House Tries To Use Appropriations Bill To Kill Neutrality Rules, Strip FCC Authority And Funding
from the Obamacare-for-the-Internet dept
For most of the last few months the House has been holding a series of "investigative" hearings into the FCC's passage of net neutrality rules. On the surface, the hearings claim to be aimed at ensuring the FCC is operating transparently and within the confines of its authority, but in reality the hearings have been about one thing: publicly shaming the FCC for standing up to deep-pocketed campaign contributors like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. Of course this never-ending "fact finding mission" has accomplished absolutely nothing in relation to finding notable facts, but it has proven useful in riling up a base utterly convinced that net neutrality rules destroy the Internet. All on the taxpayer dime, no less.Of course the House isn't just trying to shame the FCC, they're hoping to gut the agency's budget and totally erode its authority as well. There's only so many ways they can accomplish this, almost all of which (outside of a 2016 party shift) end in failure. The latest attempt is via language buried in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill for fiscal 2016. According to a House news release, the bill not only strips away FCC funding, but it will prohibit the FCC from enforcing the rules (which technically take effect this Friday) until the flood of ISP lawsuits have been settled:
"The bill contains $315 million for the FCC – a cut of $25 million below the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and $73 million below the request. The legislation prohibits the FCC from implementing net neutrality until certain court cases are resolved, requires newly proposed regulations to be made publicly available for 21 days before the Commission votes on them, and prohibits the FCC from regulating rates for either wireline or wireless Internet service."Obviously these lawsuits could go on for several years, and well into the term of a new Administration, one many House members hope would then strike the rules from the books. Of course much like the never-ending hearings shaming the FCC, this is largely a partisan patty cake show pony, since it won't be signed by the President. Still, it's very sweet of the House to be so incredibly worried about consumers and the health of the Internet that they'll work tirelessly to protect ISPs' god-given right to abuse the lack of last mile broadband competition.
It remains a shame that the House hasn't yet realized yet that while they're trying desperately to frame net neutrality as a partisan issue, Republicans and Democrats alike overwhelmingly support the concept of net neutrality. So while neutrality opponents in the House may think they're agitating the base by attacking the FCC for standing up to ISPs, all they're really doing is advertising the fact that they're in the back pocket of a broadband industry data shows most consumers absolutely loathe. That's a position that will, one way or another, be coming home to roost down the road.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: appropriations, congress, fcc, house appropriations, net neutrality, open internet
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sauce for the goose
Since the house is so concerned that powerful agencies operate transparently and within the confines of their authority, I'm looking forward to seeing a similar level of effort directed toward the NSA, FBI, DEA, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sauce for the goose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sauce for the goose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is on the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is on the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who is on the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who is on the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who is on the list
this is actually a good idea, however the current state of politics would rarely get us a straight forward and honest anything. The government is so corrupt right now that any citizen currently supporting the addition of any new law, regardless of how bad it looks like we need it, deserves no freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who is on the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list
We did clarify our claim. You can search the site, there is a plethora of articles.
It's not debatable, and we have no interest in debating a clone sell-out for Emperor Obama. It is just more Govt Grab. Enjoy James.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list
You said this already. More than once. Repeating it won't make it real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list
We did clarify our claim. You can search the site, there is a plethora of articles.
It's not debatable, and we have no interest in debating a clone sell-out for Emperor Obama. It is just more Govt Grab. Enjoy James.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list
Obama has has NO ECONOMIC SUCCESSES, he is the Emperor with no clothes.
We did clarify our claim. You can search the site, there is a plethora of articles.
It's not debatable, and we have no interest in debating a clone sell-out for Emperor Obama. It is just more Govt Grab. Enjoy James.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list
Mind cut/pasting where it is?
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
/lookatwatch=enable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who is on the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list
It's already started. Gun blogs, videos, web forums threatened by new Obama regulation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who is on the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who is on the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who is on the list
That's gotta be satire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
proof congress is a bunch a traitors
It isn't doing a thing for the citizens of there nation.....in fact its harming them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since Congrssional incumbency rates are well north of 80%, please excuse me if I'm not holding my breath on that. I think that in general, the public at large is too preoccupied with the capital letter after of the rep's name than what they actually do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If I recall, Congress got something like 4 million responses in support of Net Neutrality and that bolstered the FCC's position.
