The Waxman Net Neutrality bill should move forward

By: Neil Stevens (Diary) | September 29th, 2010 at 04:36 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

Update: Waxman is now using Republican opposition to this bill to claim the FCC should now implement the worst case of Internet regulation. Republicans need to get behind a reasonable compromise and we need to commit to outlawing Title II reclassification. The FCC going on its own would do incalculable damage to the industry going forward. Action is needed sooner, not later.

If you take one message from everything I write today on technology issues, take this one: House Republicans need to get on board and support Henry Waxman’s Net Neutrality bill. The bill urgently addresses the critical issue of the moment, and its passage would avert disastrous regulation of the Internet going forward.

As things stand on Net Neutrality, Barack Obama and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski are holding all of the cards. We can debate all we want about the legality or necessity of the FCC’s plans to unilaterally regulate the Internet and we can go to court later all we want but without new legislation we can’t stop them from trying it and doing the damage anyway.

The Waxman bill is that legislation, and I want every Republican to support this bill to stop the Obama administration from yet another end run around Constitutional process.

The most important thing the Waxman bill does is to expressly disallow the “deem and pass” reclassification of Internet service providers as telephone companies under Title II of the Communications act.

This is a critical reinforcement of the deregulating spirit of the Telecommunications Act, fundamentally limiting the amount of regulation that the FCC can apply to the Internet. The narrowly tailored new Net Neutrality rules that this bill allows are a molehill next to the mountain of powers that the FCC could claim under Title II reclassification.

The Internet in America is in serious risk of devastating regulatory asphyxiation should the FCC be allowed to proceed with Title II reclassification. The FCC promises “forbearance” of the full use of Title II powers should this happen, but the pressure is already being brought to bear on the FCC to use those (not yet claimed) powers to regulate so-called hate speech and other content online. And that’s just the beginning. When future debates come around, including the debate over a National Broadband Plan, I think we all know the FCC’s forbearance will go right down the memory hole.

Republicans in this case should not fear supporting this bill, and in fact must support it against the radical progressives, including the neo-Marxists at Free Press. This bill is a major check on the runaway FCC’s designs on Internet regulation. I cannot more strongly urge Leader Boehner, Ranking Member Barton, and the rest of the party to get behind this bill.

Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, FCC, Henry Waxman, Internet, Joe Barton, John Boehner, Julius Genachowski, Net Neutrality, Telecommunications Act, Title II Reclassification

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

mikerazar

an explanation of why Henry Waxman for the first time in his pathetic life would be proposing a bill that conservatives like .
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

I don’t have the link offhand, but a while back, Waxman sent a letter to the FCC asking questions about why they felt the need to defy the Congress and do things on their own.

They gave him some weak answers and he told them he felt ignored and disrespected. So now he’s going to take away their toys.
Gmac

but when did having a law or bill telling them they couldn’t do something stop this regime from doing whatever they wanted to do?
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

If Congress starts asserting its authority then Obama might not want to spend any more political capital on Free Press’s fondest desires.
Robert Allen Leeper

But pardon me if, for the time being, I still prefer chemical solutions.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

The fumigation is scheduled for January 2011, but the termites are going to cause serious structural damage before then.
johnt

just a guess, not knowing show biz other then the ugly warts.
The constituency either uses it, can profit from it, or for once in their sordid lives see a principle, free speech, which The Filth in the WH hates with a passion.
Did The Filth attack Fox News today ?
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Fixate on the radical Communists at Free Press. It should tell you just how dangerous the FCC’s plans are that even Waxman dislikes them.
msctex

There has to be something wrong here. Waxman is a purely Progressive creature, with no interest whatsoever in freedom of speech. Blind squirrels may find the occasional nut, but they don’t plant the tree.
natlanthem

Republicans should present a solid and impenetrable shield against further legislation until the Congress is seated after the election. Dragging out any bill keeps the others from being considered.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

The FCC can act BEFORE the Republican majority takes office.

We have to send a message NOW.
http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com IronDioPriest

…over regulatory bodies simply for the sake of retaining congressional oversight and putting things in their proper legislative arena gives me no comfort and no motivation to support Henry Waxman or his “Net Neutrality” legislation.

The reality is that Henry Waxman has never proposed anything good for America, and there’s no reason to believe that his effort to control the Internet would be any less damaging than what regulatory czars would do.

