DHS Wants Travelers Entering The US To Include Their Social Media Handles... Just Because

White House Warns Congress To Stop Its Sneak Attacks On Net Neutrality

from the duopoly-defenders dept

Mon, Jun 27th 2016 6:30am — Karl Bode

For most of the last year, the House has desperately been trying to punish the FCC for standing up to ISPs on net neutrality. This has included an endless number of taxpayer funded "accountability" hearings designed to shame the agency, as well as attempts to gut FCC authority and funding via sneaky budget riders. The latest example is the House Appropriations Committee's 29-17 vote to approve an FCC appropriations bill (pdf), part of a larger Financial Services Bill determining the 2017 budgets for multiple agencies. That bill not only dramatically reduces the FCC budget, but tries to hamstring net neutrality rule enforcement.

Apparently growing tired of these kinds of sneak attacks, the White House last week was forced to issue a statement of administration policy (pdf) lamenting the use of "highly problematic ideological provisions" in budget bills aimed at stopping regulators overseeing multiple sectors from doing their jobs. Specifically, the White House defends the FCC's net neutrality plan, noting that bureaucratic sneak attacks will not be able to undermine an agency vote and the support of millions of Americans:

"For almost a century, U.S. law has recognized that companies who connect Americans to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of Americans' homes or businesses. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information—whether a phone call, or a packet of data. The FCC's rules recognize that broadband service is of the same importance, and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do.

These carefully-designed rules have already been implemented in large part with little to no impact on the telecommunications companies making important investments in the U.S. economy, and would ensure that neither the cable company nor the phone company would be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what Americans can do or see online. The appropriations process should not be used to overturn the will of both an independent regulator and millions of Americans on this vital issue.

The White House also takes a moment to slam the House attempt to kill the FCC's plan to bring competition to the cable box. Specifically, the statement complains how budget riders would have forced the plan into permanent committee purgatory:

"The Administration opposes section 636 that aims at delaying the FCC from adopting or enforcing new rules to open the video set-top box market to additional competition. Currently, 99 percent of cable and satellite TV consumers rent set-top boxes directly from the cable providers, costing households an average of $230 per year. The FCC is already committed to a lengthy, thorough rulemaking process that would establish a robust record of comment and analysis from companies, non-profit organizations, and academics. The current provision unnecessarily interferes with these long-established processes by requiring a delay of at least 270 days, and probably much longer, and a redundant, potentially costly study."

Again, the politicians opposing both of these FCC initiatives breathlessly claim they're only concerned about government "overreach." In reality, campaign contributions simply have them tripping over themselves to see who can best defend the nation's telecom duopolists from the faintest specter of competition and accountability. The White House statement makes it abundantly clear these sneak attacks will be vetoed, meaning that while they may be cathartic for net neutrality opponents trying to protect AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from the will of the public, they aren't likely to be effective.

With the net neutrality rules now on solid legal ground and an appeal victory seen as unlikely, net neutrality opponents only have one real way to weaken the rules: elect a president sure to stock the FCC with revolving door regulators who'll refuse to actually enforce them.

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: broadband, congress, net neutrality, white house

11 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

I.T. Guy, 27 Jun 2016 @ 6:36am

"elect a president sure to stock the FCC with revolving door regulators who'll refuse to actually enforce them"

Or just wait until one of the 2 current clowns win.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 7:21am

'net neutrality opponents only have one real way to weaken the rules: elect a president sure to stock the FCC with revolving door regulators who'll refuse to actually enforce them'

and considering how all of those in Congress are more concerned with having full bank accounts than doing their jobs of ensuring the public have the greatest choices on everything, this will be ignored until the White House has to make an example of someone. i hope that is sooner rather than later because without some sort of being held accountable by the people, there wont be any changes. AT&T, Comcast and Verizon will be throwing dollars around like a man with no arms, just to be able to carry on doing what they want, how they want, at the prices they want!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 8:47am

elect a president sure to stock the FCC with revolving door regulators who'll refuse to actually enforce them
Telcos: consider it done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 10:02am

"White House Warns Congress To Stop Its Sneak Attacks On Net Neutrality"

This is just a presidential election period stunt. You will be returned to your regular programming after elections.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JoeCool (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 10:06am

Chris ain't gonna like this.
Dodd's already chewed out Obama once for not doing what they paid him to. He's gonna throw another hissy fit, but that's the thing about late second term presidents - they're like Honey Badger: they just don't give a damn! :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
don't card, 27 Jun 2016 @ 10:13am

Republicans doing this; I'm shocked.
This is the same tactic that the Democrats used during the early Reagan era when he (Reagan) was pushing for the line-item veto.

I think both Reagon and Obama are correct (heaven forbid) in that tieing garbage legislation, as an ammendment, to a totally unrelated bill is just unexcusable, where its to cut a departments' funding, or add additional funding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
me again, 27 Jun 2016 @ 10:15am

Re: Republicans doing this; I'm shocked.
I used 'where' when I should have used 'whether', and I'm not too sure about 'its'...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 10:49am

Dodd's Comment on WH Letter
"Wait, I still get paid for trying, right? Brought to you by Carl's Junior."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nyuknyukjohn (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 2:12pm

Just a pipe
This is just like when the local natural gas company was forced to only provide a "pipe" to my house (for which I am charged a monthly fee as is right). I can now chose what ever company I want as the provider of my natural gas and the send it to me through the "pipe" provided by a different company. Sounds like my ISP. They just provide a "pipe" (for which they can charge me a fair price) and I can chose what i want to pay for through that "pipe". Sounds like a utility to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 4:40pm

He doesn't want them stepping on his sacred cash cow?

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160625/00272134819/copyright-office-pushing-dangerous-ridicu lous-plan-to-strip-websites-dmca-safe-harbors.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 6:48pm

The house can say all they want, I still won't believe a word of their rhetoric until they start doing what they claim to stand on instead of just talking about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]