First House Republican Backs Effort To Restore Net Neutrality
from the steep-uphill-climb dept
While the best chance of reversing the FCC's attack on net neutrality still likely rests with the courts, an uphill effort to restore the FCC's 2015 rules via Congress appears to have taken a small step forward this week.
The Congressional Review Act lets Congress reverse a regulatory action with a simply majority vote in the Senate and the House (which is how the GOP successfully killed FCC consumer broadband privacy protections last year). And while the Senate voted 52 to 47 back in May to reverse the FCC's attack on net neutrality, companion efforts to set up a similar vote in the House have, as expected, had a hard time gaining traction thanks to ISP lobbying influence.
But things progressed slightly this week on the news that Representative Mike Coffman of Colorado agreed to be the first House Republican to sign off on the effort to restore the rules. But Coffman also introduced his own, new net neutrality legislation, and proclaims in a statement that he would be taking an "all of the above" approach to tackling the problem:
"The fight to keep the internet open belongs in Congress, not at the Federal Communications Commission,” said Representative Coffman. “The American people deserve to know that their elected officials, not unelected bureaucrats, are fighting for their interest. That fight begins with my bill, which will create an ‘internet constitution’ with the foundational elements of net neutrality."
“While my bill moves through the Congress, I am taking an ‘all of the above’ approach by simultaneously signing the discharge petition on the CRA, and introducing my bill” added Coffman.
A discharge petition needs 218 votes to even see floor time, and another 218 votes to pass the measure. So far however, the petition only currently has 172 likely votes -- 173 with Coffman's cooperation. It remains a steep uphill climb, and even if it passes it will need to avoid a veto by President Trump, who has yet to signal he has the faintest idea what the fight is even about.
As we've long noted, ISPs have spent the better part of fifteen years successfully (but idiotically) framing net neutrality as a partisan issue to sow debate and stall progress. Except the idea of keeping the internet a level playing field free from monopoly meddling has broad, bipartisan public support for what should be obvious reasons. The rules were a stop gap measure until somebody decided to actually do something about the lack of competition in the sector, something both parties have a long-standing habit of trying to ignore for fear of stifling AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast campaign contributions.
Coffman's bill (pdf), meanwhile, comes amidst efforts by ISPs to pass legislation they wrote in a bid to prevent tougher state or federal rules from being passed (or the 2015 FCC rules being restored in case of a court loss). Having read the bill it's weaker than the FCC's 2015 rules, carving out numerous loopholes for things like interconnection shenanigans, usage caps and zero rating, and "reasonable network management" (a term ISPs love to abuse). It also isn't likely to survive Marsha Blackburn's committee in the House, since she has her own even weaker, ISP-favored legislation she's been pushing.
It's Coffman's decision to join the CRA repeal that's more interesting, though that effort too has a long way to go before it sees any serious traction. Politicians facing re-election may want to join to avoid being vilified by activists ahead of the midterms, but most House Republicans likely deem net neutrality as too confusing and fringe of an issue for their opposition to really pose much of an existential threat.
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: congress, congressional review act, cra, fcc, mike coffman, net neutrality
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
My representative, Kyrsten Sinema, is one of the 17 Democrats who have not yet signed the discharge petition. Back in December when the net neutrality repeal passed, she tweeted, "Congress should take action to correct this bad decision. Consumers should get to keep access to the legal content they want at a fair market-based price without interference."
I intend to call her office and (politely) ask her to take action to correct this bad decision, as she herself said Congress should do.
I don't know if we've got anyone else from Arizona here, but I recommend other Arizonans do the same. Even if she's not your representative, keep in mind that she's running for Senate, so she's trying to get your vote.
Also note that the Arizona primaries are on August 28, and to vote in them you must be registered by July 30. If Sinema does not sign the discharge petition and you are voting in the Democratic primary, consider voting for her opponent, Deedra Abboud.
(Her likely opponent in the general, Martha McSally, is also currently a Representative, and has not signed the discharge petition either. And McSally's primary opponents are even worse; I cannot in good conscience recommend that anybody vote for Joe Arpaio or Kelli Ward.)
