Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:56 AM ET, 03/ 3/2011

House lawmakers face uphill battle in overturning FCC net neutrality rules

By Cecilia Kang

House lawmakers will examine the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules again next week, as Republican leaders seek to overturn the rules or pull funding from the agency.

But what are the chances of Congress wiping out the Internet access rules that prohibit blocking and slowing of Web traffic? Pretty low, experts say.

On March 9, the House subcommittee for communications and technology will examine the FCC's net neutrality rules for the second time. This time, the committee will look at an effort to overturn the rules.

To become law, the two bills at play -- one that would overturn rules and the other that would withhold appropriations for the agency -- would have to pass a House and Senate vote. And President Obama would have to sign on to the legislation.

Obama has expressed his support for the net neutrality rules. And a bill overturning rules in the Democratic-led Senate would face more skepticism, analysts said.

Separately, Verizon Communications and Metro PCS have fought the rules in court. Even as companies including Level 3 and consumer groups have claimed violations of net neutrality by Internet service providers.

That means there won't likely be an immediate impact on the new rules any time soon.

"Companies and customers will have become even more accustomed to living in a world with a basic set of net neutrality rules," wrote Rebecca Arbogast and David Kaut, analsyts at Stifel Nicolaus in a research note.

By Cecilia Kang  | March 3, 2011; 9:56 AM ET
Categories:  FCC, Net Neutrality  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Free messaging apps threaten wireless carriers' cash cow
Next: Feinstein patent reform amendment fails

Comments

The problem is one of several things:
1. The lawmaker is corrupt and is taking some form of compensation for their vote. For some reason this is not considered a bribe.
2. The lawmaker is taking the word of a lobbyist as gospel and not checking outside real world information. This normally leads back to number one. So they are not researching before they vote.
3. They just take the word of other politicians, in which case they are not doing their job, which is working for their constituents.
4. Voting the party line, in which case they are not doing their job, which is working for their constituents.
Our founding fathers put into place a remarkable form of government. It is really a shame that it has become so corrupt. They (our politicians on the HILL) talk about other governments being corrupt, they are just better at covering things up or hiding it all together. They must feel that Americans are really stupid.
There is no competition in broadband in the USA, what is there is a consortium of companies that would lead you to believe that they do not confer with each other about price increases. Check out the members of Broadband for America and its leadership. Look at prior jobs of its leadership and what they did to affect broadband prior to 2005.

Posted by: rfceo | March 4, 2011 12:23 PM | Report abuse

The net-neutrality debate is seldom clearly articulated. The corporate world likes to portray it to the public as an engineering issue. That is the ability to control the flow of internet data in the best interests of getting data from point "A" to point "B". No one can argue with that, but that is the superficial "Motherhood" concept for public consumption.

The reality is that the corporate world wants to: 1)read (filter) your data and 2)to manage the flow of your data based on corporate (profit) management reasons.

By analogy think of delivering a package through the US Postal Service, UPS, or Fedex. You drop-off the package and the delivery service opens it up without your permission to inspect the contents. Upon inspecting the nature of your contents they then decide weather to deliver expediently, to deliver slowly, or to just toss your package into the trash. All without your knowledge, ability to question, or to intervene.

Do you really want an internet were corporations, on their own volition and sufferance, can unilaterally control your ability to use the internet?

Posted by: SteveR1 | March 5, 2011 10:52 AM | 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