Republicans in the House Energy Committee are stepping up the rhetoric against the Federal Communications Commission's new neutrality rules in advance of tomorrow's hearing about whether the
regulations should be
vacated.
"Over the last several months, the FCC has failed to provide a
compelling justification for its power-grab," Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich) and Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore) said today in a
statement. "The truth is imposing these rules will cause more harm than good by stifling innovation, investments and jobs."
The Republican leaders' remarks were in response to a letter sent
Monday by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski explaining the market conditions that led to the FCC's open Internet order. Genachowski pointed to several factors. First, he said, many consumers have only
one choice of broadband providers and "the substantial majority have at most two options." What's more, even when people have two options, "the switching costs may be high."
In other words, if
a consumer's ISP starts blocking content, that user might not be able to easily change providers and receive the content he or she is looking for.
Secondly, Web companies including Amazon,
Facebook and Google, have said that their businesses rely on the open Internet principles that broadband providers have historically followed. Additionally, Genachowski wrote, start-ups benefit from
neutrality rules because they ensure "that barriers to innovation and entry online remain low."
The rules themselves ban broadband providers from blocking content or applications and prohibit
wireline providers from engaging in unreasonable discrimination. For all of the opposition in the House, many neutrality advocates were disappointed with those regulations, which they said didn't go
far enough to protect consumers from arbitrary decisions by ISPs.
Regardless, given Republicans' fierce opposition to the neutrality rules, the House seems likely to vote to vacate them regardless. Even so,
the vote won't have any impact unless the Senate also passes a similar measure and President Barack Obama signs off on it, neither of which appears likely.