Big Break on Net Neutrality

Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the powerful Chair of the House Judiciary, came out in support of net neutrality today after his request to have the COPE Act brought to his committee failed.  From CQ (still searching for a link):

If the parliamentarian in fact refuses to send the measure to Judiciary for a second review, it would be a defeat for Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., who has insisted that his panel's oversight of business competition and antitrust issues entitles it to a crack at the telecom measure.

Joe L. Barton, R-Texas, the Energy and Commerce chairman who sponsored the bill, wants to send it directly to the House floor. Barton's committee approved the bill by a vote of 42-12 on April 26. The measure would make it easier for telephone companies to enter the video market.

If Judiciary cannot mark up that bill, Sensenbrenner and three of his committee's key Democrats are expected to introduce their own legislation to address one of the most contentious parts of Barton's bill -- the so-called net neutrality provision, which is intended to prevent phone and cable companies from abusing their power over the nation's broadband networks.

This fight - between Barton and Sensenbrenner - is pitting big business Republicans against libertarian Republicans.  There are also wide splits among Democrats, though the whipping from the blogs is putting pressure on both parties and having an effect.

The Judiciary Committee always gets a crack at telecom bills because of the antitrust issues inherent in the telecom network.  That Hastert denied Sensenbrenner his crack this time must be galling.  

The vote on the COPE Act is once again delayed, and that means that we're winning.



Display:


Re: Big Break on Net Neutrality (none / 0)

Wow, and that is all I can say, WoW.  Sensenbrenner on the side of truth, light and justice?  I'm speechless.  But, we'll take 'em where we can.


by Dems Need Balls on Wed May 17, 2006 at 03:33:27 PM EST

Re: Big Break on Net Neutrality (none / 0)

Let's hear it for those libertarian Republicans! May the party splinter into religious fundamentalists, pro-corporates, paranoid nationalists and libertarians, and may some reasonable libertarian-types start looking for another party that really does respect their values, while the others beat each other up over immigration and other issues.

Any sense of how this might unfold procedurally?  What, for example, would happen if Barton's bill includes one net neutrality provision and Sensenbrenner proposes another?  And why is this news necessarily an indicator that a vote will be delayed?  I'm truly clueless when it comes to the inner workings of Congress...


by mitchipd on Wed May 17, 2006 at 03:44:14 PM EST

Re: Big Break on Net Neutrality (none / 0)

http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/05/s tealing_the_la.html

Is the "net neutrality" debate irrelevant?

It is, if you deny the idea -- which is central to their initial statements on this controversy -- that Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth only want rights to "their" property.

The new argument is that their "last mile" -- the network between your local switch and your home or office -- was stolen.

(continued)


by Dana Blankenhorn on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:06:42 PM EST

Re: Big Break on Net Neutrality (none / 0)

Dana...I read and liked your post, but I don't understand what you mean by "Don't fight the battle on their terms. Escalate. Go for the throat."  Can you elaborate?  Thanks.


by mitchipd on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:33:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big Break on Net Neutrality (none / 0)

Ugh.  I'm so torn.  Sensenbrenner is scum incarnate.  I guess even scum can do the right thing once in a while.  

But he's still the slime behind the immigration bill.  

Ah well, Bobby Rush is usually a good guy, but he's wrong on telecoms.  And I've railed against him heavily for that (not here, but elsewhere).

Gotta take em when we can get em.  


by JJCPA on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:17:07 PM EST

follow up (none / 0)

How can you really call Sensenbrenner a libertarian though.  A true libertarian would be all about open borders.  Free markets and all that.  

The net neutrality thing is exactly why the entire concept of free markets is a misnomer in the modern world.  They could make one market free, but that would serve to erase an existing free market.  Preserve the existing free market, and prevent a free market elsewhere.  

