FCC’s plan is being criticized by Republicans in Congress

That’s frequently the case with net impartiality: a handful of Republican delegates have joined their voices to those demanding the FCC to delay the vote that would repeal net neutrality, or for legislation that authorizes the principle permanently.

The latest to turn is Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO), who addressed in a letter today:

The Internet has been and continues a transformative tool, and I am concerned that any action you may take to change the rules under which it operates may well have significant unanticipated negative results. Therefore, I urge you to delay your future vote and provide Congress with the opportunity to hold discussions on the net neutrality issue and to pass permanent open Internet legislation.

This statement is not without obstacles most importantly, the idea that Congress hasn’t had the chance to hold hearings and pass legislation over the last few years. People have been making a ruckus for a long time but elected officials have more or less neglected them, or actively worked against them, as with the ill-advised repeal of the broadband privacy rules earlier this year.

At least Rep. Coffman, for one, can contemptuously say he was not among those who voted for that offensive action; he was among 15 Republican Nays, and I thank him for his hospitality to cross party lines in this matter.

Having missed the show and only seen a portion of Senator Thune’s remarks, I was wrong about his position. His full remarks, just posted, indicate he strongly sustains the FCC’s net neutrality rollback plan. I’m leaving the next few articles here, however, so readers can see how I creatively interpreted portions of his speech.

Senator John Thune (R-SD) also lately spoke out on the Senate floor, saying:

So many of us in Congress previously agree on many of the systems of net neutrality…If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and those who pretend to support net neutrality rules want to enshrine protections for customers with the backing of the law, I call on you now to join me in discussing law that would do just that.