Your LakeCountyEye is back from surfing the web. And boy are your LakeCountyEye's arms tired. Rimshot! The buzz among the bloggers, haxors, n00bs, gamers & intertubers is the unmistakable sound of a hornet's nest in a hizzy over the corrupt Washington politicians who voted to give the shiv to net neutrality. (Those operatives who do not know what net neutrality is, are asked to move along please. There is nothing here to see.)As reported in the Daily Herald, Congressional House Republicans voted ...
to block the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing new rules that prohibit broadband providers from interfering with Internet traffic on their networks. With a 244-181 vote, Republican leaders succeeded in attaching an amendment to a sweeping spending bill that would bar the FCC from using government money to implement its new "network neutrality" regulations. The rules prohibit phone and cable companies from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services, including online calling services like Skype and Web video services like Netflix that could compete with their core operations.Omitted from the Herald story (more precisely, an AP wire feed) were the names of those Illinois Republican Congressmen who voted to kill net neutrality:
House Republicans seek to block FCC Internet rules
All of them.Joe Walsh, Robert Dold, Don Manzullo, Adam Kinzinger, Peter Roskam, Aaron Schock, every constitution-revering, freedom-loving Illinois Congressman sent to Washington by the Tea-Party to defend their inviolable rights, sold you down the river to the giant Telecoms. Apparently one of those rights is the right to gape at a frozen computer display. Because that is what everyone will be looking at once Comcast and AT&T start metering and imposing a levy on Internet traffic.
Your LakeCountyEye had always suspected that the Tea Party was the Party of nostalgia. Nostalgia for the old days of AOL, and dial-up Internet service, and all-night downloads. The next time the
17 comments:
That's 3 campaign promises broken for Walsh and only 56 days in office! What will his band of merry men think of this or has the kool-aid numbed the cognitive processes!
So the FCC regulations which an Appellate Court has already ruled illegal were voted against by these fine outstanding Republican Congressmen from Illinois?
Even the Daily Herald story makes mention of the difficult uphill fight in court to overturn court rulings against the FCC regulations at issue here.
So does this mean that the Democratic Congressmen from Illinois voted for illegal regulations?
And you support something that has been ruled illegal by our court system?
What am I missing here? That the FCC regulations promoted by the Obama Administration overreached and were in violation of our laws?
Why aren't you supporting these fine Republican Congressmen who voted to support the constitution and the laws of our land by voting against the illegal FCC regulations?
I guess that happens when you take your "eye" off the ball and show your partisan stripes.
Louis G. Atsaves
Take your blinder off Louis.
hi Louis,
You may be confused about a few things:
HR1/Amendment 404 does not change the FCC's regulatory mandate. The amendment defunds the FCC from enforcing the law.
Also whether or not a law is constitutional is not decided by the legislature. That is the job of the courts. This one in particular will probably go up to the Supreme Court.
Hope this helps!
-BB-
Barney, I do know that the FCC regulations were found to be invalid and illegal by the court. Will it end up in the Supreme Court? Time will tell if they will even take the case.
Our Congressmen took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this country. The fact that they voted to defund regulations found to be invalid and illegal sounds to me like they were doing their jobs. I commend them for that action, while you mysteriously condemn them.
Now, how did the Democratic Congressmen vote on this issue? :-)
Louis G. Atsaves
hi Louis,
Regarding where things stand, court-wise ...
On June 6, 2010, the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia in Comcast Corp. v. FCC ruled that the FCC lacks the authority to force Internet service providers to keep their networks open to all forms of content.
In May 2010, after reports indicated the FCC would drop their effort to enforce net neutrality, they announced they would continue their fight. It was believed the FCC would not be able to enforce net neutrality after a Federal court's overthrow of the agency's Order against Comcast.
On December 21, 2010, the FCC approved new rules banning cable television and telephone service providers from preventing access to competitors or certain web sites such as Netflix. The rules would not keep ISPs from charging more for faster access. Republicans in Congress plan to reverse the rules through legislation.
Network neutrality in the United States
Congress has voted to defund enforcement of the new Dec 21 rules, which have not been ruled illegal or invalid by the courts.
Regarding our Republican Congressmen, I'm calling them out NOT because they are in the tank for the giant Telecoms. (Which they are.) I am calling them out because they tell their base things like ...
• They voted in favor of the Telecoms to defend the Constitution.
• Or, by voting in favor of the Telecoms, to hobble regulation, they have voted for the interests of their base supporters.
... and their gullible base believes them.
Regarding the Democrats, those who are in the tank for the giant Telecoms voted for the Amendment also. (I have no doubt that Melissa Bean would have voted for the Amendment.) But at least they haven't tried to pretend otherwise. I would happily be calling-out those Democrats, as well, if something was there to call-out.
-BB-
I understand all this. I understood it before you correctly summarized the situation in your comments section. Your summary should have been part of your article, but then, that would have destroyed your snarky attack on Republican Congressmen.
What I don't understand is the FCC continuing to press on with a losing cause from a constitutional and legal standpoint on this issue and the criticism for the defunding of this pressing on of a losing cause.
You want this regulation to succeed? Then Congress must pass the law, not the FCC, which exceeded its statutory authority.
The Democratic dominated Congress of the past two years failed to pass such a law. The Obama Administration then decided through the FCC to issue regulations with no statutory authority to do so (a common complaint about this administration that main stream media routinely ignores). Considering that Obama is a former constitutional law professor, you would assume he would know better.
There are hundreds of examples of the Obama administration behaving in such a extraordinary fashion and expect more judicial beat downs of such actions in the future.
Now it is the responsibility of the Republican dominated House and Democratic dominated Senate to pass such a law if they so desire. Neither chamber seems interested.
That's what I understand about the whole mess. The Republican Congressmen correctly voted to defund the FCC attempts at regulating something that exceeded their statutory authority.
They are to be commended for taking this stand. If all federal agencies were allowed to run wild with regulations, there would be no need for laws and Congress. Remember the legislative branch, judicial branch and administrative branches of our government. The administrative branch overstepped its authority and got slapped down for its efforts. Twice. Once by the judicial branch. And now by the legislative branch.
That's called "checks and balances." You may have remembered it from High School, unless you spent all your time learning about creationism. :-)
Otherwise, why would we even need Congressmen and Senators. Just let the FCC (and other agencies) do whatever they feel like it, legal or otherwise.
Hope that clears things up for you. The Republican Congressmen did the right thing here.
Louis G. Atsaves
hi Louis,
Thanks for the tip on how to write a blog post. One purpose of the comment section is for clarifications.
Also, noted, you are of the opinion that the FCC is exceeding its authority. Whether or not that opinion is correct, I believe the courts will decide.
Also, I can't help but find, when compared to the prior administration, complaints of the Obama administration exceeding its Constitutional authority, well, quaint.
Also, your characterization of Congress as taking a principled stand, here, against the FCC is incorrect. That is just to repeat their bald-faced cya propaganda. Congress did what it did because it is in the tank for the giant Telecoms.
Finally, of course I want any & all FCC actions to preserve & safeguard net neutrality to succeed. Whose side are you on -- the side of net neutrality or the side of the giant Telecoms?
-BB-
BB..Louis is challenged...he won't be back.
The problem Barney is you are not backing up your allegations with any facts. Broadly stating that Congress or Republicans are in the tank with the telecom giants needs to be backed up with something. Something called "fact."
And so far, the legal system is beating back the FCC attempts at regulations which exceed their statutory authority.
If you are going to claim you are "bipartisan" then BE bipartisan. You know I am not bipartisan nor do I pretend to be.
Since you asked I favor net neutrality but do it the right way. I'm not the only Republican feeling this way.
I know you are trying to justify your snark, but the Republican Congressmen from Illinois were correct in casting their votes the way they did.
Louis G. Atsaves
hi Louis,
On 2/17/2011 Congress passed HR1 Amendment 404, which effectively prevents the FCC from enforcing its new net neutrality rules. As I understand things, you are saying Congress was motivated by Constitutional necessity. I, otoh, am saying Congress gave a multi-billion dollar wetkiss to the giant Telecoms.
In all honesty, do you think Louis's or Barney's narrative is the better account of the 2/17 vote?
-BB-
"On 2/17/2011 Congress passed HR1 Amendment 404, which effectively prevents the FCC from enforcing its new net neutrality rules."
You meant to say "which effectively prevents the FCC from enforcing its new net neutrality rules which were recently found to b e unconstitutional and unenforceable by a Federal District Court and Federal Appellate Court."
With William Daley, who has long history in telecommunications as a CEO, and an even longer history of fighting for those telecoms to keep their monopolies, now sitting as President Obama's Chief of Staff, that narrative you describe certainly sounds different.
Daley. Democrat. CEO. Telecommunications. Contributes to Democrats. Now Obama's Chief of Staff.
Will William Daley suddenly reverse course and argue for reforms he adamantly opposed now that he is Chief of Staff?
Now who is being more naive here?
LOL!
Louis G. Atsaves
hi Louis,
Regarding Bill Daley, I don't know much about him. So far the Obama administration seems to be trying to salvage what's left of net neutrality. The situation bears watching I suppose.
Also, no, I did not mean to say "which effectively prevents the FCC from enforcing its new net neutrality rules which were recently found to be unconstitutional and unenforceable by a Federal District Court and Federal Appellate Court." cf:
On June 6, 2010, the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia in Comcast Corp. v. FCC ruled that the FCC lacks the authority to force Internet service providers to keep their networks open to all forms of content.
In May 2010, after reports indicated the FCC would drop their effort to enforce net neutrality, they announced they would continue their fight. It was believed the FCC would not be able to enforce net neutrality after a Federal court's overthrow of the agency's Order against Comcast.
On December 21, 2010, the FCC approved new rules banning cable television and telephone service providers from preventing access to competitors or certain web sites such as Netflix. The rules would not keep ISPs from charging more for faster access. Republicans in Congress plan to reverse the rules through legislation.
Network neutrality in the United States
The court ruling you refer to occured on Jun 6. In response to the ruling, the FCC approved new rules on December 21. Congress voted on Feb 17 to prevent the enforcement of the new Dec 21 rules. These new rules have not been declared unconstitutional by any court.
Also, Congress passes unconstitutional laws all the time -- so the notion they were compelled by Constitutional constraints doesn't pass the giggle test, imo. In fact, when Congress does hide behind the Constitution when accounting for a vote, it's usually to divert attention away from their true motives. In this case, to do what their giant Telecom backers want them to do. I'd assume that both Louis & Barney can agree on this?
-BB-
So the FCC passed new rules to enforce what the Appellate Court previously found they did not have the authority to enforce?
The "we don't care what you said about it, we're gonna do it anyway" argument by the FCC. What part of "no you can't legally do this" does the FCC fail to understand?
Again, it is up to the Republican House and the Democratic Senate to push through a measure giving the FCC authority to so act and enforce.
Neither chamber seems motivated to act.
The Republican House members correct voted against funding the FCC efforts to continue to violate the law. It's actually pretty refreshing to see the legislative branch of government check the unchecked powers of the administrative branch for a change. So far the judicial branch was all alone.
Now be honest "nonpartisan" Barney. If George Bush was president and his FCC ran wild (along with a bunch of other agencies and czars) wouldn't YOU demand the legislative branch to rise up and fight the power?
And do your homework on William Daley. Don't expect a sudden reversal of long standing positions by Bill Daley in this field. That would be like expecting the "Lake County Eye" to be "nonpartisan" like it advertises on its masthead! :-)
Louis G. Atsaves
hi Louis,
It seems you want to frame the issue as a (rare) case where Congress acted out of Constitutional principle. I don't buy it for a couple of reasons:
1) It's your opinion and by no means obvious that the FCC is overreaching with their new rules. I'm assuming the FCC acted in good faith. Whether Louis or Barney is correct would be for the courts to decide.
2) Anyone just off the turnip truck knows Congress acts at the behest of money & power, rather than for the sort of theoretical Constiutional concerns you've brooked; in this case Congress's gross motivation was to please the giant Telecoms.
Regarding George Bush and his agencies running wild (which a number of them did). You say you support net neutrality. Yet you also support Congress's action to stop the FCC from enforcing its new net neutrality rules -- rules that you insist are illegal, but obviously abide in a legal gray area. I'm just not sure who to believe: pro-net-neutrality-Louis or anti-net-neutrality-Louis?
Also, I don't know what bearing Bill Daley has on this conversation one way or another -- other to function as a diversionary tactic or as a straw man. Daley must be your bete noir or something?
-BB-
I support net neutrality laws. Those law must come from Congress, which would enable the Executive Branch (through the FCC) to enforce them. When agencies exceed their statutory authority, they act illegally.
I'm sorry that confuses you so!
I'm still a believer that we are a nation of laws. I know Democrats have outraised Republicans in campaign contributions since the 1980's. And if you don't think that Democrats have raked in big donations from these corporations, then being naive truly suits you.
Bill Daley has been a major player in the telecom industry since leaving the Clinton Administration. He has made a personal fortune in this industry. Do you honestly think that he will bite the hands that have fed him so well?
hi Louis,
Since FoxNews has me outgunned in resources I suppose we can go on examining the veracity of your FoxNews talking points ad infinitum. I think instead, in commeration of Congress's vote to kill net neutrality, I'll sing a requiem (courtesy Leonard Cohen):
Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
Everybody Knows
-BB-
Post a Comment