Democrats Give Up on Net Neutrality Bill

September 30, 2010 -

Net Neutrality is stalled until further notice in the House of Representatives. A bill sponsored by House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) was shelved late last night after Democrats realized that the bill would not have enough bipartisan support to pass. With this bill now off the table, and not likely to be brought up in the lame duck session following mid-term elections, the onus to implement net neutrality rules falls back on the FCC.

But time may not be on the side of proponents of net neutrality - especially if power shifts back to Republicans in the House and Senate. It is possible that Republicans would propose a bill that implicitly forbids the FCC from reclassifying broadband service providers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.

Oddly enough, Waxman put the responsibility back on the FCC - even after Congress told them to back off a few months ago.

"If Congress can't act, the FCC must," Waxman said in a statement. He added that "this development is a loss for consumers."

Of course, sink or swim, Waxman should have brought the bill up for a discussion and a vote on the floor, but many pols just want to get the hell out of Washington and back on the campaign trail.

Interest group Public Knowledge issued the following statement, which sums up the feelings of ardent net neutrality supporters across the country:

"The FCC must act now to protect consumers by reinstating its authority over broadband," Gigi Sohn, president of the public interest group Public Knowledge said. "We expect the FCC to do so to carry out one of the fundamental promises of the Obama administration."

Source: Associated Press


Comments

Re: Democrats Give Up on Net Neutrality Bill

Congress and the FCC are way too busy working on the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act (which passed the Senate yesterday and will require broadcasters to turn down those annoyingly loud commercials) to spend time working on something as trivial as net neutrality. They do have to prioritize their work.

Re: Democrats Give Up on Net Neutrality Bill

In fairness, that sounds like a pretty effing great bill.

Re: Democrats Give Up on Net Neutrality Bill

Agreed, pisses me the hell off when I turn my TV up to hear a movie, only to get raped in the ear by how loud the commercials are.

Re: Democrats Give Up on Net Neutrality Bill

Hear hear! I would seriously love to meet the sound engineers and their bosses that do this crap and teach them how to use their equalization equipment properly with a clue-by-four present.

Re: Democrats Give Up on Net Neutrality Bill

They know exactly how to use the equipment they have.  They use it to get the loudest apparent volume they can without breaking the laws already in place.  And they use it very effectively towards that end.

===============

Chris Kimberley

===============

Chris Kimberley

Re: Democrats Give Up on Net Neutrality Bill

Not to quibble, but an equalizer adjusts frequencies. Compressor/limiters adjust relative volume.

Re: Democrats Give Up on Net Neutrality Bill

Of course they do as they can wait and sneak in something more industry friendly later....


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: Democrats Give Up on Net Neutrality Bill

Even if it made it ot the floor abusing the filibuster has bee na favorite tactic lately.

I'd love for it to go away with how much it's been abused lately.

Re: Democrats Give Up on Net Neutrality Bill

Remember back in '05 when the Republicans wanted to declare the filibuster unconstitutional?  I commented at the time that the Democrats should let them, because it would be in their best interest in the long term -- the filibuster is, after all, inherently conservative, as it allows a minority to preserve the status quo.

Of course, politicians aren't really known for thinking past the next election.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
james_fudgewelcome to 2014 politics. Increasingly fought online10/20/2014 - 1:54pm
E. Zachary KnightIt is honestly a shame that anyone has to publicly state they are against such vile behavior, but that is the sad life we live.10/20/2014 - 1:46pm
E. Zachary KnightDecided to publicly reiterate my opposition to harassment campaigns. http://randomtower.com/2014/10/just-stop-with-the-harassment-and-bullying-campaigns-already/10/20/2014 - 1:45pm
Andrew EisenMichael Chandra - Unless I overlooked it, we haven't seen how the directive to not talk about whatever he wasn't supposed to talk about was phrased so it’s hard to say if it could have been misconstrued as a suggestion or not.10/20/2014 - 12:35pm
Andrew EisenHey, the second to last link is the relevant one! He actually did say "let them suffer." Although, he didn't say it to the other person he was bickering with.10/20/2014 - 12:29pm
Neo_DrKefkahttps://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/SxFas https://archive.today/1upoI https://archive.today/0hu7i https://archive.today/NsPUC https://archive.today/fLTQv https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 11:21am
Andrew EisenNeo_DrKefka - "Attacking"? Interesting choice of words. Also interesting that you quoted something that wasn't actually said. Leaving out a relevant link, are you?10/20/2014 - 11:04am
quiknkoldugh. I want to know why the hell Mozerella Sticks are 4 dollars at my works cafeteria...are they cooked in Truffle Oil?10/20/2014 - 10:41am
Neo_DrKefkaAnti-Gamergate supporter Robert Caruso attacks female GamerGate supporter by also attacking another cause she support which is the situation happening in Syia “LET SYRIANS SUFFER” https://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 10:18am
Neo_DrKefkaThat is correct in an At-Will state you or the employer can part ways at any time. However Florida also has laws on the books about "Wrongful combinations against workers" http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/448.04510/20/2014 - 10:07am
james_fudgehe'd die if he couldn't talk about Wii U :)10/20/2014 - 9:16am
Michael ChandraBy the way, I am not saying Andrew should stop talking about Wii-U. I find it quite nice. :)10/20/2014 - 8:53am
Michael Chandra'How dare he ignore my wishes and my advice! I am his boss! I could have ordered him but I should be able to say it's advice rather than ordering him directly!'10/20/2014 - 8:52am
Michael ChandraIf GP goes "EZK, do not talk about X publicly for a week, we're preparing a big article on it" and he still tweets about X, they'd have a legitimate reason to be pissed.10/20/2014 - 8:52am
Michael ChandraIf GP tells Andrew "we'd kinda prefer it if you stopped talking about Wii-U for 1 week" and he'd tweet about it anyway, firing him for it would be idiotic.10/20/2014 - 8:51am
Michael ChandraLegal right, sure. But that doesn't make it any less pathetic of an excuse.10/20/2014 - 8:50am
ZippyDSMleeYou mean right to fire states.10/20/2014 - 8:50am
james_fudgesome states have "at will" employee laws10/20/2014 - 7:50am
quiknkoldIt says in the article that being in florida, you can get fired regardless if its a fireable offence10/20/2014 - 7:19am
Michael ChandraIf your employee respectfully disagrees with your advice, that's not a fireable offense. If they ignore your order, THEN you have the right to be pissed.10/20/2014 - 6:49am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician