Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

House Republicans Advance Resolution To Block FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules

April 7, 2011 by  

House Republicans advance resolution to block FCC's net neutrality rulesPresident Barack Obama has pledged to veto a Republican-backed bill that would block new Internet regulations approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Obama's stance has not deterred House Republicans, who on April 5 approved the terms of a measure that would invalidate the FCC's "net neutrality rules," which were approved last December. The rules aim to prohibit phone and cable companies from abusing their control over broadband connections, FOX News reported.

Critics of the FCC regulations, including the 241 Republicans who support the legislation, have warned that the government should not exert its power over the Internet.

"The Internet is open and thriving and creating jobs because of the hands-off approach the government has taken to date," said Representative Greg Walden, (R-Ore.), quoted by the media outlet. "The resolution of disapproval will nullify the FCC's launch of a government takeover of the Internet and restore certainty to the marketplace."

Democrats have argued that the FCC's policies would ensure a "free" and "open" online marketplace by preventing companies from discriminating against rival content and services.

Conservative group Big Government recently published the names and contact information of 13 House Democrats whose constituents strongly oppose net neutrality. The organization strongly urged readers to contact these lawmakers and advocate for the GOP-backed resolution. 

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “House Republicans Advance Resolution To Block FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Richard

    Republicans need to keep the FCC from stopping ISPs from selecting what can be browsed by surfers. My business sites should have to pay big money to ISPs to be allowed since ISP profits are only high and not outrageous.

    • Robert Smith

      Richard, the Republicans are advocating exactly the opposite. It is the FCC that is defending the net nutrality.

      The principle advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication.

      That is freedom, NOT what the Republicans are advocating.

      Once again it is the RIGHT that is literally stealing rights from Americans.

      Rob

  • bob wire

    My experience with the GOP and their labeling system, is that the end results is usually just reverse to the syntax label.

    So I’m leery with this bill myself. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.

    Word play to sell sacks of manure I fear.

    “decrease in deficit reduction”

    “Personalize instead of privatized”

    “Pro Life” now who could be against that?

    “account credit not coupon or voucher”

    • Robert Smith

      From bob: ““Pro Life” now who could be against that?”

      Anyone who denies universal heath care.

      Lots of folks are dead because they didn’t find a malidy until it dumped them into an emergency room.

      Rob

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Name a few that we can check on!!!

        • Robert Smith

          Untreated high blood pressure.

          Diabedis.

          STDs aren’t an “emergency” and the reich is trying to shut down PP that treats them.

          Rob

        • http://?? Joe H.

          All three, except in a few cases are self inflicted!!!!

  • Raggs

    The democommunist will not be happy even (if) or (when) they usurp the authority to control every individuals private life by imposing what they call “LAWS” that are undoubtably in conflict with the constituion.
    This is one of the main reasons we need to oust obama / pelosi / reid.
    Anyone that has any common sence at all needs to be made aware of what this tryannical government is attempting to do.

    • ValDM

      Only the Congress has the power (constitutionally) to make law. Since the FCC has overstepped its power (along with many other fed agencies), repealing this law is a no-brainer. Additionally, any other laws enacted by agencies, instead of Congress, need also to be repealed.

      • Richard

        That isn’t true – the FCC is charged with regulating communications by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and before that by other communication acts. These Acts are made by Congress. The bought off Republicans that want to allow ISPs to not have to let us use the internet freely should be ashamed.

        • Meteorlady

          So you agree that everything in this country should be regulated by the federal government? What is wrong with the internet right now today? Why do they need to do this and who is spending the money lobbying for this?

          • Robert Smith

            Asked: “Why do they need to do this and who is spending the money lobbying for this?”

            Republicans. As the web is privatized then they can control content and shut up any opposition to their oppresive reality.

            Rob

        • Meteorlady

          You might also read what their original charter was when the law was enacted.

          The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission and is charged with regulating all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States.

