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.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    John Fenderson (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 8:22am

    Sauce for the goose

    the hearings claim to be aimed at ensuring the FCC is operating transparently and within the confines of its authority


    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Steve Swafford (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 8:30am

    Who is on the list

    Is there a way to find all of the congress members names that are for gutting the FCC and killing Net Neutrality and get their names out there about what they're doing and try shaming them publicly somehow?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      PushBackNow.com, 11 Jun 2015 @ 9:25am

      Re: Who is on the list

      They should be praised. Govt does NOT need to turn the web into another utility company.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Karl Bode (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 9:31am

        Re: Re: Who is on the list

        Which would make sense were that actually happening.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Karl Bode (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 9:31am

        Re: Re: Who is on the list

        Which would make sense were that actually happening.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 9:35am

        Re: Re: Who is on the list

        this does not turn the web into another utility company, this does however turn orgs whom provide connectivity to consumers into a utility.

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 9:36am

        Re: Re: Who is on the list

        Your ISP should be a utility company, and have no control over what you use the Internet for. The alternative is turning the Internet into cable tv V2, where your ISP decides what content you can get, and how much you pay directly and indirectly to get it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 10:20am

          Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list

          Dead wrong. NN WILL turn the internet down and pre-empt what you will be able to say or how you use it. It's like the Fairness Doctrine, on steroids. We want it defunded along with the EPA and IRS, et al.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            James Burkhardt (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 10:30am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list

            Could you go into more detail on this? Perhaps explain how the rules as currently enacted perform as you claim? The NN rules as currently listed require ISPs to deliver the requested data regardless of source or potential interference with the other businesses of the ISP. Could you please explain how these rules implement FCC control over what content you are allowed to access, because I dont see that, having read the rules.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            drjimmy (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 10:32am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list

            I suggest you continue on to chapter two of your talking points document ALEC provided you.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Karl Bode (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:03am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list

            "NN WILL turn the internet down and pre-empt what you will be able to say or how you use it. It's like the Fairness Doctrine, on steroids"
            This is total crap and completely unsubstantiated on any plane of reality, even Alpha phase-plane omega sub 7.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:21am

              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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:22am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list

              It's already started. Gun blogs, videos, web forums threatened by new Obama regulation

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                sorrykb (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:29am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list

                I know you're just cutting and pasting from your chock-full-o-conspiracy theories hateful extremist website, but ...
                You said this already. More than once. Repeating it won't make it real.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  icon
                  PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:32am

                  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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  icon
                  PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:33am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list

                  FREE SPEECH, ad it is real.
                  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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                John Fenderson (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 1:18pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list

                The regulation that is talked about on your web site is ITAR. That has exactly nothing to do with net neutrality. You're getting things mixed up.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Baron von Robber, 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:43am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list

            I can't find that in the FCC document.
            Mind cut/pasting where it is?
            https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

            /lookatwatch=enable

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        drjimmy (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 10:31am

        Re: Re: Who is on the list

        If already is a utility that is controlled by utilities. Get a clue.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          icon
          PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 10:47am

          Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list

          LOL, not even close to a utility, structurally or legally.

          It's already started. Gun blogs, videos, web forums threatened by new Obama regulation

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 10:31am

        Re: Re: Who is on the list

        Not sure if this is a paid shill, or someone just promoting their rumor-based website.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Shmerl, 11 Jun 2015 @ 12:20pm

        Re: Re: Who is on the list

        Praising anyone for corruption is absurd. Unless you like criminal run society.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          icon
          PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 12:26pm

          Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list

          Better to keep your mouth shut and just be thought foolish.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 1:42pm

        Re: Re: Who is on the list

        "They should be praised. Govt does NOT need to turn the web into another utility company."

        That's gotta be satire.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Guardian, 11 Jun 2015 @ 8:36am

    proof congress is a bunch a traitors

    isn't this proof congress is a bunch a traitors?

    It isn't doing a thing for the citizens of there nation.....in fact its harming them...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    drjimmy (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 9:18am

    The house majority is insane.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 9:21am

    "That's a position that will, one way or another, be coming home to roost down the road."

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Karl Bode (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 9:33am

      Re:

      Yes, I'm not naive enough to think these crackpots will be voted out of office, but the wheel will turn one way or another, especially if neutrality rules are killed by ISP lawsuit and the public gets annoyed in a SOPA-esque fashion.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 12:08pm

        Re: Re:

        We may be due another SOPA-esque digital public uprising, and in my mind, Net Neutrality would be a worthy recipient.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 12:19pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Australia's SOPA Gets The Green Light

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 1:54pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "We may be due another SOPA-esque digital public uprising, and in my mind, Net Neutrality would be a worthy recipient."

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 5:51am

      Re:

      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.


      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 10:00am

    Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

    The FCC plan will apply Title II regulations on small broadband providers that even Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp. will find onerous. No doubt, many will go out of business, reducing competition and service.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 10:14am

      Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

      Title II would not have come up if Comcast and Verizon et al. had not started to demonstrate their wish to control what services their users could get by charging content hosting companies extra to access those customers. Phone providers are not allowed to charge large companies extra to get at their customers, so why should ISPs be allowed to do the same.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 10:37am

      Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

      ..says username [extremist hate group's website].
      Pardon me if I don't accept your judgement on who is "dumb".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 10:43am

        Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

        Ditto, we're a conservative site about truth. Not hate. So we'll ignore your hate filled judgment call, and pray you wake up from your slumber.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Baron von Robber, 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:46am

          Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

          I'm a conservative and you're full of shit.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Pragmatic, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:22am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

            Ditto. Remember when "conservative" generally meant "the designated driver" not "the authoritarian wingnut"?

            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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              John Fenderson (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 8:28am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

              "Remember when "conservative" generally meant "the designated driver" not "the authoritarian wingnut"?"

              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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:37am

        Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

        Point out just one article that's not true, you can't.

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:43am

          Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

          Dude,
          Put your tinfoil hat back on, go sit in the corner and wait for those nice young men to bring you your jacket.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            sorrykb (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:54am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

            The tinfoil hat and the Arizona sun make a very dangerous combination. Probably should have a warning label on the tinfoil, and talk to that Spanish lady who owns the sun.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:59am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

              Have you nothing to ad of substance? Was that funny to you? Yuk it it up, you're day in the sun is coming.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Baron von Robber, 11 Jun 2015 @ 1:35pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

                Says the loon who has more bullshit than Texas.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 2:44pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

                  point to 1 example of BS, or, stop making yourself sound like an imbecile.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    sorrykb (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 2:52pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

                    point to 1 example of BS, or, stop making yourself sound like an imbecile.

                    ----> PushBackNow.com

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 10:45am

      Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

      And yet we have a number of small ISPs that welcome Title II. Most of the complaints about Title II coming from small businesses are concerns that also applied and were completely ignored back during the years of active Title II-less Neutrality rules. Somehow now that we are looking at Title II based rules, they are big concerns. There is one truely new regulation that could actually prove burdensome to a small business, and that's the as yet undetermined privacy regulations. But those regulations are something we need, in light of all the efforts public and private to get our data by any means possible.

      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?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 10:52am

        Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

        Typical talking point. It's already started. Do your own due diligence. Govt involvement with just hasten the PC lunacy.

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          James Burkhardt (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:11am

          Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

          While I support many of Obama's economic sucesses, I certainly dont support his entire economic platform (bank bailouts bah!), and beyond economics I have few good words to say about his actions. I would in general not consider myself an Obama supporter, and I did not vote for him in the last election. Nor does the fact that Obama supports Title II make it an 'Obama Regulation" (evidence suggests that Title II was on the table before the White House gave it's support). However your attempted Ad Hominim does not address my questions.

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 12:16pm

          Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

          If you were really concerned about blogs etc being shutdown you would be fighting terrorist laws, copyright extensions, and trade agreements aimed at giving legacy industries the power to regulate what can be published on the Internet. All these are aimed at giving incumbents and legacy industries the powers they need to preserve their power and business.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 12:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

            How do you know we're not. You assume far more than you know.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 2:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: 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 "

              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?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            John Fenderson (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 1:11pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

            At the very least, he would actually argue his case.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Pragmatic, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:25am

          Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

          We're fairly sure you're an Obama supporter, and that tell us all we need to know.

          There's the example of BS.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Techdirt Lurker, 11 Jun 2015 @ 1:07pm

      Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

      There is this not-to-be-named guy (who gets very upset when people disagree with his positions) that runs a wireless internet company in Wyoming that sounds just like you. This individual, like you, made lots of unsubstantiated comments about how network neutrality was destroying his livelihood. I was just glad to not be a customer of that service..

      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

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 10:38am

    Our interests may differ. That's ok, until someone cannot pursue theirs.

    It's already started with potential firearms blogs and videos being sequestered. Our attorneys and staff have all read and re-red the current rules. The open ended, thoroughly egregious content allows future amendments to co-opt your freedoms. it's called incrementalism. If you want your access dumbed down, that's fine, but we're going to fight for a continuation of the current prosperity of the internet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 10:57am

    NO Net Neutrality.

    3 of many Despicable Title II regulation:

    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!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:36am

      Re: NO Net Neutrality.

      Could you please point either directly to the sections of the rules that support these claims or to an article that does? I've read the rules, I did not see that anywhere in the proposed Title II rules, but I am not a lawyer, so the true impact of a section may have been missed. I would love to be properly educated on the subject.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:41am

        Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Baron von Robber, 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:48am

          Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.

          I've read it. Now cut & paste the portions you claim support your delusio^H^H^H^H statements.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 12:13pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.

            "...provides guidance in the form of factors on how the Commission will apply the standard in practice..."

            Much more than that. Have at it.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Baron von Robber, 11 Jun 2015 @ 12:58pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.

              "III. REPORT AND ORDER ON REMAND: PROTECTING AND PROMOTING THE OPEN INTERNET"
              "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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          James Burkhardt (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:59am

          Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.

          Pointing me at an 80+ page document and telling me to read it does not bequeath your understanding of what is likely a paragraph buried in the middle of the document. That's why Other commentators and I are all asking for you to cite a specific passage. You have instead told us that all the evidence is on your site, but the last entry for net neutrality was in 2011 (based on using your search tool and typing in Net neutrality).

          I am beginning to believe you aren't interested in reasoned debate.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 12:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.

            do your own due diligence. We're looking at it, we found it in the title 2 reg on FCC.gov and shared it with you. You can find it too.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 12:04pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.

            ...and it's only five pages...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              James Burkhardt (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 12:46pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.

              Yeah, I kinda assumed you were pointing me at the actual rules document, rather then the press release version without the actual legal language. That was my mistake Read the summary. Still don't know which provisions support the claims you made. Pointing me at a 5-page summary without the specific language which could easily make or break your claim does not prove your point. Pointing me at a specific passage would be the way to do it. You are attempting to state a conclusion from a legal analysis, but refuse to share the actual analysis, or point to any details.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Pragmatic, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:33am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.

              Nobody has ever won an argument here or elsewhere by telling anyone else to go and find the phrase that proves their point of view. We don't think the way you do so we're not going to come to the same conclusions as you did by reading through anything you fart in the general direction of.

              And we've ALREADY done our due diligence. This is WHY we disagree with you.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      drjimmy (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 1:24pm

      Re: NO Net Neutrality.

      Take your Tborazine, it's covered under the ACA.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 6:03pm

      Re: NO Net Neutrality.

      "Everything online will become subject to the approval of federal regulators."

      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?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JP Jones (profile), 13 Jun 2015 @ 3:20pm

        Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.

        Well, that's why we were able to permanently shut down The Pirate Bay and Wikileaks, both of which are no longer on the internet due to U.S. regulations.

        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]

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:00am

    until someone has the necessaries to say how much politicians accept bribes to ensure certain industries can maintain what they want, more than anything, to get government funding so they can screw the customers even more than they already are, there wont be any change!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 11:55am

    Push Back Now has been carrying the water for libs and trying to educate them since before 2007.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 12:29pm

    Net neutrality will squash the internet and future it's future growth as well as create a PC environment sans free speech, or rights to share info about anything the Govt deems uncomely, like guns. Wake up USA!

    Do your research, read this report.
    https://www.bcg.com/documents/file100409.pdf

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 11 Jun 2015 @ 1:01pm

      Re:

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 1:15pm

      Re:

      Where in that report is the part that supports your allegations? I can't find it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JP Jones (profile), 13 Jun 2015 @ 3:49pm

      Re:

      Yeah, that's right! The internet has never been regulated by Title II in the past, and if it had been, we wouldn't have had the free and open internet we have today?

      (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

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    PushBackNow.com (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 12:53pm

    I don't refuse to do anything except hold your hand and do your work for you. I wouldn't wast my time if the language was not in the summary alone.

    Get to work.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 1:25pm

      Re:

      NIcve of you to pull out of the threaded duscussion. I have done my homework. I do not read what you read. I am asking for you to explain your conclusions so I understand them, because clearlyI do not. You elsewhere have given us this:
      "...provides guidance in the form of factors on how the Commission will apply the standard in practice..."
      to support your claims, which is the last sentance for this block:
      A Standard for Future Conduct: Because the Internet is always growing and changing, there must be a known standard by which to address any concerns that arise with new practices. The Order establishes that ISPs cannot “unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage” the ability of consumers to select, access, and use the lawful content, applications, services, or devices of their choosing; or of edge providers to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to consumers. Today’s Order ensures that the Commission will have authority to address questionable practices on a case-by-case basis, and provides guidance in the form of factors on how the Commission will apply the standard in practice.

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JP Jones (profile), 13 Jun 2015 @ 3:27pm

        Re: Re:

        No, no, you aren't understanding our point. The ISPs want to restrict users' viewing ability and this provision won't let them. The government is forbidding your friendly neighborhood ISP from properly restricting your internet access!

        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

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JP Jones (profile), 13 Jun 2015 @ 4:03pm

      Re:

      Well then, if it's in the summary:
      Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.
      Ok, your turn. Where does this say the government can restrict content?

      Please, do go on.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bubo Sibiricus, 11 Jun 2015 @ 1:36pm

    Cut FCC funding? What?

    Because of Saint Ronnie, the FCC has been largely self-funded since the early 90s. If you graph the budget of the FCC, the money coming in from fees and fines dwarfs, by many, many orders of magnitude, any government funding they might get.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 2:25pm

      Re: Cut FCC funding? What?

      "Because of Saint Ronnie, the FCC has been largely self-funded since the early 90s. If you graph the budget of the FCC, the money coming in from fees and fines dwarfs, by many, many orders of magnitude, any government funding they might get."

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 1:39pm

    Why can't the Tea Party folks understand this?

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 9:42pm

    Easy solution

    Sadly I suspect the quickest way out of it would be to display bare female breasts at a major live TV event. Watch as the prudes explode as they can't issue naughty-bits fines due to the defunding and turn their wrath on the house.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.