What is disturbing is that the House considers it possible to ignore public demand and feel comfortable they can put their own spin on the issue; "Gov't takeover blah, blah" enough to sail this through.
It is hard to believe there are that many that hate the U.S. gov't. such that they are willing to suspend all critical thinking and grab on to these goofy, crazy, laughably silly ideas - "Obama's coming after our guns" started almost 8 years ago and the fact that never materialized seems to mean nothing. This faction of the population scares me more than ISIS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow...too true. I remember being told by my family to vote (R). It wasn't until 10 years ago I started actually seeing what each politician was about. Opened my eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
The bipartisan consensus reached between President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress allowed the unplanned order of our Internet to blossom and thrive. That Internet is gone. And we have the executives and lobbyists of shortsighted companies to blame. By looking for an advantage here or a carve-out there, they have ended a marvel of spontaneous organization.
Lenin said that “capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Make that digital rope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
Pardon me if I don't accept your judgement on who is "dumb".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
I'm sick and tired of the partisan nitwit-ery that divides this country into those who do what they're told by Team Red and those who do what they're told by Team Blue. I prefer to think for myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
I certainly do. I miss the presence of reasonable people in politics generally, but the decline of conservatism in government specifically has been unusually spectacular.
Note to my conservative friends: just to be clear, I'm not saying there are no reasonable conservatives. There are plenty. They just seem to be absent in public office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
Why? Because you are the ad hom hater here, we just want to share truth with future dhimmis like you in hope that you will quit following the pied pipers of the world and actually start thinking for yourself, and doing your own research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
Put your tinfoil hat back on, go sit in the corner and wait for those nice young men to bring you your jacket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
----> PushBackNow.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
You argue against your very point. The reason we have NN rules is because of those very shortsighted companies. We only have Title II because of...those shortsighted companies (who want you to forget they sued to end the rules, and are the reason a court told the FCC to use Title II).
So, remind me, which burdensome regulation is it that drive the small ISPs out of business?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
Gun blogs, videos, web forums threatened by new Obama regulation, before NN is set. lol
Your lack of common sense, logic and historical reference are compelling.
We're fairly sure you're an Obama supporter, and that tell us all we need to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
You see, in a debate, the normal discourse is for two sides to present their view, and then present evidence/analysis to back up their claim. I asked a question for you to clarify your point, your response was to attack my character, dismiss my points off hand without actually refuting them and suggest I research your position for you. As I noted that I did not see your point having read the rules, I do not see how reading them again would improve things. Except, I expect your true goal is to drive me to read your site to learn the truth. However, I will give you another chance. If the truth is important to you, could you at least direct me to an article on your site with a detailed analysis of the regulations? I would love to properly debate the merits of your position, but I need to understand the details of your position to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
Point to one site that was threatened.
Techdirt has regularly reported on domain seizures and sites that were taken down under questionable circumstances. None of them has had anything to do with the issues that Net Nuetrality addresses. If there was even the risk that this legislation could threaten websites, there's a lot of tech news sites that would be glad to expose the vulnerabilty.
"Obama's coming for our guns" was the reignig mantra over 8 years ago and even though that never happened - some folks appear to want to continue to believe it. Why?
Why do you think all US gov't is so bad - do you think we'd be better off without any? Every time I hear "smaller gov't" I wish those folks would move to Somalia where there is real "smaller gov't" and leave the US alone.
We've already reduced the size of the US gov't to the extent that corporations have filled the void left. This includes most of the regulatory agencies. Do you like being governed under corporate rule better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
There's the example of BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us
He seemed to think that all of the worst practices that an ISP could used to make an extra buck were great including low data caps, slow speeds and poor responses for service when things did not work well. I pity the customers of that wireless service.
Nice profile you have there whomever you are, first day on techdirt - congratulations on finding us.. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our interests may differ. That's ok, until someone cannot pursue theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO Net Neutrality.