          Here’s how dangerous this regulatory agency is becoming:

          “In a brief filed in a suit brought against the Broadcast Flag by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and PublicKnowlegde, the FCC argues that not only do they have the right to regulate that all digital TVs, settop boxes, digital video recorders, satellite receivers, DVD recorders, etc. only be able to receive authorized content, that they also have regulatory power over “all instrumentalities, facilities, and apparatus ‘associated with the overall circuit of messages sent and received’ via all interstate radio and wire communication.” And yes, that also means your PC, your cellphone, or basically anything else that is capable of receiving a digital file and engages in some sort of communication.”

          The regulation of set top boxes alone adds millions to the cost of this service because ever single new feature that they add they have to ask for permission from the FCC. Stupid? Yes, very.

          • Robert Smith

            No Meteorlady, it isn’t “stupid.” Let’s take a look at your spewing garbage: “The regulation of set top boxes alone adds millions to the cost of this service because ever single new feature that they add they have to ask for permission from the FCC. Stupid?”

            No it isn’t “stupid.

            The fact is that set top box was implemented as a transition to the digital world. In the future it will be built into televisions just as UHF became standard in the ’60s.

            BTW in the 1960′s a new color TV cost over $600 (THEN $) for a new set under 20″. Today a 20″ set can be had for less than $200 (in TODAY money).

            In the digital world a TV station had just one program stream and it took up space in the spectrum. Now in that same amount of space there are up to four program streams (channels) plus PSIP data, SAP Dolby, and suround sound. Four timmes the content than before, and there is HD that is much better signal quality than the old analog.

            Further, the boxes have to be reviewed for standardization or it would be a tower of babble on the air. YOU would not be able to access all the signals that might be available in your area if the were on different standards. You would have to buy more equipment. OTA (over the air) Television would be much more expensive.

            Don’t you want your remotes to be on the same standard so you don’t necessarily have half a dozen on your couch? Don’t you want the outputs to be to a set standard so you can hook your TV up to the stereo? Don’t you want your CD and DVDs to work?

            Setting standards is a very good thing so all our stuf works to gether.

            Rob

          • libertytrain

            Robert, sadly with the new digital box, antenna I get an occasional channel but usually no reception; before I got all the channels – for me that was about 8-9. Perhaps there are some that are happy with that, those of us in areas like these mountains – are not particularly delighted.

          • Robert Smith

            Go to a local Radio Shack and find out what kind of antenna (and maybe an amplifier) you need.

            Then go on the web and get it for about 1/3 price.

            Rob

          • libertytrain

            Of course, Robert, I could do that and have looked into but the expense is far more than I care to spend since I need far, far more than the average antenna (according to the “experts”)— Especially since I didn’t need more than rabbit ears prior to this “government improvement” – I’m not alone, there are many, many of us who lost with this “government improvement” — One gets tired of government improvements/mandates to make so many lives worse off -

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Randy 131

    The assault by Obama on the capitalistic system of the USA, and rights and freedoms of its citizens, will never stop until he is voted out of office, if he doesn’t find a way or reason to declare Marshall Law and cancel elections to keep himself in office indefinately. If these huge deficits he is purposely running, with the backing of ALL Democrats, causes the crash of the US Dollar on the global market, it will also cause the collapse of our economy and create chaos and rioting in our streets, giving Obama that excuse to declare Marshall Law, probably before the 2012 elections. Does anyone really wonder why he refuses to cut spending, even the measly amount the Republican cuts, which represent only 3.7% of Obama’s CBO projected deficit of 1.65 trillion dollars, and less that 1.5% of the total budget. Thats right, in case you didn’t know, 61 billion dollars in cuts from a deficit of 1.65 trillion dollars is only three point seven percent of that deficit, not 30% or 20% or even 10% and is less than half of that same 3.7% of the total bubget, less than 1.5% of the total budget. And the Democrats, who call these miniscule percentages of spending cuts, draconian and mean spirited, only want to agree to half of that amount in spending cuts, which really is meaningless and begs the question, then why any cuts at all? Are we all preparing for Marshall Law, if not, we should be.

    • Meteorlady

      Really Obama is not your problem. His backers are your problem. Read up on George Soros – he’s one of Obama’s biggest backers since he first ran for the state senate. Notice that Obama never introduced a bill or voted on anything controversial? Notice that all his records were put under wraps BEFORE his presidential race?

      Before voting for anyone, follow the money, check their background information and check their voting record. Watch what they do, not what they say.

      • Robert Smith

        Obama is on the side of FREEDOM on this one.

        Wow, just walk into the republican lion’s mouth as they censor the web. You are exactly backwards on this one.

        Rob

  • Erik Osbun

    There’s only one way to ensure freedom, impeach and get rid of the S.O.B. in the White House.

    • Meteorlady

      I believe that he has committed a number of impeachable offenses. Specifically not securing our borders. Where are all the constitutional lawyers in this country? Why doesn’t someone sue him? Our governor has written the Homeland Security Department, Obama and our representatives in congress have asked on numerous occasions to secure our borders. No answer from anyone.

      Instead our border patrol agents are asked to “scare the illegals back across the border”, instead of arresting them and processing them, in order to make the monthly statistics look like there are fewer illegals coming across when in fact there are more and more.

      Same with unemployment and inflation. They don’t count certain things because that would be real and they want us to feel good about what they are doing. Why don’t they count food and energy? Why don’t they count the people that have exhausted their unemployment benefits?

  • Meteorlady

    Since when do federal government departments make law? I really thought that the congress did that, but guess I missed something here. We have the one department regulating carbon emissions without congressional approval and now this.

    This is not needed, should not be allowed, and it’s the first baby step toward controlling the internet in this country. Think the middle east countries where they cut off the internet when the protests started. An unregulated internet is dangerous to centralized governments.

    Think about the no smoking laws – when that happened I said that the food police would not be far behind and wow, I lost trans fats and McDonalds french fries will never be as good again. I liked my trans fats in small amounts and it was my right as a citizen in a supposedly free country to eat them if I wanted to.

    It’s my business as a consumer to take care of my own problems. My internet provide sold out so I was throttled back and I protested. I threatened to write the state attorney general. Now my speed is as fast as advertised.

    This bill is the start of creeping federal regulation of the internet and nothing more. Please write your congressional representatives and stop this.

    • Robert Smith

      “An unregulated internet is dangerous to centralized governments.”

      And that is just what the Republicans want to do. Only the right and rich can afford to own the internet companies and as individuals THEY want to regulate it. That means that if an owner wants to shut out someone they disagree with they can do it easily.

      Keeping the web open for ALL is the best way to assure that points of view aren’t going to be deleted.

      It’s an electronic form of free speech that Obama is standing up for.

      Rob

  • 45caliber

    Freedom of speech is a right, not a gift from the government. If I want to speak up about some problem, I will. I should not be required to find someone to give a different point of view to justify my own speech.

    Further, it always seems to be that liberal speech can be used as much as they like but conservatives cannot. That too annoys me.

    • Robert Smith

      From 45: “Further, it always seems to be that liberal speech can be used as much as they like but conservatives cannot.”

      I suggest you talk with samurai. He is threatening to get me tossed off this forum, contrary to the free speech advocated.

      Seems to me in my experience that it’s the right who wants to censor.

      Rob

  • Robert Smith

    “Freedom of speech is a right, not a gift from the government. If I want to speak up about some problem, I will.”

    If the Republicans get their wish then you will be censored if they want you to be.

    An OPEN net as Obama is advocating for is the way to preserve free speech.

    Rob

    • http://deleted Claire

      Robert Smith– Agreed.

  • Raife

    There are two entirely different issues here… which are being intentionally, and deceptively, intermingled.

    First, is the FCC’s desire for virtually unchecked “regulatory authority” over the Internet (its uses, applications, and content). “Net Neutrality” is merely an FCC-smokescreen which is being callously mis-used to trick people into accepting the, otherwise entirely unacceptable, expansion of an, abusive, bureaucracy’s power.

    Second, is the very-real issue of, actual, “Net-Neutrality”. We desperately DO need “Net Neutrality”… mandated by law (not unchecked, arbitrary, bureaucratic, “regulation”). Without “Net Neutrality”, private interests, not only can violate all manner of private “rights” and fair-competition… but, they have already done so… egregiously, and repeatedly.

    Common-sense, and history, clearly shows that “Private interests” (business/political/etc.) must be prevented from monitoring, intercepting, filtering, impeding, manipulating, and/or blocking, the communications, and data/information/content-transfers, that take place from individual-to-individual, individual-to-business, and business-to-business (except, for duly instituted lawful investigations of specific crimes). Anything else is dangerous, and WILL be abused. This is already, unequivocally, been proven.

    However, there is a huge difference, and no real connection, between “Net Neutrality” (which I fully support), and handing the FCC, effectively-unchecked, “regulatory authority’ over virtually ALL aspects of “the Internet”… which is clearly the real purpose behind the FCC’s (and this administrations) bogus “Net-Neutrality” push/deception.

    • Robert Smith

      Raife says: “which is clearly the real purpose behind the FCC’s (and this administrations) bogus “Net-Neutrality” push/deception.”

      So, you will sacrifice the internet to big business and let Comcast slow downyour viewing from NetFlix and Hulu so you will have to buy their cable to watch anything?

      Sheesh… Lie about Obama’s intentions, toss the FCC under the buss so we all have to get worse internet and the big companies take over.

      NO, Raife, NO. You clearly don’t know what you are yammering about. The ONLY way to assure compitition and growth of services on the internet is to keep net nutrality so no individual or company can control what comes into my home.

      Rob

      • Raife

        Boy, some people are so willfully-blinded by their inability to see when they are being manipulated that they will do anything to avoid the plain-truth. I said that “Net Neutrality” is an absolute imperative… PERIOD. It ["Net Neutrality"] MUST be insured (and, by the way, I have been working in the computer/electronics field for decades… And, I have been supporting REAL “Network Neutrality” for years, so I do know what I am “yammering about”).

        However, the FCC does not care one bit about TRUE “Net Neutrality” (if you have actually examined the FCC “guidelines”… the FCC specifically, and quite categorically, allows exactly the abuses that people like “Robert Smith” are railing against). In fact, “Comcast’s” abuses (the company whose actions really started the public call for “Net Neutrality”, in the first-place) would be very-specifically, allowed, protected, and actually supported, by the FCC’s entirely-bogus “Net Neutrality” charade.

        So, the FCC being given the blanket “regulatory” authority over the Internet, that the FCC is seeking (the real agenda) will, in no way, stop these types of abuses. It will however allow the FCC, without any true public-oversight, or checks, to impose virtually any control, manipulation, or “policy”, that a politically appointed, and controlled, bureaucracy decides to invent or re-interpret… at any time… without any real redress or balance. That is how this particular issue ["Net Neutrality"] is being intentionally MIS-USED and EXPLOITED.

        Furthermore, it doesn’t matter who holds the reigns of power. This kind of politically-motivated, special-interest-driven, control… must not be allowed to be created. The rule of law (not, unchecked, bureaucratic priorities/agendas) must govern such important elements of our society.

        “Net Neutrality” must be insured, and enforced, but it MUST be done legislatively… clearly codified… transparent, and uniform. And, the assertion that the FCC must be allowed to directly, and arbitrarily, “regulate” the Internet itself… to establish “Net Neutrality”… IS AN ABSOLUTE FRAUD.

        But, some people are apparently just to stubborn to see it.

  • http://deleted Claire

    Hmmmmm….New World Order?

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.