Dan Meuser Slams Liberal Attempt to Reinstate Net Neutrality Rules
Schuylkill County’s representative in Congress spoke today against Democrat attempts to reinstate Net Neutrality rules.
On the floor of the House of Representatives Tuesday, Republican Dan Meuser (PA-9) spoke against HR 1644. Some call it the Government Controlled Internet Act or the Save the Internet Act of 2019.
Yeah, even the name sounds awful. And the bill is a sore loser attempt by Democrats to bring back some form of what they call Net Neutrality.
“This legislation would impose heavy-handed top-down regulations that would box the internet into outdated rules written in the 1930s,” Meuser says.
This bill, of course, has zero chance of being signed into law. Should it somehow sneak by the Senate, President Donald Trump surely would veto the bill. A lot of people believe it would be the quickest veto ever, OK?
What is Net Neutrality?
The Trump administration, through the FCC, repealed Net Neutrality almost immediately after taking power in 2017. Net Neutrality imposed too many government controls over the internet.
Without Net Neutrality, libs argued, internet providers — like Comcast, Service Electric, and Verizon — could throttle internet speeds and control connections to your favorite sites.
Some even said you’d have to pay per Facebook post or tweet. Problem is, they never once explained WHY an internet company would do such thing.
Since Net Neutrality was repealed, has your internet speed gone up or down? Has it gotten more or less expensive? Thought so.
If it hasn’t changed, your municipality is either very rural or it entered into an antiquated agreement with a cable provider years ago. Those agreements kept away competition from other internet providers.
Meuser Opposes Government Controlled Internet Act
Now … for someone that would want to control your access to certain websites and content: the government.
Meuser says HR 1644, as it’s written, is a classic example of government overreach. It won’t protect consumers and it’ll stifle innovation.
Here’s his full speech on the House floor Tuesday. Check out the video below:
I rise today in opposition to this rule and to HR 1644 also known as the Government-controlled Internet Act.
Once again House Democrats are putting federal government control over freedom and bringing to the floor yet another partisan Central Command government bill.
HR 1644 or the Government Controlled Internet Act, which fortunately has no chance of being signed into law, goes against everything that made the internet what it is today. There’s a reason the United States is home to the top internet companies in the world. This doesn’t happen by accident. It is because of the laissez-faire approach that allows for an environment of economic growth, competition, and innovation.
Instead of building upon the pro-innovation approach that has revolutionized how we communicate, work, and stay connected, this legislation would impose heavy-handed top-down regulations that would box the internet into outdated rules written in the 1930s.
Why is the Democrat majority supporting a bill that will take the internet backwards? This bill is the quintessential solution in search of a problem.
If we want to protect constituents, promote investment, and encourage innovation, HR 1644 is not the solution.
If my colleagues across the aisle are serious about protecting consumers and ensuring access to a free and open internet, then we need to find bipartisan consensus on Net Neutrality principles that address blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.
We need a modern framework that allows for continued American innovation and investment, not another federal government regulatory takeover.
HR 1644 is not a serious solution to protecting our constituents and advancing American ingenuity. I urge my colleagues to oppose this effort and send a clear message that we need to move the internet forward not backward.
It’s nice having a MAGA supporter backing Schuylkill County residents in Congress. But, we’ve got to work on Meuser’s accent, though.
It’s “inner-net” not “inteh-net”.