Subscribe
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who often adopts anti-consumer positions on telecommunications policy, has written a so-called “killer amendment” that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing proposed Net Neutrality rules.
Her amendment, informally proposed Monday as part of a House Interior Appropriations spending measure (H.R. 2996) states:
Purpose: To prohibit the FCC from expending any funds in fiscal year 2010 to implement any Internet neutrality or network management principles, or to promulgate any rules relating to such principles.
Hutchison’s amendment has several Republican co-sponsors: John Ensign (R-Nevada), Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), David Vitter (R-Louisiana), Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), and John Thune, (R-South Dakota).
Hutchison released a statement explaining the amendment: “I am deeply concerned by the direction the FCC appears to be heading. We must tread lightly when it comes to new regulations. The case has simply not been made for what amounts to a significant regulatory intervention into a vibrant marketplace. These new regulatory mandates and restrictions could stifle investment incentives.”
Ensign said Net Neutrality would punish a telecommunications industry at a time when it’s managing through an economic downturn.
“Any industry that is able to thrive should be allowed to do so without meddlesome government interference that could stifle innovation,” he said.
Brownback also has a history opposing the consumer interests of his constituents. Back in May, he penned a letter to a Stop the Cap! reader in Kansas openly favoring Internet Overcharging schemes.
Public interest groups are calling on the public to express their displeasure with the Republican senators for their opposition to Net Neutrality.
One possible explanation for the sudden, strong interest by Hutchison and other Republicans to oppose Net Neutrality can be found in their respective bank accounts. Hutchison accepted $67,300 in campaign contributions just from AT&T, her ninth largest contributor.
Combined, AT&T donated more than $400,000 among the six Republicans opposing Net Neutrality, and one of those senators, John Thune, used to work for a DC lobbying firm that was hired by Comcast.
The details were compiled by Sam Gustin, a reporter for DailyFinance:
Over the course of his career, Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, has received $220,914 from “telephone utilities,” including some $83,130 from AT&T, his second-largest donor, in the form of employee and lobbyist donations to his campaign and political-action committees. Sprint Nextel has given Brownback $35,550 over the course of his career.
Two of the co-sponsors of the bill, Sen. David Vitter of Lousiana and Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who have both seen their reputations tarnished after sex scandals, have been on the receiving end of AT&T’s largesse. AT&T and predecessor BellSouth have donated $82,050 to Vitter’s campaigns and political-action committees. And over the last four years, AT&T has donated some $61,250 to Ensign’s campaign and political-action committees. Verizon-related entities donated $46,600 to Ensign during that period.
During that time, AT&T has donated $63,750 to the campaign and political-action committees of Sen. Jim DeMint, the South Carolina Republican. AT&T is DeMint’s second-largest donor.
Sen. John Thune, the South Dakota Republican, has not received significant donations from the telecom industry since his 2006 defeat of Sen. Tom Daschle, then Senate majority leader Tom Daschle. But from 2003 to 2005, Thune served as a senior policy adviser to the D.C. lobbying firm of Arent, Fox, when its client Comcast, the largest cable company in the U.S., paid some $40,000 in fees.
[Update: Yesterday evening, Washington Post reporter Cecilia Kang reported that the Republicans were, at least for now, backing off on pushing for their amendment:
"While we are still generally opposed to net neutrality regulations, we have decided to hold off on the amendment because [FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski] approached us and we are beginning a dialogue,” said a staff member on the committee.
Hill watchers said the amendment itself represented standard operating procedure when attempting to block regulatory agency policy decisions, but characterized the Hutchison amendment’s chances of passage as remote. Hutchison and the Republicans are in the minority in the Senate.]
Other stories of interest:
- Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) Confuses Internet Overcharging With Net Neutrality
- FCC Expected to Introduce Net Neutrality Rule Monday
- CRTC Embarrassed By FCC Net Neutrality Actions?
- One Half Done, One to Go: Net Neutrality Doesn’t Ban Internet Overcharging
- Net Neutrality Bill Introduced in Congress – Message to ISPs: Upgrade Yes, Scheme & Discriminate No
We don’t need more government intervention or regulations. Regulating network neutrality just gives the government a foot in the door to start regulating more and more aspects of the internet. Just because you like the sounds of the first step doesn’t mean you’ll like anything that follows. You don’t think the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and other anti-consumer groups will have lobbying powers to regulate your internet usage once the FCC has a mandate to regulate?
We need competition in broadband instead. Comcast and Time Warner should absolutely be allowed to treat customers like crap. The deserve to lose significant market share. The way these companies are run – they deserve to go bankrupt. Please, let them run their companies into the ground with anti-customer policies, and let pro-consumer alternatives prosper.
Customers shouldn’t rely on the government to solve their problems, they should vote with their wallets. If you don’t like these companies go to a competitor. If the competition sucks today they will improve with more customers (and revenue). If you don’t have any competition then complain to your bad ISP or contact potential competitors. Do something other than relying on the government unless you want your internet experience to be more like the DMV…
Jim,
What you are describing is a free market. I agree with your sentiment, except you need to realize that a free market does not exist and more likely than not will never exist because of the exact things that you describe.