Neil, you’re asking Republicans to choose between being eaten by a school of sharks or a pack of hyenas. I would rather fight either or both to the death.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Tell us how we stop Title II Reclassification NOW. Hmm?
mrbill

The top 2 isp’s in the UK just announced they are already giving priority to one application over the others…this is what you will get.

What if the app they are slowing down is the one YOU want. How will your new HD video game play…it they dont pay up.
============================================
So as they say …”at the expense of the other” What if YOU are the other. Dont you want to be treated equally? I guess not.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/361501/talktalk-bt-wed-put-iplayer-in-the-slow-lane

“The UK’s two biggest ISPs have openly admitted they’d give priority to certain internet apps or services if companies paid them to do so.

Speaking at a Westminster eForum on net neutrality, senior executives from BT and TalkTalk said they would be happy to put selected apps into the fast lane, at the expense of their rivals.

Asked specifically if TalkTalk would afford more bandwidth to YouTube than the BBC’s iPlayer if Google was prepared to pay, the company’s executive director of strategy and regulation, Andrew Heaney, argued it would be “perfectly normal business practice to discriminate between them”.

Read more: TalkTalk, BT: we’d put iPlayer in the slow lane | Broadband | News | PC Pro http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/361501/talktalk-bt-wed-put-iplayer-in-the-slow-lane#ixzz10xMlMoU1
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

The left WANTS the FCC to act. The above commenter is a Democrat. I’ve seen his Facebook page.
johnconradarens

..Boy, I dunno. If Henry Waxdummy came out in support of Motherhood, Apple Pie and the Marines, I’d still be disinclined to support the guy.

You’re sure you read the whole bill? There’s no invisible ink that only becomes visible on November 3rd that says “April Fool!! Just Kidding!!” Or possibly a clause at the bottom that Defines “The Internet” as the weaving in a pair of woman’s hose?
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

It’s a four page thing. Seriously. It’s drop dead simple.

And it stops the FCC dead in its tracks from massive, unprecedented regulatory claims online.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

If the FCC gets *its* way then Al Franken wins.

Al Franken.

Also Robert McChesney, who said America is the leading terrorist in the world today.
http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

Legislation or not, there’s The Office Of Information And Regulatory Policy with one Mr. Cass ‘The Nudge Czar’ Sunstein at the helm.

Put in place to do exactly that, he is. Yes. And stopped they must be; on this all depends. Only a fully trained-in-disaster-control American Patriot, with the Constitution as his ally, will conquer Net Neutrality and it’s Emperors. If you end your training now – if you choose the quick and easy path as Waxman did – you will become an agent of evil.

Patience.

And sacrifice one or two pieces of freedom ?

If you honor what those freedoms stand for ?…. Yes.

NO ! This is not a movie. This is real life. Americans do not sacrifice freedom for expediency or what may be.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

I seriously hope you’re not calling anyone who backs the Waxman bill an agent of evil. Because I bet you haven’t even read the bill.
http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

Basically what Gmac said…… What’s to stop them – Sunsten in particular – from simply doing what they want, legislation or otherwise ?

I’m reading the legislation now….. and I don’t trust Rep. Waxman at all, not one bit…… Even if he’s doing something to get back at those who dissed him.

That’s just me.

I hope I’m wrong.

I pray daily that I’m wrong on a whole bunch of things that have gone on already and are starting to show up as reality.

We’ll see what happens.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

The real evil isn’t in Congress. It’s in those private groups, probably Soros funded, that are pushing for a totalitarian takeover of all media in America.

Waxman’s bill is squarely AGAINST those people’s plans and proposals. Expressly bans the FCC from doing the deem and pass.
briefsynopsis

…..How about we let the election play out,.. then take our chances with the next congress and their potential to mitigate shenanigans on our behalf.
http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

Sunstein will……. With a tweak here and a nudge there.

Like I said….. I don’t trust any of this.

Apologies for being so negative, but I know what I’m seeing and have seen since the campaign started to get this current administration and it’s specific Czars in their specific roles.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

“Nudge” is not a mechanism, it’s a slogan.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

We don’t take the Congress until January.

Do the math.
http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

OK terrific. We’ve got some protection against big brother.

The day after whatshisname signs it into law….. tangent alert — if he does sign it….. consider that he may not because he believes in the Statist deal and wants The FCC as the arbiter of all…….

