Republicans want a net neutrality law, but only if it stops the FCC from handling it

[Victorious Secret]

 
I guess the Republicans want a half measure in regulatory penalties but they want a full measure in setting the rules for what a "open internet" should consist of, all the while stripping the FCC of any power they could have when it came to cleaning up the playground. 

I'm not sure how I feel about that. On one hand, you get your net neutrality laws. On the other, the Republicans fulfill their goals of having less federal intervention by removing the FCC of their power in this regard. 

Interesting nonetheless. 
 

The bill offers a compromise between hard-line opponents of net neutrality and the larger changes preferred by President Obama and many activists. It would modify the Communications Act of 1934, adding the basic elements of the FCC's "open internet" plan. That includes these major points:

• No blocking of lawful services on a network
• No prohibiting the use of non-harmful devices
• No traffic throttling — except for "reasonable network management," it would be illegal to slow or degrade any site or service
• No paid prioritization
• Transparency requirements for ISPs

Much of the language was lifted directly from the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Order, which was thrown out in court last year. That includes less-than-ideal exceptions for network management and "specialized services" like VoIP, but it settles a major point of contention in Wheeler's proposal by banning paid prioritization, which would have allowed ISPs to offer faster service for companies that paid more. In some ways, it's exactly what net neutrality supporters have been asking for, although advocacy group Public Knowledge has expressed concerns about how strong its protections would be in practice.
 
The bill is also aimed at subverting the FCC's authority. It firmly slams shut the regulatory door that Wheeler was so excited about last year: a part of the Telecommunications Act called Section 706, which allows the FCC to regulate the internet as necessary to promote competition. It adds a simple note to Section 706, saying that the FCC "may not rely on this section as a grant of authority."
 
Section 706 isn't specific to net neutrality. It's a general way for the FCC to make rules outside Congress' purview, and in fact, it's a section the agency has said it could use to get rid of the anti-municipal broadband laws that Obama denounced earlier this week. It's also vague, and in the case of the Open Internet Order, it's dubious this authority would have stood up to another lawsuit. By agreeing to net neutrality rules, though, Republicans will still be achieving one of their bigger goals: cutting back the FCC's authority.

 

 
 
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/16/7558715/net-neutrality-new-republican-bill-limit-fcc

[terrytek]

No. I hate Republicans of any kind. Democrats should be doing the talking.

[Decon]

 

I guess the Republicans want a half measure in regulatory penalties but they want a full measure in setting the rules for what a "open internet" should consist of, all the while stripping the FCC of any power they could have when it came to cleaning up the playground. 

I'm not sure how I feel about that. On one hand, you get your net neutrality laws. On the other, the Republicans fulfill their goals of having less federal intervention by removing the FCC of their power in this regard. 

Interesting nonetheless. 

 

 

 

http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/16/7558715/net-neutrality-new-republican-bill-limit-fcc

YUS

[TheSLSAMG]

No. I hate Republicans of any kind. Democrats should be doing the talking.

Hate me all you like.

[terrytek]

Hate me all you like.

Don't tell me you support Republicans...

[TheSLSAMG]

Don't tell me you support Republicans...

Don't tell me you support Democrats...

[Decon]

http://youtu.be/mBJgZH2jgWU?t=4m18s

[terrytek]

Don't tell me you support Democrats...

Don't tell me you're gonna kill me because i support Democrats.

[TheSLSAMG]

Don't tell me you're gonna kill me because i support Democrats.

I don't actually care, you're the only one who cares here

[othertomperson]

That sounds brilliant. While we're at it, let's introduce a bunch of new laws, but at the same time abolish the police force! What could possibly cause issue there?

[EChondo]

Uh, no? The FCC will make ISP's Tittle II then they can implement Net Neutrality laws as much as they please.

 

Nice try, but ain't biting.

[Victorious Secret]

Uh, no? The FCC will make ISP's Tittle II then they can implement Net Neutrality laws as much as they please.

 

Nice try, but ain't biting.

 

 

But crucially, it adds all of this to Title I of the Communications Act — the part where broadband is classified as an "information service." Title I services are regulated more lightly than Title II "common carriers" like telephone companies, and the last FCC net neutrality framework was struck down because it came too close to making rules that only Title II allows.

