Top Democrats’ Actions Confirm FCC Has No Authority to Regulate Broadband
by Capitol ConfidentialFour senior congressional Democrats inadvertently confirmed Monday that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—which, under Chairman Julius Genachowski’s leadership has been trying for months to impose contentious net neutrality rules—lacks the authority needed to regulate the Internet.
For weeks, the FCC has been threatening to “reclassify” broadband in order to subject it to regulation that would institute net neutrality, despite concerns regarding jurisdiction and agency powers. However, now, Senators Jay Rockefeller and John Kerry, and Congressmen Henry Waxman and Rick Boucher say they will soon launch “a process to develop proposals” for revising the 1934 Communications Act, whose archaic framework the FCC wishes to impose on broadband services.
Rockefeller, Kerry, Waxman and Boucher chair the relevant communications, commerce and technology committees in the House and Senate.
According to a statement, “As the first step, [Rockefeller, Kerry, Waxman, Boucher] will invite stakeholders to participate in a series of bipartisan, issue-focused meetings beginning in June.” The release offered few other details on the move, which could prove controversial. Even Democrats who facially support the FCC’s end-goal of net neutrality adoption were caught off-guard by the commission’s unprecedented move to reclassify.
On Monday, 74 House Democrats sent Genachowski a letter expressing “serious concerns” with the commission’s reclassification agenda. The six dozen legislators urged Genachowski, the nation’s top communications regulator, “to carefully consider the full range of potential consequences that government action may have on network investment.”
“Like you, we believe in a transparent, data-driven process and stand ready to work with you on measures that will spur adopt and expand the use of broadband networks,” the letter reads. “But we remain suspicious of conclusions based on slogans rather than substance and of policies that restrict and inhibit the very innovation and growth that we all seek to achieve.”
Net neutrality critics say that irrespective of how it is instituted—via a questionable reclassification move under the present regime, explicitly, or indeed via reclassification under legislation that could potentially be overhauled to grant the FCC powers it currently lacks—the restriction and inhibition of innovation and growth is a result that would obtain.
In April, a federal appeals court found the FCC had overstepped its authority in regulating the activity of a broadband provider. A few weeks later the agency announced its intention to reclassify broadband, which was observed by many on Capitol Hill to be an end-run around both the legislature and judiciary.
If a legislative overhaul were pursued, observers say it would fix that problem, but the institution of net neutrality, whether by the front or back door, could still be an impediment to the successful promotion of a bipartisan broadband agenda supported by both the administration and congressional Democrats and Republicans.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
123 Comments
"In April, a federal appeals court found the FCC had overstepped its authority in regulating the activity of a broadband provider."
It is getting old. US, being regulated by THEM, in any capacity. Whether that be broadband providers, or simply in our daily lives. More Government is not the answer. Big Government is not the answer. Leaving US alone is the answer.
WHATEVER IT TAKES
This admin has an agenda to 'fundementally change America', regardless of the policies, regardless of the laws, regardless of the popular support, or lack there of.
In the infamous words of the dragon queen (pelosi, not franks) "If we cannot get in the front door, we will try the back door or go over the wall"
Simple fact is that they do not care what you and I think, they don't care what you and I do, they will have their way
November, we will remember
Since when has the rules of congress or the Supreme Court gotten in the way of this administration? If they can't break a rule, they'll just change it! No problem!
You are right on…except they aren't fundamentally going to "change" America…..They are fundamentally going to "destroy" America……..And, in my humble opinion, it will take years to undo all the damage!!
In the letter that 74 Democrats sent, it states “Like you, we believe in a transparent, data-driven process and stand ready to work with you on measures that will spur adopt and expand the use of broadband networks,” the letter reads. “But we remain suspicious of conclusions based on slogans rather than substance and of policies that restrict and inhibit the very innovation and growth that we all seek to achieve.”
I am still laughing at the hypocrisy of the wording. The Dems have thrown transparency out of the window, they thrive on conclusions based on slogans over substance and they go out of their way to make policies that prohibit and restrict innovation and growth.
Not having the authority to do something has not stopped them in the last year and a half.
