The Path Forward

My secret super duper Senate sources are telling me that this bill has a long way to pass.  To take a small example, the broadcast flag, which the EFF detests, passed in the Senate Committee, but Senator Sununu made it clear that he's going to revisit the issue on the floor.  There are also concerns about new tax measures in the bill, which will prompt more fighting on the floor.  Stevens just doesn't have the 60 needed to pass the measure, and it's not clear that Frist even wants to schedule the time for it.  In addition, the partisanized nature of the net neutrality vote means that Senators are becoming entrenched.

Still, Ted Stevens is an unbelievably crafty Senator, and he's going to work the Senate and negotiate in earnest.  The turnaround from his first version of this bill, which was derided as a Christmas-tree DOA piece of legislation, to this committee vote, should disabuse us of our illusions about his abilities.  He's going to want this to come to the floor in July, when there's less attention.

Verizon/AT&T/Comcast/Cox have their eyes on the ball.  They are focused and dedicated to winning this legislative fight, no matter how much brand equity they destroy for themselves in the process.  These companies are truly coming out of the closet as the newest Walmarts/Enrons.  If the were smart, the telco execs would just let this bill die.  People don't really like these companies, but they don't care that much.  To the extent that the internet starts to malfunction, there will be intense anger.  And that might create a serious political backlash that could lead to anything from municipalities offering broadband, a telecom windfall profit tax, a return to open access, or even investigations of executive misbehavior and excessive pay.  Showboating populist politicians do weird things when they've found a good villain, and that's what these companies are creating right now.  Adelphia, MCI, - these scandals don't look good for the industry.

In terms of electoral impact, this vote could hurt both Conrad Burns and George Allen badly.  Burns spends a lot of time in hiis reelection campaign talking about the tech jobs he's bringing to Montana, because young people leaving the state is a serious problem.  Giving away the internet to phone and cable companies is not good for him, though he may not realize that's what he's done.  George Allen is facing Jim Webb in Montana, and there's a lot of tech in that state, particularly in northern Virginia.

Oh, yeah, and both Tester and Webb are netroots candidates.  It's all connected, in a kind of circle of netroots.  Or something like that.

Hakuna mattata.



Display:


Walmart (none / 0)

Stupid Verizon/AT&T/Comcast/Cox to even take the chance of being labeled "Walmart"-esque.  

There's no need for them to be so evil.

Stupid business decisions, encouraged by ideologically-charged think tank infused consortiums?


by dereau on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 07:54:20 PM EST

"municipalities offering broadband" (none / 0)

Cities should offer fiber-optic into the home for internet, cable, and telephone for under $100/month.

This would let the public connect under the principle of Net Neutrality at speeds faster than DSL.

This would also reduce AT&T's revenue.  Then AT&T would have less money to spend lobbying Congress against the public interest.


by EricJaffa on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 07:55:29 PM EST

I need a precise status check on the big pic (none / 0)

Please excuse me, I am not crystal clear on what is precisely happening here.  It's just another nightmare to live through; there have been so many I think I can forgiven a little ignorance this time.

From what I understand, what the telcos want to do used to be forbidden by FCC rules.  For some reason I never did find out the FCC decided to let the rules lapse, so now the telcos can be rapacious capitalist pigs.

A Communication bill in the House passed, but without the primary necessary rules to stop the telcos.

So it was up to the Senate, and the amendment codifying what the FCC abdicated failed.

Now it appears that the entire Senate bill will fail.  So no legislation--but how does that absolve the void hat the FCC created?  [it very well may be that I misunderstand the FCC element]

What happens if the the Senate bill fails?  No one ever says.

After that, what does the macor environment look like?  The same?


by paradox on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 08:56:12 PM EST

If Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) (none / 0)

filibusters, possibilities include:

a) No telecommunications bill passes before the 2006 election, and maybe we can get one with Net Neutrality after the election.

b)  Net Neutrality is added to the bill, or at least a compromise Net Neutrality measure, and the bill passes.

You're right that no bill passing leaves us without Net Neutrality in the meantime.


by EricJaffa on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:19:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Shit (none / 0)

Thank you very much.  I appreciate it; sorry if I was obnoxious in demanding information.


by paradox on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:25:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Path Forward (none / 0)

i think you meant to write that Webb is facing Allen in Virginia, not Montana


by caterina on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:14:01 PM EST

Re: The Path Forward (none / 0)

George Allen is facing Jim Webb in Montana, and there's a lot of tech in that state, particularly in northern Virginia.

