Ever have to negotiate a contract or try to sell a used car?
Would you start the give-and-take by naming the lowest price you're willing to accept and then try to get a better deal?
Of course not. Yet somehow, that's the exact "strategy" the Obama administration seems intent on pursuing -- and not just on tax cuts for the richest Americans.
The Washington Post's Greg Sargent described this pathology among Democrats in a post last week:
The problem isn't that Dems aren't capable of winning an argument. It's that they don't think they're capable of winning a protracted political standoff, even on an issue where the public is on their side, once Republicans start going on the attack. They seem to set their goal early on at salvaging a compromise, rather than going for the win. As a result, they tend to telegraph weakness at the outset, sending a clear message that they'll essentially give Republicans what they want as long as they can figure out a way to call it a compromise.
I don't know if such rampant spinelessness is genetic or contagious, but substitute "big phone and cable companies" for "Republicans" in the previous paragraph, and you've nailed the Federal Communications Commission's approach to the Net Neutrality debate.
Over the past year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has managed to take the administration's top tech priority - and Obama's promise to "take a back seat to no one" on the issue - and driven it into a ditch.
Instead of staking out a strong position and forcing powerful companies like AT&T and Comcast to come to the table for a compromise, Genachowski has been negotiating against himself, backpedaling from his backpedaling, and ultimately proposing toothless rules that look nothing like real Net Neutrality.
Yet now Genachowski expects the millions of Americans who have spoken out for Net Neutrality to buy this lemon when the FCC meets to vote on his rules on Dec. 21.
How We Got Here
Let's review: Obama swept into office with safeguarding the free and open Internet front and center on his technology agenda. He appointed Genachowski, who pledged to deliver on that promise. Under attack from the phone and cable companies and their astroturf front groups, the FCC chairman proposed imperfect but generally good Net Neutrality rules last fall.
The FCC was thrown a curveball in April when a federal appeals court ruled that the agency lacked the authority to create rules that protect Internet users because of an ill-advised change made during the Bush administration. Genachowski has the power and legal precedent to restore the FCC's authority under the law, but he has failed to act.
Instead of using his bully pulpit to educate the public about what's at stake if we lose the free and open Internet, Genachowski conducted closed-door meetings that only included the biggest industry players. Those fell apart when Google and Verizon went public with their controversial pact to carve up the Internet. But rather than seize the moment of public outrage to push for stronger rules, the FCC chairman sat mute on the sidelines.
Eventually, with an election approaching and Genachowski seemingly paralyzed with indecision, Congress got in on the act. Rep. Henry Waxman started shopping a seriously flawed compromise bill. But when Republicans refused to play ball, it was never introduced.
Waxman's legislation was designed to win the unanimous consent of not only the major stakeholders, but all 535 members of Congress. Genachowski, on the other hand only needs three votes -- including his own to enact a strong Net Neutrality rule at the FCC. Yet when he circulated his proposed rules to the other FCC commissioners last week, he proudly declared it was based on Waxman's watered-down approach.
By my count, that makes his plan a compromise on a compromise on a compromise.
How to Fix Fake Net Neutrality
As it reportedly stands now -- and nobody outside the FCC knows exactly what the rules say -- the biggest Internet service providers will have a free hand to harm consumers, stifle innovation and carve up the Internet in irreversible ways. The fact that AT&T seems perfectly pleased with these rules tells you pretty much everything you need to know.
Fortunately, it's not too late to fix them. As detailed in a letter sent to the chairman today and signed by more than 80 public interest groups, civil rights organizations and innovative business leaders, there are five key areas that must be addressed.
That's what needs to be fixed to turn Genachowski's faux Net Neutrality proposal back into the real thing. Getting there before Dec. 21 will be an uphill climb.
To pass his rules, the FCC chairman will need the votes of Democratic Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn -- who always have been stalwart supporters of Net Neutrality and champions of the public interest. They will be under immense pressure to back the chairman, which is why it's so important that they hear from you before the vote.
We have less than two weeks to repair this clunker and rescue Net Neutrality from Genachowski's capitulation. Make sure your voice is heard now.
Follow Craig Aaron on Twitter: www.twitter.com/notaaroncraig
Art Brodsky: The Mythical 'Reality' of the FCC's Net Neutrality Campaign
One question will do...How much?
How much will the actual FCC chairman and other commissioners can expect to make when they leave the FCC after selling us out?
After all, Peter Orzsag went to Citigroup while keeping a reputation of "honest man". As we all know, honesty doesn't pay much nowadays. Hence, a lack of honesty at the FCC should entail a higher payout, no?
The critical question stands...How much?
It's just fine the way it is currently and has always been implemented.
As a consumer, why would you keep spending your money with Telecom A? It doesn't make any sense for an ISP to block legal content-- they're content providers--MORE THE BETTER. The whole idea is to create an environment that gives an incentive to upgrade infrastructure to carry MORE content, not less. This isn't 1984. There's no conspiracy. Comcast doesn't care what you're looking at--as long as you're not using their lines to send illegal materials (SPAM, child porn, copyrighted material)-- uh oh, no copyrighted materials?!? Yeah, imagine a world in which artists got paid for their work!
Be Well,
Bob Griffin
Ok... apparently, I'm the only person here who feels like net neutrality is short-sighted. As our technology evolves, largest packets of data will be transmitted across our networks. If upgrades are not made to the existing infrastructure, these tech upgrades will remain unused and idle. Telecoms have NO incentive to invest more money into the infrastructure if there's limited returns on an unproven technology. Net neutrality stifles innovation.
If consumers want high-speed delivery of data, they'll just have to wait until it becomes adopted in another country first. OR, they could allow telecoms to benefit from the risks that they are taking.
I'm a liberal. I love free speech. This ruling will not mean that telecoms block content-- it means that they can charge a premium for NEW TECHNOLOGY. Or we can just sit back and watch this internet go the way of newspapers...while other countries bring us the "next thing."
If net neutrality is not good for the citizens of the US, then if you're a citizen of the US the situation hasn't been good for you ever since you first accessed the internet.
Be Well,
Bob Griffin
The Internet is the... VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
The Internet... IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH
The Internet is what the corporatocracy... FEARS MORE THAN ANYTHING.
If the internet is handed over to the corporations... then the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE will be silenced.
SAVE THE INTERNET !
How would've Amazon or eBay fared if Verizon or Comcast could've extracted tolls and fees as they wished from these two? How about Google, Ala Vista, CMGI, Razorfish, and every business who now have an Internet presence.
Come on man! This is so obvious.
And BTW, why don't you read the financial statements of AT&T and compadres? You'll quickly note they're not exactly hurting much financially speaking...far from it.
We are owned by politicians, corporations, and the media. We exist to serve their needs, not the other way around.
One cannot get elected President in this country anymore without being a corporatist.
If Obama truly WAS the caricature that tea party and Glenn Beck try to portray him as, the oligarchy would have had Blackwater goons JKF him before Inauguration Day.
I'm afraid this country is finished as a republican democracy. We're now a plutarchy/kleptocracy.
Whatever name one chooses, it has gutted our country and sold us all off for scrap.
Obasa had to exit stage left today and let Bill C try to fight a battle for him. But they are fighting a battle for "the the other side".
The attempt to let wireless communication operate under another set of rules from wires is to put technology above the principle of data exchange, which is free speech!
So the "owners' of wireless will control "free" speech. But the FCC's job is to keep the airwaves as the people' s airwaves. At least it's supposed to be.