If anyone else has a rep who hasn't signed the discharge petition, call, write a letter, even send a fax. They don't pay attention to e-mail, but if you actually put some effort into communicating with them, that will make a little more of an impact.
Remind your reps that, while net neutrality may be a partisan issue in Washington, it isn't in America as a whole; 91% of Americans support it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He has signaled that he has... less than a faintest idea about "the cyber" and his 10-year-old son who "is so good with computers".
Reminder here.
It might best if he's kept away from this debate. Or any debate at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I would say what would be best would be for this resolution to pass.
Which would, necessarily, mean involving the president in the debate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gosh, "91% of Americans support", and Congress won't act!
Also, those who believe Internet polls are highly likely to delude themselves that nearly everyone thinks as they do.
Keep your hair on, "Thad": there's NO harm evident yet, and worse, it'll be tough to EVER prove.
BTW: keep pushing your web-site because proves that you make your own propaganda bubble and only read what agree with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "less than a faintest idea" - Briefly state "net neutrality"
Well, you CAN'T. So may well be best that FCC dodged here.
For extra bonus points, you can try stating the harm which is being done... Trick question, though: there's NONE evident, just predictive FUD.
SO I bet this is going to burn out, as should, just another panic by netwits, especially Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "less than a faintest idea" - Briefly state "net neutrality"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lest We Forget ...
... here is a list that was circulated a while back about actual examples of net-un-neutrality happening in the US. Just for those with short memories. Or a weak grasp on reality that conflicts with their ideology.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Repost: Gosh, "91% of Americans support" and Congress won't act!
You'd think a push poll by Mozilla would be accurate -- and it probably is among the shrinking number who use Firefox -- down to I think 'teens from over 50%.
Also, those who believe Internet polls are highly likely to delude themselves that nearly everyone thinks as they do.
Keep your hair on, "Thad": there's NO harm evident yet, and worse, it'll be tough to EVER prove.
BTW: keep pushing your web-site because proves that you make your own propaganda bubble and only read what agree with.
Repost for just a little bit of fun on this dull site so devoted to "free speech" that can't stand a little bit of text.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "less than a faintest idea" - Briefly state "net neutrality"
Here's some evidence:
SIX YEAR GAPS [# comments (per year)]:
Advocate (to Keisar Betancourt and back!): 86 (9) SIX YEAR GAP from 2007 https://www.techdirt.com/user/advocate
Andrew or Andrew Duane: 13 (1) 6 year gap; Jan 7th, 2008 https://www.techdirt.com/user/andrewlduane
BAlbrecht or Bruce A.: SEVEN AND HALF YEAR GAP! 23 Mar 2009 https://www.techdirt.com/user/balbrecht
CmdrKeene: 4 (less than 1); 6 and half year gap to 2011, then 14 month gap; Mar 23rd, 2010 https://www.techdirt.com/user/cmdrkeene
dickeyrat: 3 TOTAL in 8 years! Aug 17th, 2017, Jun 23rd, 2011, and Jul 10th, 2010!!! https://www.techdirt.com/user/dickeyrat
Ron Currier: 7 (1) once 2017, 4 in 2016, SIX YEAR gap to 2010 https://www.techdirt.com/user/rcurrier
ScottDeagan: 3 comments, 8 YEAR GAP Jun 13th, 2018 to Mar 19th, 2010 https://www.techdirt.com/user/scottdeagan
slowgreenturtle or (first two only) Tony / Tony Black: 9 (1) 6 year gap; Apr 10th, 2009 https://www.techdirt.com/user/slowgreenturtle
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "less than a faintest idea" - Briefly state "net neutrality"
FIVE YEAR GAPS:
Doug Wheeler: 8 (not quite 1), 5 year gap; all but 1 in 2012, Jul 24th, 2012 https://www.techdirt.com/user/dnwheeler
Improbus: 13 (2), 65 month gap after a few! Apr 10th, 2010 https://www.techdirt.com/user/improbus
Jesse: 491 (72), FIVE YEAR GAP after first! 7 Feb 2006 https://www.techdirt.com/user/jessegoodall
Joseph: 6 (1), 3 in '17 but FIVE year gap after 1st, Apr 29th, 2010 https://www.techdirt.com/user/jmoriweb
Krolis: 6 (1), 44 month gap after first Mar 28th, 2013 https://www.techdirt.com/user/krolis
scatman: 8 (1), FIVE YEAR GAP after first: May 20th, 2015 May 18th, 2010 https://www.techdirt.com/user/scatman
teknosapien: 43 (5), 9 Jul 2009 54 month gap from 2010; https://www.techdirt.com/user/teknosapien
AND VERY ODD:
Sarah Black: 45 (4), TWELVE YEARS! 15 month gap to recent, and a FOUR year gap early: 3 Oct 2009 to name of "Happy user", OLD, 21 Nov 2005! https://www.techdirt.com/user/sblack
Brent Ashley: 95 (7), 4 YEAR GAP after 2005; OLDEST YET: 28 Sep 2004! https://www.techdirt.com/user/brentashley
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You’re still mad about that comment nine years ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It’s just as easy to give you 2 DMCA votes as one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Gosh, "91% of Americans support", and Congress won't act!
there's NO harm evident yet, and worse, it'll be tough to EVER prove
Like copyright infringement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "less than a faintest idea" - Briefly state "net neutrality"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Gosh, "91% of Americans support", and Congress won't act!
The methodology is described quite clearly, and who conducted it (not Mozilla). Why do you think the choice of browser has anything to do with the results?
"BTW: keep pushing your web-site because proves that you make your own propaganda bubble and only read what agree with"
Whereas people who choose to remain completely anonymous and never link to their own opinions or allow their comment history to be tracked should be believed instead, because...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Repost: Gosh, "91% of Americans support" and Congress won't act!
We support your right to free speech, which is why your dumb ass has never been blocked or banned, not any comment deleted.
We also support our own freedom of speech to call you out on this and freedom of association to allow people to avoid the drunk asshole in the corner if they so choose. People are still free to engage such a fool if they so wish, however.
Once again, if you're tired of being flagged as a troll, perhaps you should stop trolling? (And yes, saying things along the lines of "I'm deliberately repeating my comments to get a rise out of people" is you admitting to trolling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "less than a faintest idea" - Briefly state "net neutrality"
You make me want not to post for years so when I do you freak out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "less than a faintest idea" - Briefly state "net neutrality"
https://forums.theregister.co.uk/user/32454/ - last one was 6 months ago
https://forums.theregister.co.uk/user/74060/ - comments intermittently about one every month
https://forums.theregister.co.uk/user/27370/ - sporadic posts, often with several months between logins
Now, I have far, far better things to do than pore over every thread and every commenter to find longer gaps, but - why, it's almost as if sites with a wide readership have people who only sporadically log in and post!
But, you know what I didn't see over there? An obsessed dickhead whining about the ages of everybody's accounts or banging on about conspiracy theories that are debunked with a moment's thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Both extremes are wrong in this argument. There should be s o m e federal regulation of how the net is run; but only s o m e.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: tl;dr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: tl;dr
Come, PaulT. Join me in my PROPAGANDA BUBBLE. Partake in my insidious agenda to occasionally write lengthy, digressive posts about how much I like "Weird Al" Yankovic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All you have to tell him is that Obama hated the idea of passing a net neutrality bill through Congress, and he won't be able to wait to sign it. Or maybe we can get Putin to tell him to do it. Hell, he'd pass an executive order if his master told him to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'I support your right to speak... just not on MY lawn.'
We support your right to free speech, which is why your dumb ass has never been blocked or banned, not any comment deleted.
Minor correction, one could block or ban someone from a privately owned platform and still support free speech in general, as despite the claims by a certain individual there is no free speech 'right' to use a privately owned platform. Flagging comments isn't a violation of anyone's 'free speech', but even a block or ban wouldn't be either so long as the platform in question wasn't government owned/public property, which TD is not.
It's a difference of 'you're not allowed to speak' vs 'You're not allowed to use someone else's platform to speak/disrupt things for everyone else using that platform'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: tl;dr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]