The FCC is an 'independent' agency which means that while congress can ask questions, make suggestions, apply pressure, and vote on members of the commission it cannot force the FCC to introduce, accept, or reject any proposed rule-making. Like most regulatory agencies, the purse power is limited since the FCC is funded by regulatory fees (I say limited and not zero because I believe the fees are paid by industry to the treasury and then allocated by congress). Also, like most regulatory agencies the makeup of the commission is statutorily party-balanced with the president selecting the chairman.
The commission still has to vote on this proposed rule-making though.
The FCC exists by authority of Congress. Congress can expand or limit this authority at will, including any regulations promulgated by the FCC. So, Congress can basically do what it wants. This is true of any federal agency. The "independent" part means independent of the President, as they are not part of the executive branch.
However, I don't think Congress will act in this case. One reason Congress delegates regulation to specific agencies is because Congress does not have the expertise to craft the proper regulations. As a Republican, it seems to me the FCC has taken a balanced approach to regulation in this case, so I don't see much negative feedback by Congress.
> Congress can expand or limit this authority at will
Congress can do so only by passing new laws, which mean with the consent of the President or over the President's veto.
> As a Republican, it seems to me the FCC has taken a balanced approach to regulation in this case, so I don't see much negative feedback by Congress.
The Republicans in Congress (and the Republican minority on the FCC, as well) have been fairly consistently opposed to any FCC regulation in the direction of net neutrality, including the previous and much weaker actions the FCC has taken in the past, and have, in fact, already initiated efforts to head this off based on the discussions which indicated that the FCC was considering something in this direction and explicitly deny the FCC authority to make rules regarding net neutrality.
So, assuming the FCC actually passes Wheeler's proposal, I expect substantial pushback in Congress. I don't think opponents of neutrality have the votes to pass a law on the matter over the President's veto, though.
> As a Republican, it seems to me the FCC has taken a balanced approach to regulation in this case, so I don't see much negative feedback by Congress.
What about the extremist anti-regulatory positions of many in the GOP? Not every Republican thinks that way, but enough to do generate a lot of noise and elect a substantial portion of Congress.
It's true my first reaction was against internet regulation. If it ain't broke... However, I read his statement, and his decision seems well considered. And, the regulations are in the direction of ensuring openness. My biggest concern is that now that there is regulation, it can go in any direction in the future.
> Congress only needs a simple majority to prevent a bill from being passed in the first place.
Yes, but the bills that needs to be passed were already passed (most significantly in 1934 and 1996.)
In order to stop the FCC taking this action under existing law, Congress would have to pass a new bill, which mean that the filibuster in the Senate and veto by the President are real issues.
Wheeler isn't proposing a new law, he is proposing an exercise of the FCC's regulatory authority under existing law.
The implication is that the simple majority in congress would be against these regulations and pass a bill to stop them. However, if the President supports these regulations promulgated under existing statutory authority, he would veto any new bill that revoked that authority.
Downvoting statements that are accurate and contribute to the discussion is a hallmark of this topic. Hacker news cannot have useful discussion here because it's all orthodoxy.
I always marvelled at historical hatred between protestants and catholics during and prior to the enlightenment. I now realize that this is a symptom of human nature. Humans apparently have to hate the other guys no matter what.
In the past it was religion, today it is whether or not you are a network expert with an opinion about the technical implications of net-neutrality proposals. People on the pro-net neutrality side of this debate become furious if you don't spout their orthodoxy. I find it revolting.
But yes, by all means, downvote sp332 for making a completely accurate assessment of how our legislative system works. It really improves the quality of the discussion.
It is an accurate assessment of how our legislative system works, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The FCC is not putting a bill up for a vote by congress, they are proposing telecommunications rules that an internal commission will vote on.
johncp brought up Congress, not me. I'm just pointing out that vetos aren't relevant (although mikecb's clarification helped). So why am I getting downvoted instead?
Because your argument has a giant hole in it. Suppose, for argument's sake, that there is big political opposition to this rule. It's reasonable to think that most of this opposition would come from the GOP, going by comments on news websites and so on, and the GOP's demonstrated preference for opposing policies backed by the President (eg the 56th(!) house vote yesterday to repeal Obamacare).
If the GOP really decided to make an issue out of this, they have majorities in both houses fo Congress and thus could, in fact, pass a bill that would require a Presidential veto if their caucus were sufficiently united and worked up about the issue. Realistically they probably won't bother, but your claim that it would be impossible to get even a simple majority is unfounded.
> johncp brought up Congress, not me. I'm just pointing out that vetos aren't relevant (although mikecb's clarification helped). So why am I getting downvoted instead
Because Congressional opponents of neutrality can (and, in fact, already has) attempt to head this off through legislation (so Congress is relevant, so its not wrong to bring them up), but to do directly undo any regulatory action, they will need to pass new law, to which the veto power is relevant, so it is incorrect to "point out" that vetos aren't relevant.
