
Rep. Susan Brooks Response on why she voted for S.J. Res. 34 - mgamache
http://document.share.s3.amazonaws.com/Responding%20to%20your%20message.htm
======
wahern
Tom Wheeler overreached with opt-in privacy regulations. The telecom industry
and Republicans seized the opportunity and swiftly moved forward with their
policy narrative before a protracted dispute could arise.

But make no mistake, this is all about net neutrality. The new FCC chair
already effectively killed the new privacy regulations. The real issue is that
Republicans would have both political and legal difficulty, within the context
of the net neutrality dispute, shifting regulation of ISPs back to the FTC.
However, from the privacy regulation angle, the FCC's classification of ISPs
as common carriers seem more like an unlawful power grab.

The optics are better for Democrats on the privacy issue, but nobody is going
to vote in the 2018 or 2020 cycle based on that issue. Nor will any
candidate's election turn on net neutrality, for that matter. But net
neutrality has many, very well-heeled corporate supporters. There's plenty of
muscle to defend net neutrality at the national level. Whereas nobody is going
to expend much capital (monetary or political) defending opt-in privacy
regulations.

Remember, all Republicans need is an excuse to give Google, Netflix, etc,
corporate lobbyists for why they returned regulation back to the status quo.
The privacy regulation issue is that excuse. It's just an unfortunate
coincidence that by returning to the status quo ante (that is, before
Wheeler's common carrier classification), there's no significant authority to
enforce net neutrality.

------
mgamache
key phrase:

"[FTC] provides consumers with stable privacy expectations across all aspects
of online activity" Really?

