The Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Friday, with the support of a handful of Democrats, passed a joint resolution to repeal the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) net neutrality regulations that would enforce competitive behavior among Internet companies.
Democrats who voted in favor of the resolution along with their Republican colleagues are Reps. Dan Boren (D-Oklahoma), Sanford Bishop (D-Georgia), a conservative Blue Dog, David Scott (D-Georgia), Kurt Shrader (D-Oregon), Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi) and Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota).
H.J. Res. 37, which disapproves of FCC rules “relating to the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices,” passed 240-179. The resolution will now be sent to the Senate for a vote, where it is unlikely to be approved by the Democratic majority.
As Truthout previously reported, the resolution of disapproval is a rarely used procedure that allows Congress to formally reject and reverse the actions of a federal agency. House Republicans previously introduced a resolution of disapproval last November to overturn the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, but were unsuccessful.
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Oregon), chairman of the House Communications Subcommittee, said the anti-net neutrality resolution amounted to Congress recognizing that it had not “authorized the FCC to regulate the Internet.”
“If not challenged, the FCC's power grab would allow it to regulate any interstate communications service on barely more than a whim and without any additional input from Congress,” Walden said.
Parul P. Desai, policy counsel for the Consumers Union, said FCC regulations are necessary to prevent Internet providers from limiting or blocking access to legal websites.
“When consumers spend money on Internet service, they expect to be able to surf the web openly,” Desai said. “Internet providers should not limit your choices to their preferred sites. That's why we need rules, like the FCC’s framework, to maintain an open Internet.”
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-California), whose district includes Facebook and Google as constituent companies, said that if the resolution “were about innovation, jobs, competition, or consumers, the majority wouldn't really be offering it, because it disables a free and open Internet,” noting that “more than 150 organizations… have lined up against it.”
During a House committee hearing on April 4, Eshoo said that “without the FCC's basic 'rules of the road,' nothing will prevent large corporations from carving the Internet into fast and slow lanes, deciding which sources of news, information, and entertainment consumers and business can access.”
One of the major backers of the anit-net neutrality resolution is Freedom Works, a right-wing nonprofit organization, that has received funding from Verizon and AT&T, who stand to benefit if the law is overturned, and the Koch Brothers family fountain.
The group's president, Matt Kibbe, said net neutrality, “is likely to cripple competition, restrict innovation, reduce employment and raise costs for all consumers… The FCC's net neutrality regulations would restrict the freedom of all Internet users while further harming our fragile economy.” .
While a majority of Democrats and Republicans voted on the resolution along party lines, several representatives did agree that the timing of the vote symbolized the potentially destructive sparring in Congress.
“We would not be here today if the Democrats in the last Congress had bothered to take up a budget and pass it or even vote on it,” Walden said; Rep. Norman Dicks (D-Washington) asked his colleagues, “Why are we considering H.J. Res. 37 when we are on the verge of shutting down the House of Representatives?”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California), ranking member of the Energy & Commerce Committee, said that H.J. Res. 37 “would give big phone and cable companies control over what websites Americans can visit, what applications they can run, and what devices they can use. The Internet may be the greatest engine in our economy today… [because] it is open.”
One question that remains unanswered is whether the FCC actually has the authority to regulate the Internet. A federal appeals court in April 2010 ruled that the commission does not have that power, stating that Congress must have explicitly authorize it to do so; rather, the FCC has “ancillary jurisdiction” granted by sections of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
Last week, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment. We are presently looking for 253 new monthly donors in the next 3 days.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy