dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Rep. Issa Proposes 2-Year Internet Regulation Moratorium
Despite Voting Previously for Horrible Regulation (CISPA)
by Karl Bode 09:53AM Thursday Nov 29 2012 Tipped by Dominokat See Profile
Republican Representative Darrell Issa has proposed a two year ban on all new federal legislation regulation the Internet. The complete text of the bill accompanied a Q&A the lawmaker (or one of his interns) did on Reddit, where Issa ran face-first into an audience that is a little more savvy than what he's probably used to. Reddit users were quick to point out that Issa hated Internet regulation so much, he voted for the hugely unpopular CISPA, which would have utterly gutted any remaining consumer privacy rights under the pretense of "cybersecurity."

Questions have also been raised as to how this bill would of course derail any potentially good regulations (however scarce that could be via a heavily lobbied Congress), and whether Issa isn't just posturing to help corporations block regulations that could actually have a positive impact on consumers. Says one Reddit reader and a laywer:
quote:
First, this bill is not targeted to regulations burdening the free internet; rather, its breathtakingly broad application protects any and all "individuals or corporations engaged in activities on the Internet," from any and all new requirements. The covered entities, of course, include basically every individual period (since we all use the internet), and virtually every business that has a website or email address. So pretty much 99% of all human activity in this country is covered.

Second, it is not even limited to banning regulations of everyone's ONLINE activity; it would also ban regulations of their offline activity. So that means no more environmental, FDA, transportation, or airline safety regs, because everyone regulated is "engaged in activities on the internet."
There's little doubt that the majority of technology legislation proposed by Congress is crap, written by ethically-challenged individuals with little understanding of the systems they're impacting. Still, Reddit users are quick to point out that those who oppose all government regulation offer a rather fractured and myopic world view and are taking the lazy way out from having to debate the merits of each piece of legislation individually.

view:
topics flat nest 
Telco

join:2008-12-19

Asleep

Was this guy asleep during this last election? The landslide and memorandum only occurred a few weeks ago after all.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: Asleep

said by Telco:

Was this guy asleep during this last election? The landslide and memorandum only occurred a few weeks ago after all.

Issa got 59% of the vote. The landslide didn't affect him.
»www.thepoliticalguide.com/Electi···rnia/49/
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.

zoom314

join:2005-11-21
Yermo, CA

Re: Asleep

At least not until more Old GOPpers die of old age...

n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

Lesson Learned

There is one lesson I am sure Darrell Issa has learned; DO NOT ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON YOUR PROPOSALS! I am sure this is the last time the general public will be invited to comment on proposed legislation from him. From now on all legislative work will take place behind locked doors with lobbyists seated at the table.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.

zoom314

join:2005-11-21
Yermo, CA

Re: Lesson Learned

Like Issa would care about comments from the little people who don't have massive amounts of moola to contribute to His bribe, er campaign fund?
rdmiller

join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA

Lobbyist-run Congress

Issa is an example of the best Congress lobbyists can buy. He's already raising money for his next campaign.

cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

Re: Lobbyist-run Congress

said by rdmiller:

He's already raising money for his next campaign.

The only time a politician is NOT raising money for his next campaign is when they are guaranteed retiring from politics or they won't run again for an office due to term limits (e.g modern Presidents)
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by rdmiller:

Issa is an example of the best Congress lobbyists can buy. He's already raising money for his next campaign.

not to mention he is an @sshole of major proportions and one of the richest members of congress.

If he does something to benefit consumers, it's purely by accident.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: Lobbyist-run Congress

said by nasadude:

not to mention he is an @sshole of major proportions and one of the richest members of congress.

He made his money building a business and selling car alarms to auto companies, & not in Congress.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Is···s_career
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.

zoom314

join:2005-11-21
Yermo, CA
And probably a Bigger crook than Nixon ever was...
Methadras

join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
said by nasadude:

said by rdmiller:

Issa is an example of the best Congress lobbyists can buy. He's already raising money for his next campaign.

not to mention he is an @sshole of major proportions and one of the richest members of congress.

If he does something to benefit consumers, it's purely by accident.

And you care how rich he is why?

ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA

Re: Lobbyist-run Congress

it's not how rich he is. it's how he got rich that people care about.

IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

1 recommendation

Regulations are best left to the states

The most incompetent regulator is the federal government.

I think regulation of the internet (particularly last mile ISPs such as Comcast or Verizon) should be left to state Public Utilities Commissions as they hold a de facto monopoly on broadband like water, gas, and electric companies hold a de facto monopoly on their respective industries.

I also think there needs to be more centralized regulation on siting of communications facilities where the state PUC should be the one with sole authority to regulate such sitings. Case in point is Cell Towers as the cell phone companies have to fight each city or town hall where they want to put up a new cell tower, even if they have a willing property owner such as a church who the cell companies will construct a steeple or willingly hide the equipment in an existing steeple. I sometimes think pre-emption of local regulations is a good thing and I think the cities and towns should be stripped of their authority to regulate communications towers and that authority given to a state PUC as people complain about that cell tower going up in their neighborhood and at the same time complain about spotty/no reception on their cell phones.

I would not mind regulators at the state level in Boston rubber stamping cell tower approvals for towers located in Springfield or the more affluent Longmeadow (MA) when a local city or town government would deny a cell tower permit. Sometimes local regulations are good and sometimes they create too much red tape (case in point, cell towers and decent reception).
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

Re: Regulations are best left to the states

People who hate cell towers make me laugh, Because they will say no to any transmitter in their town and then complain that they do not have 4g for their latest iDevice.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

zoom314

join:2005-11-21
Yermo, CA
Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
·Time Warner Cable

Re: Regulations are best left to the states

said by Kearnstd:

People who hate cell towers make me laugh, Because they will say no to any transmitter in their town and then complain that they do not have 4g for their latest iDevice.

Yep... Of that I have no doubt...

Pickwick

@fluor.com

There is no such thing as a "good regulation"

Any regulation, no matter how well intended, becomes leverage for vested interests.

ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA

Re: There is no such thing as a "good regulation"

yeah. fuck people who want clean drinking water.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

Missing the point

The good folks on Reddit may understand the industry, but the really don't have a clue about the machinations of Congress, if the article is any indicator. Why is it assumed that Issa is a moron? You really think he doesn't understand that this bill would put a moratorium on all activity (regulatory) changes over the next 2 years? Of course he does.

You have an administration that was just reelected that has shown an utter disregard for the constitution when it comes to legislation (DREAM Act... we don't need no stinking DREAM Act! We'll just pretend it passed! Yeah, that's it! - not to mention the notion that there's been no budget for the last 3 years... or recess appointments that happen while Congress is very much in session...), and who has been very open over the notion that he plans on getting around Congress via new regulation passed by the extensions of the executive branch. The EPA is case in point - they've been very vocal over their plans to push the regulation to such a point so as to make coal pretty much illegal.

This is Issa trying to stop the administration from engaging in that type of behavior. It also would affect, I presume, the implementation of the regulations for Obamacare. Again... to believe that Issa is a dupe, who doesn't understand what he's asking for, is to be totally blind to how Washington works. In fact I would argue that the bill really has nothing to do with the internet. It's a way to get the executive branch from bypassing Congress.

Bill Neilson
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA

Re: Missing the point

said by JPL:

You have an administration that was just reelected that has shown an utter disregard for the constitution when it comes to legislation

This coming from someone who probably can't even tell us what the Constitution says.

How many times will we hear people incorrectly crying about the Constitution and the meaning behind the words?

Republicans want the country to believe they love the Constitution yet we have their former President introducing multiple levels of questionable privacy laws, a VP who believed their was a 4th Level of Government, and a group of sheep that follow Republicans around the Constitution claiming it says a slew of things that are nowhere to be found in the ACTUAL Constitution.

I am just surprised you didn't throw in a few Founding Father references about a topic that didn't exist until the 20th Century.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

Re: Missing the point

You mean the patriot act? The bill that, you know, Congress actually authorized? Is that the privacy bill you're talking about? Let me give you a hint about this - when Congress passes a law, and the president signs it, it's following a constitutional process. The supreme court can decide if the law oversteps the bounds of the constitution. That's the normal constitutional order - that's called checks and balances.