So, the day after whatshisname signs it into law….. All of a sudden, seemingly out of nowhere, ~~a nudge~~ an exec order is issued stating ‘an emergency exists for a national security matter that cannot be disclosed and all internet traffic inbound and outbound to and from America will be monitored from now through ‘x’ date.

Fox News goes nuts, Rush staples dittos to his forehead, Glenn cries, the bloggers on all sides wet their pants and the average person hasn’t the slightest idea what’s going on, because the media won’t report it, so the go on their merry way, thinking alles klar.

Yes, that sounds way over the edge, but I try to look at things in a larger picture than many people…… Doesn’t make me right or even presenting a feasible operation at times, but that’s where I’m at.
msctex

Waxman is bovine Progressive malevolence. There was no way this was anything but a means to an end.

He is also the embodiment of character informing physicality.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Keep in mind the FCC can, at any time, put Title II Net Neutrality on the agenda for its meeting at the end of November, before we can get the House.
http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com IronDioPriest
Kudzu

I think its got a good idea behind it. Basically limiting the FCC and ISPs from restricting internet access and tools. However, that leaves a lot up to interpretation in the courts and more importantly, the judges that sign off on warrants.

One thing I found interesting is that the draft bill asserts the right of the ISPs to charge and receive compensation for services in providing Internet access. This shoots a big hole, if passed, into the progressive stance of allow broadband access nationwide for free. Security wise, that’s bad… government wise… even worse, imagine 300+ million people with a bill of $50 a month (more or less) all on the same network. That’s expensive. Never mind the limited bandwidth that would is already crowded, see your local public library.

Section 12. a-3: “The Commission shall not require public disclosure of competitively sensitive information or information that could compromise network security or undermine the efficacy of reasonable network management practices].”

This protects proprietary secrets from being released by our own government. It also seems, to this simpleton, to allow companies ownership & responsibility of network security and not that of the FCC. By not requiring the FCC to disclose network security information, it effectively removes that particular niche from the FCC’s purview. Later on, “reasonable network management practices” is described and left up to already standing private Internet management bodies.

However, its the interpretation by judges who issue injunctions and such that I’m worried about. But… it seems to be a better net neutrality bill than the: FCC PWNS U Act.
rick554

But with experience , I’ve come to trust REDSTATE. This is one of those times when I leave it to my betters on this subject ( Neil lol) and I will call MY Congressman, John Boehner tomorrow.
I know that the lady that will answer the call, and I, will be choking on this, but such is Obamanation these days.
rick554

But with experience , I’ve come to trust REDSTATE. This is one of those times when I leave it to my betters on this subject ( Neil lol) and I will call MY Congressman, John Boehner tomorrow.
I know that the lady that will answer the call, and I, will be choking on this, but such is Obamanation these days.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Which is why I’m sounding the alarm.
http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

There are NO coincidences when it concerns this administration.

None.

“Cyber Storm III“, which simulates a “large-scale cyberattack on critical infrastructure,” kicked off on Tuesday and involves thousands of participants in the United States and a dozen other countries.

After the exercise ends, officials are due to draft an after-action report whose conclusions will be integrated into the national response plan.

According to DHS officials, the scenario for the exercise involves a simulated cyberattack on government and private networks that undermines basic trust in the Internet.

===========

Let’s see……. Globalism…….National response plan…… Basic trust in the internet.

That about sums it up for a nudge right there, problem or not, eh ?
msctex

But my recognition that Waxman could not possibly be a source of an ounce of good under any circumstances is not negated by that fact. Yes: they are still in control, unstable and tenuous though it may be, and they will more than likely try and do some damage between now and January. But the wonder of it is, nothing these people attempt ever passes the test of function. And I mean nothing. They have accomplished precisely nil which will ultimately prove to matter since Obama took office , outside of gross economic damage which hardly qualifies as accomplishment. So yes, they will try and screw us. But like the Health Care Bill, whatever they do will more than likely end up destroying itself, due to what amounts to shoddy craftsmanship.
http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) confirmed Wednesday afternoon that his net neutrality bill was effectively scrapped after Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) declined to support the legislation.

In a statement, Waxman urged the Federal Communications Commission to reassert its authority to regulate broadband access providers. Doing so would allow the FCC to create its own net neutrality rules — an effort that was thrown into doubt when a federal court ruled the agency overstepped its authority by sanctioning Comcast for allegedly violating broadband rules.

