to pass both chambers and not be vetoed by President Obama.

“We all want an open and thriving Internet. That Internet exists today. Consumers can access anything they want with the click of a mouse thanks to our historical hands-off approach,” Walden said in a release. “I am pleased that my colleagues in the House accepted my amendment to ensure the FCC does not have the funds to implement the controversial Internet regulations.”

Related story:
FCC defends net neutrality to lawmakers

By Cecilia Kang  | February 17, 2011; 7:05 PM ET
Categories:  FCC, Net Neutrality  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Apple iPhone game maker changes in-app disclosure after parents' ire
Next: At Obama's private meeting with high-tech execs, even Twitter couldn't tweet

Comments

Republicans led by Kay Hutchison (R-Texas) are trying kill Fairness regulations. If such regulations are defeated, big companies who own ISP's would completely control the content of what we see on the internet. Once again, republicans are trying to control what's allowed in your home.

Keep in mind that their argument would pave the way for ISP's to block ANY content they wished. Now imagine a Chinese company buying your ISP? Once again by defending corporate interests over our freedoms the republicans inadvertently would allow the potential for foreign influence. Freedom of the internet is a security issue. Please help stop the republicans! WRITE TO YOUR CONGRESS REPRESENTATIVE/SENATOR – TELL THEM TO SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY – or we will all be in trouble.

Posted by: steve13 | February 17, 2011 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Republicans led by Kay Hutchison (R-Texas) are trying kill Fairness regulations. If such regulations are defeated, big companies who own ISP's would completely control the content of what we see on the internet. Once again, republicans are trying to control what's allowed in your home.

>>Who is controlling the content we see now on the internet? What cave did you just crawl out of? I can see whatever I want on the internet now. I say whatever I want on the internet. I can post antiGovernment opinions on the internet. I can read anti-Obama news if I want to. I can also choose whatever news organization I want to read. What control are you talking about? The fairness doctrine is the very control you speak of. The government is the enemy of internet freedom. I wonder which ideology or political faction will get to decide what is fair. The only fair internet is a completely open, unregulated internet service, wherein you can say, or post whatever you want, regardless of whom it offends....including politicians. The Liberals and Socialists just want to control the internet and restrict everything but their own propaganda. Right now, thank God, the internet is what has allowed the people to organize and neuter the Democrat's and expose them for the liars they are. It is also what helped to expose the truth about ACORN and Planned Parenthood and that is what people like you can't stand. You want the freedom to silence dissent, which by the way is coming from the majority, and prevent groups like the Tea Party from being able to see, for themselves, that they are gaining momentum. You just can't fool all of the people all of the time, even when the mainstream media continues to try through all forms of media...including, speak of the Devil, the Internet. Thank God for the Internet and for freedom. Death to Socialism in all forms!

Posted by: GaboonViper67 | February 17, 2011 10:36 PM | Report abuse

@Gaboon,
Do you really think the internet is always going to be "free" - give us a break! You know corporate interests ALWAYS seek to control any media outlet (look at NewsCorp/Foxnews). Just because it's "free" now doesn't always mean it's always going to be that way. If our elected officials don't stand up for our freedom, I can GUARANTEE you that large corporations won't do it! My god, get a grip on reality, please!

Posted by: steve13 | February 17, 2011 10:50 PM | Report abuse

@Gaboon
You know the Tea Party should be heavily in favor of preserving OUR freedom to view anything we want on the internet, why would Tea Parties give the keys of the internet over to the corporations? That's just socialism with a different name my friend.

You and I should be doing EVERYTHING possible to keep the internet free from ANYONE limiting content. If a law is needed to protect my freedom, then PASS THE LAW!

Also, do you know who limits internet content now? The Chinese, the South Koreans, the Iranians!!! How could you want that????? Pass a law/reg to prevent it and it's one more roadblock against foreign government/companies taking over the internet. I don't get WHY you don't see that????

Posted by: steve13 | February 17, 2011 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Please help stop the republicans! WRITE TO YOUR CONGRESS REPRESENTATIVE/SENATOR – TELL THEM TO SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY – or we will all be in trouble.

>>On the contrary...you Socialists and Progressives are in trouble; not all. Because you won't be able to block out dissenting views. Die Socialism....DIE!

Posted by: GaboonViper67 | February 18, 2011 12:09 AM | Report abuse

@Gaboon
Ok. Now you just see what happens when your ISP starts filtering content, you'll turn into, well, a FoxNews watcher (Fair and Balanced!). lol

Posted by: steve13 | February 18, 2011 12:25 AM | Report abuse


The problem is not only freedom of speach and information on the Internet but how much you pay or how many MPS you can have. If you use more bandwith, you maybe charged more or your access could be limited so you cannot have the desired access.
Remember that in the US our bandwith is very low compared to places like Japan or Korea and the ISP companies are there to maximize their profits and minimize the costs. This translates into lower service. Instead of investing in bandwith, the service providers are trying to restrict the access and that is what the Republicans are voting to approve.
Who says that this is freedom.

Posted by: 51magog | February 18, 2011 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Isn't is just like the Republicans to say they are for free access then vote to give control of that access to big business. Just how dumb do they think we are?

Posted by: moke1 | February 18, 2011 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Please help stop the republicans! WRITE TO YOUR CONGRESS REPRESENTATIVE/SENATOR – TELL THEM TO SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY – or we will all be in trouble.

>>On the contrary...you Socialists and Progressives are in trouble; not all. Because you won't be able to block out dissenting views. Die Socialism....DIE!