Free market theory is bs anyway.  A truly free market only works in theory or on a micro-scale, but not in practice (on a macro-scale).  Just like communism is an idea that works in theory or on a micro-scale, but not in practice (macro- scale).


by JJCPA on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:21:40 PM EST

Re: follow up (none / 0)

I don't know anything about Sensenbrenner except what I saw in the net neutrality hearing, so I'll defer to you political experts.  But your comments make me wonder all the more what that hearing was about.  It almost seemed like a love fest for net neutrality, including most of the Republicans.  Maybe they want to get reelected or maybe its mainly a turf battle.  I have no idea.

I disagree on whether markets can work on a large scale. Some large Internet-based markets work pretty damn well--take Ebay for example. Yes, there are a lot of points of market breakdown, and some sectors have trouble supporting healthy-functioning markets (take our broadband duopoly as an example) and need serious regulation and, yes, the idea that deregulation is a cure-all for everything is ludicrous.  But I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.  And, from a political perspective, totally rejecting "free markets" seems like a non-starter, unless you've got some new message I haven't heard yet.  

Maybe its partly a question of language, which has become so polluted and Orwellian in today's political environment.  Too many words have become twisted in their meaning...makes you want to invent a whole new political language.


by mitchipd on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:46:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: follow up (none / 0)

the kind of free market I was dissing, the kind that libertarians espouse, is not embodied in EBay.  EBay doesn't have many rules, but it is, in fact, a micro-scale mostly free market.  Macro scale is much, much bigger than EBay.  EBay is large in the sense that its a huge company and a lot of product is sold through it, but its still micro (in economic terms).  Its a limited marketplace.  Macro scale is much larger.  The entire United States is a macro scale marketplace.  


by JJCPA on Wed May 17, 2006 at 05:04:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: follow up (none / 0)

OK.  If you're dissing the idea of deregulating the whole US economy, or anything close to that, than I'm totally with you.  

It reminds me of how much I hate those pro-market economic analyses (there's one on the Hands Off the Internet site) that look so impressive at first but are virtually meaningless as they relate to reality.  They do a bunch of math calculations, assume away all the realities that make their analysis largely irrelevant, then draw conclusions that bury all the "reality-based" caveats, qualifiers and assumptions (to varying degrees depending on level of intellectual corruption) somewhere in the text or footnotes.  Then the pols and lobbyists get to cite the conclusions without the qualifiers.


by mitchipd on Wed May 17, 2006 at 05:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sensenbrenner? FOR Net Neutrality??? (none / 0)

I'm flabbergasted. Never would have thought that the Sensenmann would have a dog in this race, and even side with the good guys.

However. We need all the help we can get. We still can burn him for all his old sins after the bill is through.


No way, no how, no McCain!
by Gray on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:23:03 PM EST

Barton has a history (none / 0)

Barton has a colorful history: he recently wrote another wonderful piece of legislation? Anyone remember it?

Hint: Hurricane Katrina.


by turnerbroadcasting on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:32:29 PM EST

Re: Big Break on Net Neutrality (none / 0)

Hint number two: Coal Fired power plants. In pennsylvania.


by turnerbroadcasting on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:33:49 PM EST

Re: Big Break on Net Neutrality (none / 0)

Don't get too excited about Sensenbrenner. I haven't seen this diaried yet, but it came across my e-mail with the headline "Congress may make ISPs snoop on you"

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-60726 01.html?tag=nl.e550


by mols on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:44:01 PM EST

oh, and one more thing (none / 0)

This isn't really a big business vs. little guys thing though.  A small group of big businesses are really taking on the world.  Big internet companies have a great deal at stake here.  