===========

I’m guessing that all fits into some sort of ‘nudge’ category. More on the high side though….. Possibly more towards ‘shove’…… off a cliff into an abyss with no discernible bottom.
earlgrey

What should we do? I have Marsha Blackburn, conservative R, and Corker/Alexander

Blackburn is a lock to keep her seat, but that doesn’t mean I won’t be voting.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

But have you read the bill?

What’s your objection to it?
bobojake
msctex

You can’t conflate generalities and truths. Truths are always the case, generalities not so much. Where is anything less than concrete in “But the wonder of it is, nothing these people attempt ever passes the test of function. And I mean nothing.” If I’m wrong, name something they’ve done which has worked. Waxman and those like him are incapable of sincerely working towards what those of us who read RS (appropriate usage this time) consider Good, because fundamental philosophies are so markedly disparate that our Good (individual freedom, small government) is entirely different from their Good (bigger Government at the expense of individual freedom). We are living through a watershed period, quite possibly for Western Civilization as a whole, as the collectivist philosophies of the 20th century are falling apart when put to practice.

And no, I haven’t read the bill. Never claimed to have read it. But I knew at a glance what turned out to be the case: Waxman is incapable of serving a purpose we would consider good. It is simply who the man is.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

All those people who hadn’t read the bill telling us how sure they were about the facts.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

He counted on a knee-jerk opposition without reading the bill, so now he’s going the other way.
earlgrey
msctex

This entire discussion — from my end — is based upon only one fact. That being, Henry Waxman will never intentionally do anything anyone Conservative could consider good. That’s it. That is the only fact I have claimed to be sure of throughout. Please don’t put words in my mouth, as as I never said word one about the bill itself, as it was irrelevant to my point.
JSobieski

Unfortunately for everyone interested in public policy, it would appear that so many arguments are based on proxies nowadays. This issue is a great example of how such methodology can lead to flawed results. Another example if the new START treaty.

Instead of looking at the merits, people just look to see who is on which side, and then the analysis shuts down. While its not a bad shorthand when you have limited time, it is becoming a bit too frequent if you ask me. It almost makes me wonder if Obama did support reductions in all marginal tax rates whether there are those on our side who would argue against?

I bumped into this same issue the last time Congress looked like they were going to initiate some kind of “patent reform.”

There are issues that fall outside traditional ideological lines for a variety of reasons. Sometimes the politicians themselves don’t get it (patent reform). Sometimes Congresscritters get pissed off at bureaucrats (net neutrality). Sometimes the local politics trump the ideology.

Unless you can get Rush to actually look into this, I don’t know who on our side could actually outweigh Waxman. Maybe Erick? Can you pen a diary and ask DeMint to sign it?

Go team!!!!
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

I am hoping to hit the Morning Briefing.
JSobieski

I mean, if the attitude is that the WH or FCC will simply ignore the law, why do we hope to do things like the repeal of Obamacare.

If we are so far gone that Congress can’t act to rein in the Executive branch, then we are actually wasting our time on this site.

If we have passed the event horizon for Constitutional government, does November mean anything?
JSobieski

The FCC does need to be constrained on this.

How to absolutely kill the parts of our economy that actually work . . .
http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

I’ll start to think about the remote possibility of surrendering maybe a few millenia after I’m hangin’ with the man upstairs.

But the tipping point/event horizon everybody is looking towards happened already.

November of 2008 and January 20th of 2009.

It’s up to people like us to bring it back into line without the unthinkable happening.

So yes, November means a great deal. If the pendulum doesn’t swing back, we’re in serious trouble as a people.
JSobieski

But the language you used in this particular case was essentially to elevate our enemies to the point of “it doesn’t matter what we do” and thats all I was harping on.

This FCC thing is a big deal. We still have the world’s leading e-commerce industry. The FCC could screw that up just as the EPA marked the beginning of the end of manufacturing.

Its easier to stop the FCC now, then it will be to reverse the FCC later.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

I’m hoping to rally our side to the cause and put Waxman on the spot,a nd then put the FCC on the spot, but we’ll see.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

I guess I assumed someone going out of the way to badmouth Waxman (a justifiable thing) in this thread was attempting to disagree with me on the merits of backing the bill.
http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

I need ot explain something to you and to Neil……….

For many years, I’ve had a major problem of being a bit too direct and strong of word. Kind of obvious, eh ?

Someone here at RedState has very recently helped me through that to such a degree, I consider that person a true mentor.