Posted by: GaboonViper67 | February 18, 2011 12:09 AM | Report abuse

net neutrality prevents the isp from blocking content if the repubs have their way then the provider can block whatever they want including your opinion

Posted by: RalphE2 | February 18, 2011 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Crushing liberal fascism must be every real American's goal. I am encouraged by the House pulling the plug on the communist propaganda mechanism called "net neutrality". But in order to guarantee freedom of communications, we need Radio Free America. Radio Free America will be a privately owned network of satellites that will provide all forms of electronic media: TV, radio, internet, telephone, email, etc. It will be encrypted and totally immune to government regulation , control, or spying. Only with Radio Free America can we stop the communists from further controlling the media.

Posted by: doctorfixit | February 18, 2011 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm - so Net Neutrality which defines all Internet traffic as equal - preventing the ISPs from filtering or degrading service for types of traffic of thier choosing is communistic or fascist? And allowing the ISPs to control what you access on the internet is Freedom? I must have an old libral dictionary that would suggest the reverse.

Posted by: moke1 | February 18, 2011 3:08 PM | Report abuse

This is ridiculous. I really hope the president vetoes this when the time comes. There is no excuse for handing over our freedom of internet access to Internet Service Providers. Pathetic. I realize the internet is not free, but there's other ways to save money besides cutting down bandwidth. Of course its in the best interest of ISP's to provide minimal services on maximum profits.

Posted by: coldfusion1787 | February 19, 2011 1:52 AM | Report abuse

Verizon Pay Per View Internet Coming to you!

Basic package: Only $39 per month
Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay

Premium Package: $99
Google, Facebook,Amazon, eBay
Blogger, Gawker, Fox News, Gizmodo

Gold Package: $122
...you get the idea

Posted by: RJ24 | February 19, 2011 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Anyone that doesn't like their ISP is free to get an account someplace else. The FCC has no business trying to tell me how to prioritize the internet traffic on my network.
Get this through your heads folks - ISPs MUST prioritize traffic to be able to give your real time data (like Phone calls) priority over streaming video or file downloads. Comcast or Verizon throttling down people downloading illegal movies and crap to make sure that their VOIP service and your other services run OK is NOT 'internet censorship'.

Posted by: dhbarr | February 19, 2011 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Let me guess. The GOP wants to have a way to keep the internet free and open. Have they learned the dangers of a free and open internet from the events in Egypt?

Posted by: abbydelabbey | February 19, 2011 2:56 PM | Report abuse

You are confused dhbarr, the FCC is trying to prevent Verizon/Comcast/Cox from blocking access to websites. What should any ISP get to choose which websites I'm allowed to see? It has nothing to do with better service. Companies like Verizon are looking for ways to get more money out of their users. And if the big cable/phone companies get their way, they will be able to offer levels of service for the internet, just like the mobile service contracts and cable contracts.

Posted by: RJ24 | February 19, 2011 4:12 PM | Report abuse

The Internet is a public resource, and as with water and air, our government has proven far better than corporations at managing resources that benefit America's citizens.

Try flying this effort under the free market umbrella, but it is obvious that corporate ISP's will benefit far more from controlling Internet traffic than the American public.

It is extremely difficult to believe that anyone can see this as anything other than the direct result of corporate campaign/lobbying contributions, and our politicians profitable worship of corporate America.

Posted by: sbonnet | February 19, 2011 5:08 PM | Report abuse

The FCC, being a government agency under the Executive Branch, has no authority over anything unless Congress authorizes it. Congress has not authorized the FCC as having authority over the internet. The fact that it insists on attempting to establish same suggests one of two possibilities, either the Chairman is overly concerned with ensuring the internet remains free and open or the Chairman is overly concerned with establishing power over the internet and thus having incredibly powerful influence over the trillion dollar economy that flows through it.

The FDA is a good example of why giving that much power to one man or one agency is a very bad idea.

It constitutes Oppression to unlawfully assert authority over another when no such authority exists. I think the Justice Department, despite it's lack of ethics, should investigate the FCC. Since both are under the Executive Branch, I won't hold my breath.

The internet is a very good example of free market efficiency in action. It's also a very good example of rampant crime in action. The free market part produces prices that are about as low as anyone is willing to ask for a good or service. The rampant crime part produces material risk that the good or service will be legitimate.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The bad goes with the good. If you try to control it all you will get is another mess like the drug war. The little innocent guys will get harassed and prosecuted while the big criminals walk free. As far as legislating service provider activity, the Constitution made no mention of the internet and the Federal government hasn't jurisdiction over anything not specifically accorded it by the Constitution. The Commerce Clause is the big loophole that has allowed the Federal government to expand into areas it has no business with. If we learn anything from this, we should learn that failing to close those loopholes will eventually result in all of us either working for the government or being victimized and prosecuted by it.

To the government:

Stay out of the internet. It's not yours to FU. If your worried about the big players price fixing services on the internet then you should be legislating more funding to anti-trust enforcement. If you had done that in the past, we might have had enough car companies to let GM collapse from the incompetence and product fraud that put it in that position in the first place. We might have had sufficient oversight of banking that government complicity and fraud wouldn't have pushed the entire world into a depression.

Quit trying to come up with laws that you think will make you popular. Nobody likes you anyway. Try making laws that are ethical, make sense, and can work in the real world, or is there just not enough money for you in doing what your supposed to do. If so, maybe they'll have a place for you at the new GM if the public ever wises up for 10 seconds and throws you out of office. I hear the Volt needs a push.

Posted by: CitizenWeeping | February 19, 2011 5:25 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

© 2011 The Washington Post Company