Because:
1.  Increased access fees

2.  The possibility of the telcos and cables blocking or slowing their sites.  Telcos could block out internet telephony.  Amazon could pay to block Barnes.  Yahoo! could pay to block Google.  And so on

In other net neutrality news:
The Christian Coalition is on our side.  http://www.earnedmedia.org/cc0517.htm

A sketchy looking source says that Yahoo! is helping bankroll the net neutrality fight (on our side).
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx ?1c93ee5a-18aa-4faf-ae19-07dd2c0d8f55

Brownback and DeMint are in the telcos pocket.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article /CA6335577.html?display=Breaking+News

REM and Moby are on the net neutrality side (various)

Inouye is pro-net neutrality
http://news.com.com/Democratic+senator+w ants+Net+neutrality+regulations/2100-102 8_3-6070494.html

Amazon pro net neutrality:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Lz6OL xO8XfXyZj/Amazon-VP-Paul-Misener-Makes-t he-Case-for-Net-Neutrality.xhtml

Some idiot right winger rails against net neutrality while making the case for net neutrality.  
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestco ntributors/jwright_20060512.html

Enjoy.


by JJCPA on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:56:21 PM EST

Re: oh, and one more thing (none / 0)

The Institute for Liberty (your idiot right-winger)...you gotta love that name :-)


by mitchipd on Wed May 17, 2006 at 05:51:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Even Bigger Break (none / 0)

Christian Coalition supports Net Neutrality

http://www.cc.org/content.cfm?srch=net+n eutrality

But one thing Matt, Judiciary ONLY deals with telecom when there is antitrust.  This bill has no anti-trust element, therefor they were denied jurisdiction.  


by eeor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 05:17:31 PM EST

local bloggers (none / 0)

One thing local bloggers can do is challenge local Republican bloggers to support net neutrality.


by Alice Marshall on Wed May 17, 2006 at 05:40:44 PM EST

No litmus tests for Sensenbrenner, please! (none / 0)

I don't know the ins and outs - I doubt entirely that the Sensenbrenner-Barton thing is at bottom a telecoms issue! - but the idea of lefties affecting to spurnthe former's help because their sensitive souls are offended by what he's done on other issues is plain lunacy.

For one thing, he doesn't give a rat's ass about what lefty bloggers think: he has other priorities. (Like I said, I'm unclear about them right now. But I'd need a shedload of evidence that include lefty concerns per se.)

For another, we have no say in what he does or doesn't do.

For a third, suggestions to the contrary give the impression that we are rank amateurs, who do not understand the concept of coalition-making and logrolling and all that other legislative stuff.


by skeptic06 on Wed May 17, 2006 at 08:47:17 PM EST

Don't Regulate The Internet! (none / 0)

Save the Internet!
See The Truth About Net Neutrality.
Don't let the Telcos Take Over the Internet.
Make up your own mind. It's about the future of the Internet!
Read More...
Independent Illinois Grassroots: IllinoisDemNet.com
by patachon on Wed May 17, 2006 at 10:38:33 PM EST

Phone Theme (none / 0)

Save the Internet!


Independent Illinois Grassroots: IllinoisDemNet.com
by patachon on Wed May 17, 2006 at 11:02:19 PM EST

Boucher to co-sponsor Judiciary bill (none / 0)

Update on Judiciary's NN Bill ( / )

From Multichannel News:
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA63 35841.html?display=Breaking+News&ref erral=SUPP&nid=2226

A House source said Wednesday that House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has refused to give the Judiciary Committee a period of time to amend a major communications bill (H.R. 5252) that passed by Energy and Commerce April 26 without a broad array of prescriptive "network-neutrality" regulations.

In the wake of the speaker's ruling, Judiciary Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) is planning to process his own bill that will address network neutrality from an antitrust-law perspective, which would likely mean Justice Department oversight of the industry rather than the Federal Communications Commission.

"Judiciary will initiate its own legislation," said Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), a net-neutrality proponent with seat on both Energy and Commerce and Judiciary. "The draft is being put together as we speak."

Boucher added, "I am not at liberty to discuss the contents of it except that when it surfaces, I intend to be a co-sponsor. I am very involved in the drafting process."

"Network neutrality is the core," Boucher said of the Judiciary bill, "and it will be the balance I have been looking for."


by mitchipd on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:28:12 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.