But what this administration has done is to utterly ignore the constitution. Remember when Bush had his signing statements? The media had a cow over those. Yeah, too bad Obama doesn't do those, right? Um, yeah, he does. You know what else he does? He takes a law, like DOMA, and decides he doesn't want to defend it. He issues recess appointments when Congress isn't in recess (that is in direct violation of the constitution, btw). He goes for 3 years without a budget. Again... a violation of the constitution. He then automatically assumes the DREAM act is law, even though it's never been put forward as a bill in Congress. Those are flagrant violations of the constitution.

You may not have liked the patriot act, but it was a constitutionally passed piece of legislation. The fact that the courts later struck parts of it down, don't take away from that (which puts it in line, in that respect, with McCain Feingold and Obamacare - both of which were partially struck down by the courts). This president has no respect for the constitution, and the processes that have been put in place for it. As such, he ignores it when he feels like it.

The point of my post, though, was to illustrate a simple point. Obama has declared that he will use these federal agencies to promote regulations without bothering to go through congress. Can't get cap and trade passed? No problem! We'll just have the EPA pretend that it's been passed! Obamacare is about to unleash a slew of new regulations. My point remains the same - Issa is (I believe) trying to stop the executive branch from this overreach. The article made it sound like Issa had no clue of the effects of his bill. I think that's crap. I think he knows full well what the effects of the bill are, and I would argue that they are his intent - to stop the march of regulations from the executive branch.

ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA

Re: Missing the point

Congress passes Obamacare, I don't know how you can pin that completely on Obama.

and the executive branch can try to overstep their authority, but, if it isn't legal to do so, you can challenge it.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

Re: Missing the point

said by ArrayList:

Congress passes Obamacare, I don't know how you can pin that completely on Obama.

and the executive branch can try to overstep their authority, but, if it isn't legal to do so, you can challenge it.

Wow, did you miss the point of my posting! Where did I say that Obama is all to blame for Obamacare? I said that it's ok if Congress passes a bill, and the president signs it, and it's struck down by the Supreme Court. I pointed out that the Patiot Act (what the poster was railing about) was partially overturned by the court... but that's still not constitutional overreach. In fact it puts it in the same league as Obamacare and McCain/Feingold. I never said that Obamacare was invalidly created. It was created per the constitutionally allowed legislative process.

However, much of what this president has done isn't. Like what? I mentioned a few items - the recess appointments that he made while Congress was in session... imposition of the DREAM Act without an act of congress... failure to enforce DOMA - a duly passed law (which he has the mandated duty to enforce).

As for challenging an overstep...um, how, exactly would that happen? Congress is going to take the president to court? Hell, you can't even sue the federal government unless the government says it's ok to do so. About the only process that Congress has - they have two courses of action:

1) Impeachment - if Congress believes that the president is in violation of the constitution, they have an ability to impeach. But with democrats controlling the Senate... that won't happen.

2) Withholding funding. Congress has the purse strings, which the founders saw as the ultimte power. The problem is that the president decided that he really doesn't need a budget to do what he's doing. Which means that the only real recourse they have is #1.

Liberals can scream all the live long day about how Bush stepped on the constitution. I'd like to see concrete examples of that. Which would be a trick since there aren't cases of that happening. Instead they take disagreements about policy and call that 'unconstitutional' (the patriot act... the war in Iraq... you name it - all of which was done with Congressional approval - which means that none of it was unconstitutional).

ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
·Comcast

Re: Missing the point

to challenge a law, you break it. then you have a means of challenging the constitutionality of it in court. it's called civil disobedience. do they not teach this in school anymore?

keep using words like liberals/conservatives and see what kinds of responses you get.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

Re: Missing the point

No... you don't automatically get to challenge the constitutionality in court. Don't they teach THAT in school anymore? For starters - I'm not some kid. I'm 44 years old... I understand how the law works. For you to challenge it in court, you have to have standing. If you don't have standing, then the courts won't hear it. And even if you do have standing, there's still no guarantee that they'll hear it. Look up: writ of certiorari. If every miscreant who broke the law was allowed to go after the constitutionality of that law, the courts would be so overstuffed that they would have time for nothing else.

As for the labels - are they not accurate? Why shouldn't I use labels that are short hand references to ideological world-views?