 

Wheeler has kept Title II on the table, and after Obama announced his support for it in late 2014, it's seeming more and more likely that Wheeler could try to reclassify. ISPs, Republicans, and others have complained that Title II would place onerous restrictions on broadband, and this is a clear attempt to stop reclassification. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI) says it's "outlining the appropriate rules of the road," while "leaving twentieth century utility regulation behind."

 

 

Clicking through helps. The Republican bill is designed to cut the FCC off at the pass and prevent Title II reclassification from happening at all. 

[carolkarine]

Well this was destined to be a clusterfuck of a thread from the very first post.

I think that placing regulation of this nature firmly out of control of corruption is good, and if that means castrating the fcc then so be it. But I DON'T want it directly overseen by a congressional committee.

[othertomperson]

Well this was destined to be a clusterfuck of a thread from the very first post.

I think that placing regulation of this nature firmly out of control of corruption is good, and if that means castrating the fcc then so be it. But I DON'T want it directly overseen by a congressional committee.

 

Well really the FCC needs to become regulatory body in function as well as name (and "lobbying" a regulatory body needs to be referred to as what it is: bribery) and there needs to be actual enforcement of anti-corruption and conflict of interest procedure.

 

Simply removing the regulators and replacing them with actual politicians isn't the way forward.

[Vanderburg]

The problem isn't net neutrality. The problem here really is regulation. You can't give ISPs near exclusive control of a region, then expect them to do the right thing. Get rid of the regulation, that is, quit protecting the ISPs and exclusivity in regions. Let new ISPs come in and compete. Net neutrality wouldn't even be on our radar if consumers have options. Competition would prevent it. If you had multiple real ISPs to choose from (And I don't mean 100Mbps Time Warner and 8Mbps AT&T - that isn't competition) at your house, and one of them started to throttle something you use regularly, customers would be free to change, the loss of business would be real, then the ISPs would realize how dumb they are.

[Guest Kloaked]

No. I hate Republicans of any kind. Democrats should be doing the talking.

 

Because being one-sided has always worked out - that's why we can't get anything done properly.

 

I guarantee you there's dem's who don't want net neutrality.

[Hobox]

Do people even bother to think about things before commenting on them anymore.

 

This is a great step forward. Democrats and Republicans are on the same page about net neutrality now, just with differences in details. And honestly this sounds like the better approach to it. I don't know whether the Title II thing is actually a good idea or not because I haven't combed through all the law text it contains so I'm not speaking on that right now.

 

So with all the NSA scares going on recently, why would you want any form of government controlling the internet. They need to have laws about the distribution, classification, competition, etc of internet providers but without stepping directly into the ISP hussle themselves. I certainly wouldn't trust them with it.

[Albatross]

 

The bill offers a compromise between hard-line opponents of net neutrality and the larger changes preferred by President Obama and many activists. It would modify the Communications Act of 1934, adding the basic elements of the FCC's "open internet" plan. That includes these major points:

 

• No blocking of lawful services on a network
• No prohibiting the use of non-harmful devices
• No traffic throttling — except for "reasonable network management," it would be illegal to slow or degrade any site or service
• No paid prioritization
• Transparency requirements for ISPs

 

How is blocking sites in the first place "open"? Unless I am misunderstanding what they mean by "lawful services on the network"?

 

No. I hate Republicans of any kind. Democrats should be doing the talking.

 

The Democrat; works and fights for people's freedoms, equality and all that jazz, hates a certain group of people and doesn't want them to talk or share their views. Oh Lord. :lol:

 

That's just perfect! This is why Democrats are a laughing stock to logically sound individuals.  Okay, let's see what the Democrats will say when they are left doing the talking:

 

 

Joe Biden on culturalism: "In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."

 

Former DNC Chairman Donald Fowler on possible delay of RNC convention due to Hurricane Gustav: "Plus they think the hurricane's going to hit (starts laughing) New Orleans about the time they start. The timing, at least it appears now, that it'll be there Monday. That just demonstrates God's on our side"

 

Barrack Obama "I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go?"

 

Al Gore "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

 

Congressman Hank Johnson on Guam: "My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize,"

 

Helen Thomas "Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" to Germany and Poland."

 

Bill Clinton on ordinary Americans: "African Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do."

 

Joe Biden on the economy: "The number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S."

 

Senator Chris Dodd, while on the campaign trail: "Eight more days and I can start telling the truth again" Sen. Chris Dodd, on the campaign trail.

 

Rod Blagojevich, former governor of IL: "I'm blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived. I saw it all growing up."

 

 

I could go on. Democrats have shown—just like any other organized political party set against another—that they are incompetent, racist, sexist and does not support the rights and equality of people they do not like. See the world as it is actually painted, not the way the Democrats have painted it for you.

 

 

 

 

 

[Fahrenheit]

I have zero confidence in the FCC so on face this is okay but some sort of pretense has to go in for smaller ISPs to be able to use the existing infrastructure and some sort of fiber mandate.  

[Biggerisbetter]

How is blocking sites in the first place "open"? Unless I am misunderstanding what they mean by "lawful services on the network"?

 

 

The Democrat; works and fights for people's freedoms, equality and all that jazz, hates a certain group of people and doesn't want them to talk or share their views. Oh Lord. :lol:

 

That's just perfect! This is why Democrats are a laughing stock to logically sound individuals.  Okay, let's see what the Democrats will say when they are left doing the talking:

 

 

 

I could go on. Democrats have shown—just like any other organized political party set against another—that they are incompetent, racist, sexist and does not support the rights and equality of people they do not like. See the world as it is actually painted, not the way the Democrats have painted it for you.

 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. As I read your post is lacks any sound argument. There are both good and bad republican and democrats. Just as there are good and bad people. Its seems to me you are no different than the people you are criticizing. Going forward your opinion is not worth reading. Welcome to my list

[Albatross]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. As I read your post is lacks any sound argument. There are both good and bad republican and democrats. Just as there are good and bad people. Its seems to me you are no different than the people you are criticizing. Going forward your opinion is not worth reading. Welcome to my list

 

You didn't really read my post, did you?

 

 

I could go on. Democrats have shown—just like any other organized political party set against another—that they are incompetent, racist, sexist and does not support the rights and equality of people they do not like. See the world as it is actually painted, not the way the Democrats have painted it for you.

 

I probably should have added, to avoid situations like this, "have shown that they can be" but oh well, it probably wouldn't have made any difference since it is obvious my content wasn't even read in the first place (as so openly admitted). I dislike organized political parties because they collect the bad people (evident to the quotes above and the like) and they ruin the good ideals that could be spread from their work and encourage treating other people, especially from other parties, like trash. Take a look at my profile's blog or my other posts. You'll see just how much I know all parties can be deceitful and the like. That is also why I have on several occasions when the discussion permits it, talked about not all Republicans act like their media figures, the same for Democrats and other groups of people. 

 

But go ahead and miss my point of presenting those quotes to terrytek's anti-Republican post entirely. And okay...put me on your ignore list. Why did you feel the need to tell me that? Post count, or to get the last word in or something? :huh:

[mr moose]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. As I read your post is lacks any sound argument. There are both good and bad republican and democrats. Just as there are good and bad people. Its seems to me you are no different than the people you are criticizing. Going forward your opinion is not worth reading. Welcome to my list

 

You ignore someone because they are showing all political parties are just as absurd as each other?    You must have a really thin skin.

 

 

On topic:  All they need to do is add some regulation to prevent anti competitive behavior (including reducing litigation for the purpose of draining the resources from new ISP's) and they might have the solution.  But you will need to read the fine print first.

[imperialplanet]

The only reason i'd like for the republicans to handle it is because they tend to be more about letting the people handle it not the government.  

[Albatross]

You ignore someone because they are showing all political parties are just as absurd as each other?    You must have a really thin skin.

 

 

On topic:  All they need to do is add some regulation to prevent anti competitive behavior (including reducing litigation for the purpose of draining the resources from new ISP's) and they might have the solution.  But you will need to read the fine print first.

 

Reading fine print isn't something these people are very good at lately. lol

 

If the Republicans and Democrats agree with each other—with differences in minor details of course—on this could their combined effort actually see any beneficial change?  This could potentially make our situation worse,  couldn't it?

[wpirobotbuilder]

We all know what happens when you undercut a regulatory agency -- you get people dying from tainted supplements because federal organizations can't step in and take action until people are getting hurt.

 

(90's reference, for the younger crowd)

 

Because being one-sided has always worked out - that's why we can't get anything done properly.

 

I guarantee you there's dem's who don't want net neutrality.

You won't see it -- the attitude is currently "I'm against what the opposing political party is for". Now that the president is openly in favor, the Republican party will oppose it (for the most part).