I doubt it will give them pause now…….
I believe it translates into: "We have not received enough campaign kickbacks from the involved parties to publicly support this illegal back door policy YET. We'll let you know as soon as they've paid up enough".
Shee-it, even Dem Congressmen get bothered when the executive branch tries to usurp legislative powers.
With current government agencies having difficulty finding their respective posteriors with both hands, road maps, and mirrors(congress, EPA, MMS, Interior department, DOJ, Head Start, administrative branch, etc.). we definitely do not need another incompetent, federal agency trying to regulate something they most likely know very little about. It will be better for all concerned if our fabulous feds continue to play on their computer surfing for porn and smut and leave the real world and Internet to the adults..
As we get closer to November, look for the statist democrats to appear, for a leftist, reasonable. However Barry’s Czars will continue to be barking jackals of the left, to keep the moonbats salivating, using the classic “good cop, bad cop,” routine. Statist must control the message, facts get in the way of the workers utopia. If we do not thump their asses in November, look for Net Neutrality to return with a vengeance, don’t be fooled by the Washington “two step.”
In the 10 years or so that I’ve been using the internet I’ve never once said to myself…I wish the government would take over the internet and regulate it.
If you regulate it you can tax it, while you’re at it you can charge some people more so you can give it to others for free (sop for the government)
Once you tax something you need to hire people to monitor it (censor it).
Yeah….I can’t wait for the green internet.
I’ve decided to start a carrier pigeon training camp here in Texas just in case…..
We need to make this bill a prime issue in November
The progressives want control over the net, plain and simple. Got to get out their propaganda anyway they can. Shutting down free speech is one way.
Just when you didn't expect it democrat's shot out a voice of reason. Who would have thunk? However, I have no doubt this will not be the end. I'm sure Chairman obama is working on alternative measure to take it over.
The internet is the biggest threat to tyrants that has ever been invented. It is communication that is cheap, instant, and international. It has brought an END to the era in which the NYT, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw could decide what you did and did not know.
Tyrants like Obama and his corrupt regime hate this sort of thing. By hook or by crook, internet regulation is going to be imposed upon us, just like healthcare.
Thing is, they can pass all the laws they want and get all the supreme court fiats upholding them and they won't be able to censor the internet. Not even China has succeeded at this.
They can have my broadband when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
DTOM! http://RightWingStuff.com
You are correct, especially the ones up for re-election. However, Hussein will be their undoing. There is no moderation in Obama, he is a true leftist ideologue and cares nothing for any of his minions. He'll be out there with his teleprompter reminding everyone what a democrat is.
It is CRITICAL that we at least get control of the House back, so that the brakes can be slammed on this trainwreck until the tracks can be cleared in 2012.
What scares the crap out of me though is what this Congress will try to do between November and January, especially if the GOP picks up the majority in both houses when they have nothing to lose…
Just another step into the new United Socialist States of America, under the glorious leadership of our Dear Leader, Barack Hussain Obama. I think even the his supporters are starting to say whats up with this guy.
Or ignore it.
That is why it's a must to get control of the House, and for the GOP to have the balls to do what needs to be done, ie: cutting off funding for the illegal things Obama is doing. IE: the EPA can't regulate CO2 if it has no funds to pay the bureaucrats to do it.
Score another victory for the freedom of the 'net, but they'll try again. Just watch.
This Internet Fairness Doctrine will not see the light of day. If it does so before the November election we will turn it into one more nail in the progressive coffin. What I always find hilarious is that they call themselves progressive, yet continually seek to stifle innovation and real change. I guess what they mean by progress is progressing towards socialism.
LOL!
Good – looks like the appetite to give the FCC power to regulate it with Net Neutrality is finally dying. Yay!
Oh yeah! These bastards cannot be trusted, and if they see utopia slipping away look for panicked hysteria. That’s were we come in, to make clear in no uncertain terms that life after politics can be hell! …perhaps orange jump suits.
If the rules say you can't do something then change the game. Typical leftist strategy, they don't care about constitutionality, only what they can get away with.
Classifying it as a utility gives them as much power as the other path with less requirements for constitutionality.