Government regulation and intervention is needed because the current business model is in danger of being corrupted even more than what it currently is. I do agree that the regulations and intervention should not be all encompassing and should only cover what needs to be fixed, which is the unfair competition aspect and customer treatment (i.e. content control) by ISPs.
The RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and the other groups that you mention already have a lot of power and influence through lobbyists. Network neutrality would actually work against these companies. You don’t think that the RIAA and MPAA want file sharing traffic supported equally among other internet content do you? Currently, consumers are responding to the actions of these organizations: by not buying music CDs or DVDs and instead getting their content online.
I also think that you are totally missing the purpose of the FCC’s network neutrality initiative. The FCC’s network neutrality initiiative does not exist so that the FCC can tell these companies what they can do; rather, the initiative exists so that the FCC can tell these companies what they can’t do. They can’t discriminate traffic because they want to. They can’t hide the fact that they discriminate traffic. They can’t be dishonest to their customers about the products or services that they are selling. Without these guidelines and policies, unfair business practices and corruption could increase in the marketplace. With these guidelines and policies, unfair business practices and corruption may still exist, but it would be harder for these companies to achieve this unfairness and corruption.
I view the internet as the roads of the digital age – the roads of the information highway. What would life be like today if companies controlled and managed our roads as they see fit – and profit from them. It would be a horrible way to move around.
The same way for the internet. The internet would be a whole lot less usefull if companies had to pay individual ISPs to get on a tier that garantees their traffic on the network.
Jim, the whole point of Net Neutrality is to keep OPH (other people’s hands) off the Internet, and more importantly, the things that move across it. Whether you are on the right or left, providers/government/anyone that has a right to interfere with your free expression is a major problem for me, as long as your content is legal.
I understand your concern about RIAA and others’ inspecting your content, but in reality Net Neutrality, in reality, makes deep packet inspection much more difficult. In fact, providers should be exempted from any liability for the content that passes across their networks, and historically have been. ISPs should not be in the copyright enforcement business, and nothing about Net Neutrality changes that — if anything it makes it harder. A precedent is set when a provider messes around with inspecting the traffic on their networks. If they can do it for “x” then why not for “y.” Net Neutrality helps establish it’s not even okay for them to do “x.”
Competition can help solve these problems when it exists. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans can look forward to a monopoly/duopoly in broadband for the indefinite future. Wall Street simply doesn’t like private investment in the alternative – a robust competitive framework with price wars.
I think the system of checks and balances works pretty well. Unfortunately, a lot of corporate propaganda trying to make people believe the government is totally unequipped to serve as one has allowed too many providers to get away with whatever they want.
Our local DMV here in Rochester/Monroe County, run by a Republican county government, works very well with satellite locations, online renewals, extended hours, and much reduced waiting time. Government is not inherently unequipped to run things. Sometimes the people chosen to run them are. The same is true in the private sector.
Hutchinson gets “moderate” billing despite being a total Norquistian
Ron … I don’t recall private enterprise as funding the highways. I think the Eisenhower administration paid for our freeway system.
I could be wrong, but from what I have read, both private and government has had their hand in building our data infrastucture.
Actually you and I (or our parents) paid for the freeway system originally, as part of our taxes. But that system is largely maintained today by a user tax – namely the federal gasoline tax.
There is no way in the world anyone will convince me the private sector would have constructed such a system on their own.
Net Neutrality threatens innovation? Come again. LOL, I have never heard such BS. This woman isn’t worth a squirt of, well, you know what.
So says the woman taking kickbacks from the telecom Industry
Don’t expect anything from these dixie republicans, Wall Street and mainly northern business interests basically control the party. Most democrats are also bought and paid for unfortunately.
Just follow the money…..
Here is Sen Hutchison’s reply to my specific inquiry regarding net neutrality. It did not address or answer any of the questions I asked and was merely a disappointing pro-industry form letter.
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding equal and unrestricted access to the Internet. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.
The Internet is a valuable tool that facilitates business, education, and recreation for millions of Americans. In 2008, an estimated 220 million Americans had access to the Internet at home or work. As Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I am committed to ensuring that consumers benefit from competition in the telecommunications industry, resulting in lower prices, improved service, and access to 21st century technology.
Instrumental to the success of the Internet is the longstanding policy of keeping the Internet as free as possible from burdensome regulations. Increased investment in upgrading and expanding America’s Internet infrastructure, as well as innovative new broadband networks, will ensure that all Americans have access to affordable high-speed Internet. However, intensified regulation of the Internet, such as congressionally mandated treatment of data, would stifle competition and would decrease the incentive for network operators to invest in the Internet infrastructure.
It is my concern that mandates that prevent network providers from managing congestion on the Internet will reduce service speeds for many users, and eliminate a valuable tool for ensuring the most efficient use of network pipelines, resulting in increased costs to the consumer. In a June 2007 report on the issue of “network neutrality”, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stated that no “demonstrated consumer harm from conduct by broadband providers” had occurred due to network providers managing Internet traffic. More recently, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a decision involving Comcast and certain network management practices. While this decision works its way through the courts, Congress may continue reviewing network practices and Internet congestion issues.
Should any legislation regarding Internet access come before the Senate Commerce Committee, you may be assured I will keep your views in mind. I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov