Majority Leader McCarthy on the internet

boehnerI am opposed to today’s vote by the FCC to classify the internet as a public utility. The Internet should remain free of intrusive government regulation so that rapid innovation and commerce can continue to flourish. The FCC chairman was asked to appear before the House of Representatives to discuss and answer questions about these new regulations, but he failed to do so. Americans deserve transparency and accountability from the government officials the administration are entrusting to enforce these important regulations.–Rep. Tom Reed

Washington, D.C. – House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (CA-23) released the following statement on the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) decision to regulate the Internet like a utility:

“The FCC has just taken the internet—arguably the most dynamic contributor to a growing economy and higher quality of life in the world—back in time to the era of landlines. Today’s vote by the commission to regulate the Internet as if it were Pac Bell is discouraging and risks the freedom of a system that puts instant information and communication at millions of fingertips. 

“While the proposal of this regulation is disappointing, the refusal of FCC Chairman Wheeler to testify in front of Congress and share the proposal with the public ahead of the vote is a stunning rebuke to government transparency. The FCC was created as an agency independent from the political influence of the White House. But the recent timeline of actions by the Chairman suggests that separation has been blurred. The American people deserve that important regulatory decisions are open to thorough scrutiny.

“The committees of jurisdiction will continue to aggressively investigate this issue and conduct extensive oversight.  We will also review legislative options where appropriate.  The Internet is too important to the everyday lives of Americans for such government overreach.”

The article cited by McCarthy notes:

The (rule) changes would allow the commission to regulate the Internet like a public utility, setting new standards that require the provision of equal access to all online content.

“Equal access to all online content” isn’t unfair, intrusive regulation.

Here is more that Rep. McCarthy didn’t mention:

  • The purpose of the FCC is to regulate communications: telephone, radio, TV, and the like.
  • Regulation heads off plans to provide fast internet service for some and slower service for most.
  • Regulation insures fair service for all users.
  • The FCC was created as an agency independent from the political influence of Congress as well as the Executive Branch.
  • The Administration did not overreach: as McCarthy noted, the FCC is independent.
  • Congress would certainly overreach if it would interfere with the FCC as McCarthy threatens.

McCarthy, like Tom Reed, views Obama Administration actions as overreach, yet he would have had Congress grill the head of an independent agency, the FCC, just prior to a vote.

© William Hungerford – March 2015


About whungerford

* Contributor at where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Congress, Political, Reed's Views and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Majority Leader McCarthy on the internet

  1. josephurban says:

    In other words, according to McCarthy. The internet should be for sale to the highest bidder. Even though it was developed using taxpayer dollars.


  2. whungerford says:

    Everything must be for profit; for example: “this bill (H.R. 749) sets the table for all of Amtrak’s routes to be self-sufficient so that government can eventually get out of the rail business and leave it to the private sector, as it should be.”


  3. Deb Meeker says:

    And here come the wasteful lawsuits. It seems Republicans just can’t help themselves from squandering tax dollars trying to prevent an equal footing for the average American.


  4. Robert Kriegar says:

    Frankly, I am so sick, and so tired, of these corporatist politicians lying straight out, and pretending to be trying to achieve the exact opposite of what they are trying to achieve in reality, that I could flat pull my hair out. They lie, argue by straw man, misdirect, redirect, and mischaracterize. They bloviate and propagandize these issues, which even their own voting base, calls them out on as blatantly false. And if we are not all extremely dogged, tenacious, and vigilant, they will do exactly as they intend to do, regardless of the majority of opinion of informed voters on the left or right. THIS is why you have generational voter apathy, and why it continues to grow. Never mind any foregoing reasoning by Kennedy Era voters. It is high time that term limits and reasonable restrictions get placed upon the other two branches of government, with the clear intention of restoring the balance of power of the three branches. And these people can keep their fat, sticky, money-goaled fingers off the internet that we, the American Voting Public, paid with our tax dollars to create.


  5. whungerford says:

    I can’t agree on term limits–they ensure turnover, but do nothing to ensure good representation.


  6. solodm says:

    One bright note – “Millions of people have called or written the FCC demanding the agency reclassify broadband Internet access under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. A previous effort organized by The Battle for The Net coalition generated more than 300,000 phone calls, 800,000 FCC comments and 2,000,000 emails to Congress in a single day in support of Net Neutrality.”
    Now if only other critical issues could be addressed by millions the same way.


  7. Robert Kriegar says:

    I think that it does a lot to promote good representation, and reduce cronyism. Moreover, restoring the balance to the 3 branches, rather than leaving the Executive branch weakened as the result of a coup by the other two branches, ensures better government. In that vein, I would restore either the lack of term limits on the presidency, or the insitution of them, upon the two branches.


  8. Robert Kriegar says:

    Yes, thank you for pointing that out! It feels good when we move, and it actually accomplishes the goal!


  9. josephurban says:

    I oppose term limits for Congress. If we have term limits we would lose the few long term legislators who are able to stand up to corporate interests. People like Barry Sanders. The massive influx of money would make it relatively easy for corporate interests to buy new, young candidates every 8 or 10 years. Term limits may have the effect of making government less responsive to long term interests and responsive only to short term profits. An elected official would have a short period of time to make his or her mark, they would not look to the future…then join the private sector. We are better off the way things are now.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. josephurban says:

    Correction: Barry Sanders was a running back. Bernie Sanders is from Vermont. Although we could probably do worse than having Barry Sanders in Congress as well.


  11. whungerford says:

    Jim Bunning, who had been an ace pitcher for Detroit, served in the House and Senate. Then there was Jack Kemp. Perhaps a better choice than an athlete would be a fronteersman–Davy Crockett “cleaned up Washington and laws as well” in two terms in the House.


  12. josephurban says:

    Bunning was a good example of an excellent athlete with no brain to speak of.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. whungerford says:

    One might as well consult Bunning about Rocket Science as Kemp about Economics.


  14. Robert Kriegar says:

    How do you feel about term limits, now, after the umbrage of the words of congress, in their recent letter undermining the sitting president? (I hope that doesn’t sound testy-I’m just wondering if you had considered again, in light of this event.)


  15. whungerford says:

    Bob, I see no connection to that controversial letter and term limits. Without checking, I have no reason to believe that newly elected Senators were either more or less likely to have signed it. Certainly term limits would affect those who signed as well as those who didn’t.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.