Progress towards poverty for the masses, wealth and power for the few. I find it ironic that most of the trolls on this post think they will part of the later when in reality if they survive at all the will be firmly fixed in the former category. They are so arrogant as to believe that they will part of the new "Ruling" class.
The last thing a progressive movement does after it solidifies power is clamp down on all dissent and then it gets rid of it's no longer useful idiots.
The last thing a progressive movement does after it solidifies power is clamp down on all dissent and then it gets rid of it's no longer useful idiots (Trolls take note)
They are building that clamp down machine so that they can throw the switch when the time is right, that is all this is about, complete control of information, without that they will never be able to "Rule" us properly.
Agreed. The useful idiot piggies will not be sleeping in the farmhouse.
X 100 !!!!!
This and a few others…
Well, just because they don't have the legal authority doesn't mean they can't regulate it. Not when you have a department of justice that will do your bidding (see black panthers in Philly, Kenneth Gladney, etc.)
I love you Texans!
Interesting read here for those who have the time.
http://www.scroogle.org/doctorow.html
Dead-on, TexasStomp.
The GOP needs to seize this as a "teachable moment". The ONE thing that might get the young zombies who voted for O to wake up and come to their senses is the threat to mess with or tax their internet. Carpe Diem. Just like the manufactured Ariz immigration outrage this will backfire – but the GOP needs to do something with it!
Thanks, from all of us Texans.
They have already progressed to socialism, and yet they continue to "travel". Is there an end to that road, and if so, what awaits us there? They would have us believe it's a worker's utopia, but I see only razor wire and tyranny.
Obama is the duly elected President of the United States. Tyrants don't face the voters every four years.
You have confused tyranny with losing an election.
China is actually very effective at censoring the internet, but net neutrality is about regulating the internet access providers, not content.
If Republicans and corporate Democrats are successful at blocking net neutrality it will become an issue again when one of the large internet providers tries to use their market position to crush competitors. Then we will take action and do what the FCC should be doing now.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with content.
You know less about progressives than you do about net neutrality… if that is even possible.
There you go again using "we". When will you admit that you're the spokesperson for the progressives?
Carville's rant was all over Countdown and the Rachel Maddow show last night. Here's a link to it from Huffington Post. Apparently you are just not very good at the google. I had no trouble finding it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/27/james-ca...
you brainless moron, Hitler was "duly elected" too, did that stop HIM from being a Tyrant? How about Mussolini? Papa Doc Duvalier?
[...] Top Democrats’ Actions Confirm FCC Has No Authority to Regulate Broadband [...]
there are a number of important thing that need to be done to control the people. among them, controlling information. the internet is about as free as you can get. we can read everything from instructions on construction of tin foil beanies, to directions to the nearest tea party gathering. we can post and share our ideas no matter how silly they are. WE control our own access to information.
freedom of any kind is a threat to progressives, but freedom of speech, and freedom to access to info, are a particular threat.
We… as in the American people.
Mik,
thanks for the link..
I thought you meant "we" as in not-"Republicans and corporate Democrats". What else does that leave? Progressives? Communists?
Hmmmm I hope hackers decide to cross the line and teach those pushing for this a lesson. They have demonstrated time and time again what they are capable of, most recently was the traffic signs.
Please do not include me in any we that includes you.
No one is as much of an expert on knowing nothing as you are.
"We" includes all Americans. But sadly for you, you have to win an election before you get to set government policy. I can see where you might be feeling a little left behind.
So what election did you win?
The same ones you lost… 2006 and 2008
Is it a joke that "Bloggers Beware . . . " story on BigGovernment has disappeared? I get an error on that link.
We the bloggers on biggovernment.com Sorry, couldn't resist.
That's what the anti-monopoly laws are for.
Like the ones they're now using against Apple…..
Righty opposes anti-trust laws too. But they sure helped lower our phone rates.
Losing an election is not supposed to render over half the population voiceless.
Those elected are elected to represent ALL their constituents, not just those that voted for them (regardless of how many times they voted).
Your premise that because someone you support got elected, somehow that gives them the right to push every agenda you favor despite the will of the public is not found in a democratic republic. It's more commonly found in monarchies, imperial governments, and tyrannies.
Since ""We" includes all Americans.", I guess you lost too! Interesting though, I didn't even know that I was running for election in "2006 and 2008". Did the Unions and the Liberal Propaganda Machine donate to my campaign?
Unions don't typically support right wing extremists.
You have a voice, you just don't always get your way. You haven't suffered anything I didn't experience the first six years of GWB.
Why should I vote for someone who does not support my agenda?
Tyrants don't face the voters every four years. You have confused losing an election with tyranny.
So now you're a "right wing extremist"? You certainly don't sound like one.
You failed to address the issue of your premise that winning an election grants the right to rule despite the public majority, rather than the obligation to represent ALL the constituency……
"But sadly for you, you have to win an election before you get to set government policy"
That's not how you represent your constituents, it's how you rule them…
What are you talking about?
Irrelevant argument. Breaking up the Bell monopoly has no bearing on taking over broadband internet.
The breakup of bell was decades ago.
There is no equivalent monopoly on broadband service that compares to the Bell monopoly.
Conservatives do not oppose anti-trust laws, they oppose government takeover by overreulation.
I shouldn't have to explain it to you. I'm talking about "we".
I get it too. I have gotten it in the past when traffic has been heavy. I think a lot of people are hitting that story now.
You have to win a "public majority" on election day to have the right to govern in this country. Daily opinion polls are fun, but we don't use them to make public policy in a republic. The only poll that counts is the day we cast our votes.
My congressman is a low brow named Randy Neugebauer. He has rarely voted the way I wanted him to. Does that mean I'm unrepresented in the congress of the United States? Of course not. It simply means that my political views are in the minority here in my little slice of west Texas heaven.
Rockefeller, Kerry, Waxman and Boucher could care less about true 'net-neutrality'. What they want, what they'll push for, is control and taxation.
Sheesh! Who still doesn't 'get it'?
“Sites from one point of view agree to provide links to other sites so if you are reading a conservative magazine they would provide a link to a liberal site and vice versa…If we could get voluntary arrangements in that direction it would be great. …But the word ‘voluntary’ is a little complicated. Sometimes people don’t do what’s best for our society… And the idea would be to have a legal mandate as the last resort and to make sure it’s as neutral as possible…”
Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar, in a radio interview on net neutrality.
It's trying to load for me now in another tab…. and it just timed out.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with "taking over the internet". It prevents service providers from getting to decide which competitor is favored in bandwidth access. And since the access providers do not own the internet, it makes sense that they not get to make those kinds of decisions.
Something tells me it's coming. Euros are mad about ACTA, among other things, and are paying attention.
[...] BigGovernment.com [...]
You are playing a little word game now, but you have committed a fairly basic logical fallacy that prevents communication. You have assumed that since "we" are all Americans, and union members are Americans, then it follows that all Americans are union members. It's a reverse error called Affirming the Consequent.
Right to govern……..?
They aren't supposed to govern, they are supposed to repreent.
This is a representative republic, 'of the people, by the people, for the people', not of the people, by the few, for furthering their own ideology.
Your expression of their 'right to govern' shows the fundamental flaw in your approach to the american system of government, and why you cannot understand the outrage when elected representatives continue to vote against the will of the majority public opinion.
Since you didn't get it below, here's a repost:
“Sites from one point of view agree to provide links to other sites so if you are reading a conservative magazine they would provide a link to a liberal site and vice versa…If we could get voluntary arrangements in that direction it would be great. …But the word ‘voluntary’ is a little complicated. Sometimes people don’t do what’s best for our society… And the idea would be to have a legal mandate as the last resort and to make sure it’s as neutral as possible…”
Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar, in a radio interview on net neutrality.
There's more – Kerry was at one point thick with the telecom lobbyists too. He was one of those most intstrumental in shooting down the idea of being able to self-bundle your own cable (in other words paying for channels and picking what they are). Telecom may be cringing at the idea at the moment.
Thanks for the info TexasStomp, will start creating a new file for info. I did not think they had the Cahones to actually do the type of actions you cite so quickly. Scary shit.
you are an embarassment to Texans
Don't know what Cass is talking about here or what you edited out. But it doesn't sound like the issue we are discussing which is net neutrality.
Here's a rule of thumb. Anything you clip from a right wing website has a political agenda. It doesn't mean the information is automatically wrong, but must be considered suspect.
Yes, because of them cable rates got so high I switched to DISH. We're all going to pay, regardless.
That is how we govern in a democratic republic. But you have turned it onto its head and say our representatives must take a poll before they vote to make sure that the people are all on board with the idea… at least on the Tuesday when the poll is taken.
It doesn't work that way.
Yep, cuz the Republicans won't be muscled by the union thugs –
character counts, something you and your little circle of buds just won't ever be able to grasp –
And you are not an American these days mikadip, you are the ANTI-AMERICAN poster child
you continue to slink lower and lower –
how's this mikatubber, ANYTHING from huffypos/dailyk/wonka is BULLCRAP
Have you been talking to my wife again?
I find myself praying harder every day for God to deliver us from Obama. America needs a miracle!
I wish Republicans could muster up some of that right wing character when the big banks and oil companies come to call. Sadly for us, they cave like school girls.
Then don't read it. There are plenty of sites where you can find the right wing talking points, so you have no need to hang out at HP.
Eh, he's in the central / western part. When I lived in Houston and N.E. TX we saw that as an area under its own flag (almost like another state).
I think that it's you that "committed a fairly basic logical fallacy".
You said "Then we will take action and do what the FCC should be doing now."
You said "We… as in the American people." and ""We" includes all Americans."
No, that is not how a democratic republic works. In a democratic republic, a representativce is chosen to be sent to washiongton, where they are supposed to represent the people of their district, AND THEIR WISHES.
When the majority of the people of their district oppose legislation, it is not the representative's job to ignore the will of their constituents and vote in favor of it.
What *has* been happening, is that politicians are running their elections promising one thing, and once elected, they vote as they damned well please, regardless of what the people who elected them want – and then count on slush money such as that from Fannie and Freddie, as well as union strong arm support and voting fraud specialists like Project Vote and ACORN to keep them in office when people who pay attention see what they are doing there. This is a corruption of what the system was intended to be, enabling politicians on a power trip act as rulers. They ignore phone calls, letters and emails from their constituents, try to shut out dissenting voices at town hall meetings, and contribute to the political divide that we witness today.
Ironic that you seem to have no problem with it.
I wish you could accept the proven fact that Obama recieved more campaign money from BP that any other politician in washington, in the last 20 years. I posted you the link repeatedly…. apparently you choose to disregard facts inconvenient to your diatribes……
Net neutrality was the topic of the interview, and you can web search the interview yourself and see that nothing of importance was omitted. In fact *I* posted it here, as it was quoted in the news, with no editing of my own. Nice though, how you automatically ASSUME that I edited part of it out that might sound inconvenient – projection on your part?
I recall you posting how x number of republican congressmen recieved the most campain money from oil – but it was after I had informed you that obama had recieved more from BP than anyone else in washington. The impression I got from it was that you reduced your sample till it omitted people you don't want to be critical of, and that in itself is evidence of selective editing, which you just accused *me* of doing.
The passage is a quote, for pete's sake, a quote is a quote is a quote, doesn't make a difference to a quote who reprints it. You're really reaching here, and it isn't working.
The reason we are a republic and not a democracy is because the voters can't possible stay informed on ever issue that comes before the congress. So it is up to our representatives to make their best judgment on our behalf. So if a congress person campaigns on health care reform and wins, they should not have to come back to the voters to see how they are feeling that day. Public opinion is important , but in the case of health care reform it was purchased by the health care companies with hundreds of millions in advertising. So the polling was not the best gauge of what is right.
I have absolutely no problem with the political divide. You people are to be defeated, not coddled.
Funny, it's my Dem Senator, not my Repub one, that takes BofA's money and votes on their behalf. Like the other guy said though, don't let the facts get in the way of your version of reality.
Well look what we have here. The future senator from porkestan.
You must be logged in to post a comment.