Allen and Webb will debate one another in Montana, even if they are running for the Senate seat in Virginia?  


by illinois062006 on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:28:03 PM EST

Re: The Path Forward (none / 0)

Bipartisan fishing trip / debate junket.


by jsw on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 10:34:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Path Forward (none / 0)

happily mirroring this report. thanks.


by chicago dyke on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:41:47 PM EST

Re: The Path Forward (none / 0)

I don't understand this net neutrality brouhaha.  If lots of people want "net neutral" internet service (as clearly we do), won't the market continue to provide it?  What's so bad about allowing the telcos to also offer a non-net neutral product?


by snaktime on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 08:49:52 AM EST

Re: The Path Forward (none / 0)

Because if it's left to the tender mercies of Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc they'll follow the supposedly amoral corporate path.

They'll offer the product that makes them money, limiting consumer choice further and further.

What exactly have you read about the Net Neutrality movement? (Links please.)

Because you write an awful lot like what I'd expect to read from the astroturfers the Telcos set up.

Is that you, Mike?


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.
by boadicea on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 10:38:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Customers will be in the dark, (none / 0)

and that is why we can't count on the free market.

Suppose AT&T decides to make MyDD run more slowly for its customers as it discriminates in favor of other websites.

AT&T won't announce to the public that it's discriminating against websites.  Visitors to MyDD will just assume that it's a problem with the website itself.

Free market solutions require informed consumers.  Consumers won't be informed about discrimination against websites.


by EricJaffa on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 11:36:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Path Forward (none / 0)

"If lots of people want "net neutral" internet service (as clearly we do), won't the market continue to provide it?"

If there was a truly free market in broadband, the answer would be yes.  But the number of broadband providers in any one place is small (usually one telco, one cable co, and there's satellite broadband too, but it's way more expensive than cable or DSL) and the barriers to entry are extremely steep, so you don't have anything like a free market.  Rather, you have two or three competitors who'd all like to get their hands on a chunk of the same new revenue stream - charging a second time for bandwidth they're already getting paid for.

Quite often when there are only a few competitors in a field, they stop competing over essentials, and compete on frippery and image.  Think about the Big Three automakers in the 1950s and 60s (tailfins and planned obselescence), or beer (the main difference between Bud, Miller, and Coors are their ads), and stuff like that.  

If there's no new competitor on the horizon, it's easier just to have a cozy little oligopoly that maximizes everyone's profits without having to do much for the consumer.


by RT on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 11:52:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Stevens is talking about September - WaPo (none / 0)

WaPo story on Commerce Committee vote

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the committee, said he was not sure he had the 60 votes necessary to move the legislation forward. He said he would be open to negotiating with Democrats in September, when Congress comes back from its recess.

The later the better.  Ever since House telecom subcommittee chair Fred Upton said the Senate just needs to pass "anything to get us into conference," where they can write whatever bill they want, it's been obvious that the best outcome would be no telecom bill from the Senate this year.

So September's a good start.  That's 2+ months closer to running out the clock on this Congress.


by RT on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 11:37:45 AM EST

Re: The Path Forward (none / 0)

So you're saying it's better to hand control over to the archaic bureaucracy of the FCC and let one of the slowest-moving bodies on the face of the planet govern the single fastest-changing industry in the global economy?  Sounds rather silly to me.  

The free market model may not be a perfect one, but it sure beats handing the reigns over to the red tape of Washington bureaucracies.  

Check out my coalition's website for more information, if you're curious.  http://handsoff.org

It's a very heated and emotional issue, but really, if you look past all the vitriol and Chicken Little nonsense, it really boils down to government control vs. free market capitalism.  


by ThinkAboutIt on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 03:17:15 PM EST

We had Net Neutrality considered the law (none / 0)

from the start of the web until the FCC changed its mind last year.

The web has developed wonderfully during that time.

We should keep Net Netrality.


by EricJaffa on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 12:49:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Path Forward (none / 0)

nksq1 nksq2 nksq3 nksq4 nksq5 nksq6 nksq7 nksq8 nksq9 nksq10 nksq11 nksq12 nksq13 nksq14 nksq15 nksq16 nksq17 nksq18 nksq19 nksq20 nksq21 nksq22 nksq23 nksq24 nksq25 nksq26 nksq27 nksq28 nksq29 nksq30 nksq31 nksq32 nksq33 nksq34 nksq35 nksq36 nksq37 nksq38 nksq39 nksq40 nksq41 nksq42 nksq43 nksq44 nksq45 nksq46 nksq47 nksq48 nksq49 nksq50 nksq51 nksq52 nksq53 nksq54 nksq55 nksq56 nksq57 nksq58 nksq59 nksq60 nksq61 nksq62 nksq63 nksq64 nksq65 nksq66 nksq67 nksq68 nksq69 nksq70 nksq71 nksq72 nksq73 nksq74 nksq75 nksq76 nksq77 nksq78 nksq79 nksq80 nksq81 nksq82 nksq83 nksq84 nksq85 nksq86 nksq87 nksq88 nksq89 nksq90 nksq91 nksq92 nksq93 nksq94 nksq95


by tino on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 09:38:38 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.