The few matters I get really worked up about are things regarding the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments. I’m trying to take it many notches down. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes not. This time, I didn’t take that step back and think a bit for my first comment.

So that being said………..

What if I and others who’ve been considered somewhat off the reservation on some things happen to be right and this administration is going to grab for the brass ring sooner than later ?

The signs are there….. The administration seems hell-bent on encasing The Constitution and Bill Of Rights in an impenetrable, but see-through shell – it’ll still be there, but unreachable……….. They’re also seemingly hell-bent on destroying the economy, by the sheer magnitude of unbridled spending vs decreasing revenue and income………… The ‘transnationalism’ within the administration is breathtaking on a scale not seen before – and that includes the Wilson and FDR administrations – in willingness to empower international laws, foregoing ours…….. To put the icing on the cake, there’s the visible and tangible appeasement to a religion who’s stated goal is the elimination of other religions and conversion and/or subjugation of the world.

For quite a long time now, I’ve been imploring people to think about the big picture – a really big picture.

I’m hoping that explained much of where my opinions are coming from.

And if you look through Veronica Estrada’s latest diary simply called “Calm”, you’ll understand where people like her, some of my friends and I have been all along.

Cheers !
briefsynopsis

Thanks for the heads up, and thanks too for all the great posts!
JSobieski

I do think we need to be mindful of both the big picture and the little battles all along the way.

Big wars are won and lost in the form of specific battles.

The response to taking a positive stand on something should never be, they will just go around you anyway, because that can become an excuse for inaction.

Going back to the big picture, I assure you that I don’t take anything for granted. My parents came from a land that was destroyed before their very eyes. I can imagine what the world would be like without the US. As a child, I had the blessing of interacting with adults who lived through hell in ways that most people cannot imagine. I soaked up their stories, and pledge to never forget those lessons.

I don’t take anything for granted.

I still support trying to limit the FCC’s ability to regulate the Internet like a phone company.
JSobieski

Politicians on their side of the isle are also capable of error, capable of thinking that a particular thing is good from their perspective only to be proven incorrect.

I don’t think Waxman is infallible. I don’t even think he is particularly bright.
kestrel

It looks to me like Barton is passing the buck. He objects that Waxman’s bill would stifle investment in broadband networks, then says, (as if in response to an “on the other hand”) “If the Congress wants to prevent the FCC reclassifying internet service under Title II it should go ahead and do so without qualification.”

Yes, the latter would be ideal, Mr. Barton, but the whole point is that they DON’T want to, and they’re not going to. We can see both sides too. The point is to make a CHOICE. You, Mr. Barton, sound like you’re just doing the bidding of “big business” while trusting no one will question your decision because of the words “net neutrality.” This avoids the difficult central question that Neil seems to be raising.

I’m not sophisticated in technical matters, so I had my son read the bill. He said the effects that providers and investors object to would, in fact, protect consumers. In his opinion, some providers are close to being monopolies or oligopolies, which, of course, they want to protect.

I hope some courageous and knowledgeable Republicans in Congress will examine this bill more closely.
msctex

Just a visceral, firmly-justified belief that nothing that man does is done for what we would consider the right reasons. Thus should he ever be right, it would only be by accident, so long as he adheres to his own current principles and priorities. There is a handful of them — all dyed-in-the-wool Progressives, of course — for whom this is the case. I guess it is the difference between the ones who are confused as to why things aren’t working, as opposed to those for whom destruction is the goal. The Pelosis, Waxmans, Dodds and Boxers represent the end of a pointless era, and they aren’t going to go quietly.

Keep up the good work.
JSobieski

Jordan and the Chicago Bulls against Barkley and the Phoenix Suns, I took an immediate dislike to the approach. Why single out one player above all others, even if they are a superstar.

Now, we do it for legislation, primary battles, and other public policy issues.

Ever get the sense that maybe that society is simply too complex to be sustained in the manner that we are accustomed to.

I keep thinking about the movie Idiocracy . . .
tex41lb

Neil has made a simple point.. Waxman’s bill is a tool to prevent a total takeover of the internet. A tool with some risk of scraping the paint whereas the alternative is nothing with paint left. In the next 90 days the progressives have total control of the outcome should congress continue to wet its pants in fear of taking action against the Administration. If we do not support use of Waxman’s bill, we in effect support FCC takeover of the net.