1. Everything online will become subject to the approval of federal regulators.
2. If FCC’s measure is upheld by the courts, expect another Orwellian Fairness Doctrine, with "balanced" speech by compulsion.
3. Expect to see established industries stymie peer-to-peer upstarts through regulatory manipulation.
WAKE UP USA!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO Net Neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.
Much more than that. Have at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.
"4. Applying these Legal Authorities to Our Open Internet Rules"
...
"296. For mobile broadband providers, the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard finds additional support in the Commission’s Title III authority as discussed above.761 The Commission has authority to ensure that broadband providers, having obtained a spectrum license to provide mobile broadband service, must provide that service in a manner consistent with the public interest.762 This standard provides guidance on how the Commission will evaluate particular broadband practices, nototherwise barred by our bright-line rules, to ensure that they are consistent with the public interest."
This small section is about mobile broadband providers.
WTF does this have to do with what you posted?
Use small words, were not very bright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.
I am beginning to believe you aren't interested in reasoned debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.
And we've ALREADY done our due diligence. This is WHY we disagree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO Net Neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO Net Neutrality.
It's hilarious how clowns like you think US regulators could possibly control the content of the world's largest communications network. You realize we've runs wires across the oceans right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.
No, stop, don't look them up, I swear we got those ones for good this time. Look, we raided their headquarters and everything. Well, maybe twice. Or was it three times? Er, why won't they go away...
[sobs]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Streisand Effect happens countless times thanks to real patriots and people who know and understand how important our freedom of speech is like TechDirt.com.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps you should try drinking the water instead. It might help with the delirium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Gah you broke my Irony-O-Meter!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which form of education do you prefer, your attitude suggests the gulag model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do your research, read this report.
https://www.bcg.com/documents/file100409.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Wait, what? Title II regulations applied to dial-up? And it didn't destroy the internet, and in fact there was more competition between dial-up companies than there ever has been among broadband?)
Er, I mean net neutrality rules will remove free speech!
(The actual net neutrality rules specifically forbid prioritizing some content over other content, which is the entire purpose of net neutrality in the first place? And if I read paragraph A.15 of the rules there is a "No Blocking" provision that would immediately make any attempt to use these rules to block legal content impossible?)
Er, um, do your research! Actually, only do your research from my site! Don't look anywhere else, that would be counterproductive...I mean, full of lies!
-PushBackNow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your quoted line reads to indicate that The Order provides factors to guide the application of the general standard that ISPs can not unreasonably disadvantage or unreasonably interfere with general access to the internet.
I fail to see how this provision does anything to grant the FCC power to compel where users go, and what users read. This regulation has no authority over website operators and other content creators, and so can not compel the injection of content as they could with broadcast television.
So, I again plead with you, please provide the analysis of the quoted region to explain how your 3 claims of regulatory horrors are proven by this section.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In a truly free country, corporations can do whatever they want without regulatory interference, because corporations always have the best interest of the consumer in mind. Because that's what our Austrian school economics blog tells us. No, don't ask for real world examples, I'm talking about a proper theory that only works without the government! Or math!
You crazy liberals and your "regulations" are ruining this country!
- PushBackNow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please, do go on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cut FCC funding? What?
All the FCC needs to do to make up for it is increase fees and fines by about 1 to 3 percent, and they're good to go.
Saying that they're going to cut the funding is like a mosquito saying that he's going to suck all the blood from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cut FCC funding? What?
Smaller gov't. Personally, I have an issue with regulatory agencies being funded by the industries they regulate. It tends to set up this "old boy network" revolving door between them and usually serves to protect the legacy corporations since anything disruptive also disrupts their revenue stream. The FDA is caught up in a similar situation with pharmacetical companies to the point that they no longer can operate "in the public interest". I'm sure there are many more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cut FCC funding? What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The perfect example of when "smaller government" does not equal better. Some regulations can be good, while others can be bad. All too often, the industry that is to be regulated also leads the regulating agency policy. This was an exception and look what happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, that's not what happened? Er, yes, it did! And if you disagree you're a liberal communist! Regulation is bad!
(let me see that script again...)
- PushBackNow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]