Media reform groups may think the Federal Communications Commission's new net neutrality rules are toothless. Senator Al Franken (D-MN) may deem them "inadequate to protect consumers or preserve the free and open Internet." But the Republican Party has a very different take on the decision.

House GOP leader John Boehner (OH) calls them a "harmful federal government power grab." The FCC's "hostile actions toward innovation, investment and job creation" must be stopped by any means necessary, warns Fred Upton (R-MI), incoming Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. And that includes invoking the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overrule Federal regulations by joint resolution.

Tuesday's three-to-two vote in favor of the rules was "a sad commentary that this administration and the FCC continue to ignore the will of the American people," Upton declares, "our new majority is committed to protecting personal liberty and reducing the size and scope of the government."

Never mind FCC assertions that its new provisions are simply basic protections for the digital road. Never mind that Comcast offered them mild praise, suggesting that, at least at first glance, they "generally appear intended to strike a workable balance between the needs of the marketplace for certainty and everyone's desire that Internet openness be preserved."

That's all just smoke and mirrors, Upton's statement concludes. "Anyone can recognize that what the Commission claims to be statements of broad industry support are really cries of 'uncle' resulting from threats of even more onerous regulation."

Ditto, say two of Upton's incoming colleagues, Representative Greg Walden, impending Chair of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, and Lee Terry, its incoming Vice Chair.

"If left unchallenged, this power grab will allow the Commission to regulate any interstate wired or wireless communication on barely more than a whim," Walden insists, promising Congressional hearings on the matter next year.

Punting halfway

It's no secret that the GOP doesn't like this net neutrality business. It never has. In the Senate, John McCain (R-AZ) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) have been trying to block a net neutrality ruling for years. But the complaint keeps changing as the circumstances shift.

In May, 171 Republicans sent a letter to the FCC declaring that the open Internet question was up to them, not the Commission. This was back when the agency was still thinking about partially defining ISPs as common carriers.

It's a question that Capitol Hill should take on, their missive to the Commission insisted. "We write to encourage you not to proceed down your announced path to reclassify broadband service as phone service under Title II of the Communications Act," Joe Barton (R-TX), Cliff Sterns (R-FL) and 169 of their colleagues wrote. That sort of deliberation "should be made by Congress."

But when Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) proposed open Internet legislation in September that put off the Title II reclassification route, that was deemed unacceptable too. "I have consulted with Republican leadership and members of the Energy and Commerce Committee," Barton explained, "and there is a widespread view that there is not sufficient time to ensure that Chairman Waxman's proposal will keep the Internet open without chilling innovation and job creation."

"If the majority wants to work on a solution to continue a free and open Internet, let's consider the issue deliberately, rather than punting with a halfway measure two days before the end of Congress."

That was one of the nicer GOP statements in response to Waxman's bill.

"Speaker Pelosi and President Obama have taken measures to control the healthcare industry, the auto industry, the banking industry and the insurance industry," warned John Culberson (R-TX) on the same day. "It comes as no surprise that they attempt to control commercial activity over the Internet before they lose control of Congress."

Web usurpation

The presumption that rules prohibiting ISPs from blocking content or unfairly discriminating against legal online services represents a "government takeover" of the Internet plus a threat to the "personal liberty" of Americans have become standard claims in this debate. Some commentators have developed a knack for more colorfully conveying these concerns.

"We are dealing with people who think they should rebel until they get their little kingdom like Satan did," declared Glenn Beck on the subject. "You know what? Thanks, Mr. President, but I think we're going to keep the Internet the way it is right now. You know—or at least until people who are worshipping Satan, you know, aren't in office."

Then there's Seton Motley, whose work appears in the Washington Examiner. Motley regularly peppers his coverage of this issue with phrases like "Marxist," "Stalinist," "authoritarian," "uberLeftist," and comparisons to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, lately reported to have recommended a bill that would restrict adult Internet content to the wee hours.

FCC Chair Julius Genachowski's "Web usurpation" ventures "way beyond where the comparatively mild-mannered Chavez is trying to get with his legislation," Motley warns. "Being to the left of Scandinavia and France is bad enough. If we are now beyond the bounds of Hugo Boss—just how far from the path have we strayed?"

But now this sort of volume pumping comes from more official quarters.

"The precedent has now been set for the Internet to be subjected to state interpretations of 'reasonable' by governments of all stripes," Republican FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell warned in his dissent against the agency's Order.

In fact, at the United Nations just last Wednesday, a renewed effort by representatives from countries such as China and Saudi Arabia is calling for what one press account says is, 'an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet.' By not just sanctioning, but encouraging more state intrusion into the Internet's affairs, the majority is fueling a global Internet regulatory pandemic.

As we reported, this UN fear-mongering is a bit overblown, but it doesn't matter. Clearly the open Internet question has taken on a rhetorical life of its own, one that will live very large when Congress reconvenes next year.

"I always held out hope that, 'until hell freezes over,' the FCC really wouldn't take this unnecessary step to regulate the Internet," noted anti-net neutrality stalwart Randolph May this week. "I guess the fact that the temperature here in Washington has not been much above freezing for about two weeks now is not a good sign."