I support Neil
davesinsanantonio

based on sound principles. If we are always guided by basic, true principles, then we won’t care what anyone else does or supports. “Even a blind hog roots up an acorn now and then!” So, maybe Waxman got the acorn this time, maybe for the wrong reason, but do we care what his reasons are if the principle is correct? We shouldn’t!
SoFiMil

If the diarist or anyone can find the link re backing a policy because the party one supports also supports the policy, I’d appreciate it if you’d provide it. Thanks.
gunsrus

The FCC has no authority to regulate content on what is an essentially wireline facilities operation. It is in place to regulate the airwaves and prevent the mayhem that results when any clown can setup a radio transmitter.

The FEC does the lousy job of the so called equal time for Political speech. The GE corp (Greatest Enemy?) getting “exclusive” interviews with a sitting President for its version of the National Enquirer (Today Show) demonstrates how well this works.

When they call him the “Rock Star” I wonder why the American people do not have a “personal Services” contract to prevent this kind of pandering!
davesinsanantonio

They bury hundreds of nuts as a way of storing food for the winter, but their tiny brains cannot remember where they all are, and they miss digging up some of them, Those missed nuts then sprout in the Spring, and a tree is born.
They did not INTEND to plant a tree, but a tree got planted anyway. Waxman may not intend to do something we might approve of, just wants to put a slap on those who dissed him, but it will keep the FCC from easily destroying the Internet. As a minimum it will give the courts another reason to rule against the FCC–not a bad thing at all!
It may come down to the courts making a ruling the Executive Branch will try to ignore, but that just means the providers have an excuse to ignore the Executive Branch.
Let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. Waxman may be a sleazy crook, but we can ride this one to fit our purposes.
davesinsanantonio

and prevent any part of the Executive Branch from arbitrarily make rules is a good thing. IF the FCC can make any rule they want without any challenge from the Congress, then any other part of the Executive Branch can also make any arbitrary rule they want, and we will have little recourse. The Congress takes time to act, and there are built in “slow-down” mechanisms in that deliberation. There are no such brakes in the Executive Branch.
Admittedly, there is always human inertia in any bureaucracy, but the Left has been filling the ranks of the federal Civil Service for decades, and they do have an agenda. So, any brakes we can apply now is a good thing. Any brakes we can institutionalize in the form of law is even better.
So, look at the big picture, not at the personalities of those involved. Do we want the FCC to be able to make any rules they want? Or, do we want a law forbidding them from doing what they want? Regardless of who drafts that law? The answer to the first question should be “no!”, and to the second two should be a resounding “yes!”.
davesinsanantonio

Who would you rather have control of the Internet? Some people trying to make a buck, or some idealogue in the bowels of the bureaucracy? Which one will be more motivated to solve bandwidth problems with new technology, which one is more likely to grant access–the guy who wants more dollars, or the guy with a political agenda or a lust for power?
edintexas

Joe Barton isn’t some Rockefeller Republican from the NE or Left Coast. Insulting him (doing the bidding, etc.) isn’t necessary, or productive. If what is necessary is keeping the FCC from regulating the Net, then that is a perfect bill. I realize that the current Congress, as with most in the past, don’t think they have a bill if it isn’t at least hundreds of pages.

Tell your son that, beyond national defense, reducing spending, and getting out of the way of competition, there is nothing the Federal government can do which is helpful to the people.
billbowen

I agree with your son’s analysis of Waxman’s bill – it is far from perfect but better than letting the Bolshevics at the FCC run wild.

The big issue is that the Telecom Act of 1996 was obsolete before Bubba even signed it. Tier 1 regulations give the carriers way too much control, and Tier 2 is way too restrictive.

The term “Net Neutrality” is like the word “vegetable” – it covers a wide range of things. Internet ISPs are now days both telecom & content providers – I do NOT want to see ANY content regulation by the government (other than prohibiting transport of data that is already illegal, like child porn) but on the transport side some regulation IS necessary to prevent the carriers from using their “gatekeeper” power to ignore their customer’s interests in favor of their own bottom line (and some carriers are now doing exactly that).

Waxman’s bill is FAR from perfect but it is a good patch for the present situation until revisions to bring the Telecom Act up to date are done.
JSobieski

it can be most helpful.

That is what we are talking about here.

Using one hand of the government to restain the other.
Pingback: Mild Sleep Apnea - Mild Sleep Apnea Sleep Apnea Machine Mask
Pingback: Severe Sleep Apnea - Sleep Apnea Stories

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Waxman Net Neutrality bill should move forward

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL