House to Reform FCC Over Net Neutrality?

posted at 7:00 am on April 14, 2011 by

A few days back the House took what is being called by some a “symbolic vote” aimed essentially at blocking the FCC’s ability to implement so-called Net Neutrality rules.

A few days ago, Republicans, in a symbolic Congressional vote, nullified the order of net neutrality issued by the FCC. A resolution for disapproval has been voted 241-178 and the House claimed that rules banning application blocking and some cases of unfair network management should be deprived of force or “effect”. Rob Woodall, Georgia Congressman, said that although the FCC needed permission to issue rules for the Internet, the House needed to reject any rules coming form the FCC.

The resolution was opposed by Democrats who argued that such a decision would threaten both innovative technologies in the United States and real jobs.

While the vote brought cheers from opponents of the Net Neutrality movement, it’s important to remember that this is far from a done deal. Thus the “symbolic” comment.

The measure still needs Senate approval, but the Republican gesture supporting large corporations is mostly symbolic and has no chance since the Obama administration had declared it would veto this resolution if it passed.

This situation once again brings up a long needed debate on two levels. From the fine detail perspective, we still haven’t resolved the question of whether or not the internet is truly the province of the FCC to begin with, and if such a body should be able to regulate internet activity, which affects commerce and a whole host of other concerns. And from a much wider view, a battle is waiting to be fought over exactly how far any executive branch office may properly go in the creation of “rules” which have the force of law completely outside of the legislative process.

The second portion may soon be getting more attention, since Greg Walden announced this week that he’s planning on hearings aimed at putting some of the FCC’s powers in check and effectively reviewing their charter.

House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden said Wednesday to look for a hearing and legislation on Federal Communications Commission reform.

The Oregon Republican and former broadcaster, speaking at the American Cable Association Summit in Washington, D.C., did not talk about specific reforms, but he is very publicly on the record in opposition to the FCC’s highest-profile rulemaking decision, the network neutrality rules passed last December.

Walden introduced a resolution, which passed the House, invalidating those rules, which he says the FCC did not have the authority to implement. Democrats have criticized the effort as a waste of time since the Senate is highly unlikely to follow suit and the President highly likely to veto it if they did.

But Walden said the FCC was a “creature of Congress,” and suggested it was Congress’ duty to keep that creature in check if it starts to run loose. “Failure to do that only gives them license to do other things they don’t have the authority to do,” he said.

This should be one to watch for, as it addresses the fundamental question I raised above. Is the FCC truly a “creature of Congress” as Walden suggests or should they operate solely at the behest of the executive branch, effectively implementing the president’s vision over such matters? In some areas, such as food safety regulations, it is clearly sensible to have a group of experts taking care of the fine points rather than tying up Congress over matters most of them are not equipped to address. But the FCC currently extends its rule making power in ways which dip into rice bowls all across the spectrum. Perhaps these hearings will result in clarifying that role.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Perhaps these hearings will signify nothing more than sound and fury. The congress likes to be seen as doing something. Whether they accomplish something is another matter. Why are agencies set up to make up rules as they go along for whoever is in the WH at the time, but congress has to pass a law that the president has to sign to reverse it? If an agency wants a rule, they should have to have it passed by Congress first. There’s too many fingers in the dough.

Kissmygrits on April 14, 2011 at 8:25 AM

Kissmygrits:”If an agency wants a rule, they should have to have it passed by Congress first.”

Amen. Strictly from a separation of powers perspective, this is how it should be, and always have been. A lot of these agencies were wrongly constructed in the first place, even granting that they should exist at all. The executive functions should reside in the Executive Branch, the legislative functions should be reporting prospective bills to Congress, and their should never have been any such things as “administrative courts”.

LarryD on April 14, 2011 at 1:43 PM

LarryD on April 14, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Amen, my brother. Amen.

J.E. Dyer on April 14, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Amen all

AH_C on April 15, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Heh yall havent learned anything yet. If you want to win this political war, the aim should be the destruction of the permanent unaccountable bureaucracy. The abolishment of FCC, FTC, FDA etc.

flawedskull on April 15, 2011 at 11:32 AM

This post has been promoted to HotAir.com.

Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.

Ed Morrissey on April 16, 2011 at 3:10 PM

But Walden said the FCC was a “creature of Congress,” and suggested it was Congress’ duty to keep that creature in check if it starts to run loose. “Failure to do that only gives them license to do other things they don’t have the authority to do,” he said.

Obama signing statement in 5-4-3-2……

Rovin on April 16, 2011 at 11:18 AM