Public Airwaves Endgame: Obama and Clinton's Silence

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 06:39


Well, the rules at the FCC are set.  Harold Feld live-blogged the FCC hearing, and there's good analysis by Gigi Sohn at Public Knowledge, Rick Whitt at Google, Tim Karr at Free Press, and Arts Technica

The short story is that we got some of what we wanted, but not enough.  While there are some open access requirements on a piece of the spectrum, the rules aren't strong enough and there's a lot of room for cheating.  Google might still bid, of course, though that's somewhat unlikely.

There will not be a wireless third pipe through this spectrum, but key concepts have been advanced and conceded in public discourse, like open access.  There was a potential 3-2 majority for what we wanted, but the strong pressure from Congressional Republicans and relative silence from Congressional Democrats meant we just weren't able to get there.  Significant exceptions were Byron Dorgan, Chip Pickering, Ed Markey, and John Dingell.  Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns were silent, while Edwards was great.

The telecom and cable companies have longterm relationships with lots of members, and they own the Republican Party.  The free media movement is getting there, but it takes time to build a network of staffers, members, and regulatory allies.  The other side had eighty years, but the logic and coalition for this kind of eventual policy change is too strong, and the business case for openness is clear.

Matt Stoller :: Public Airwaves Endgame: Obama and Clinton's Silence

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Whoops typo (0.00 / 0)
Actually it's Ars Technica, not Arts Technica. Common misspelling of a misspelling.

Check out my blog at TheDailyBackground.com

Those damn Romans and their spelling rules ;-) (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Chip Pickering (0.00 / 0)
A Misssissippi Republican in the House. There must be some room there to exploit.  Guess the telecoms mostly own the Republicans (and a lot of Democrats, too).

Some of the voices silenced are conservative (0.00 / 0)
Pickering is just protecting the people he represents, novel as that is sometimes.

In all of these debates, groups like the Christian Coalition have been rightly worried about their own access to spectra.  As a result, we've seen some interesting alliances on this issue.  While the defense of liberty -- real liberty, not the slogan -- has become the cause of the Left, there are in fact people on the other side who still care about it, and understand the threat corporate control of the airwaves represents to it.


[ Parent ]
Silence? (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure what you mean by Obama's silence because none of the candidates are mentioned in the linked articles.  But Obama hasn't been silent on net neutrality.  He has been a frequent and vocal supporter before he was running for President:

June 2006 Podcast: http://www.lcwprops....

And both Obama and Clinton are co-sponsors of the Snowe-Dorgan bill and were so last year.  What exactly are you talking about?


Wrong link. (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, here's the correct link: http://obama.senate....

[ Parent ]
Airwaves, Dude (4.00 / 1)
I'm not sure what you mean by Obama's silence because none of the candidates are mentioned in the linked articles.  But Obama hasn't been silent on net neutrality.

Airwaves, not net.

You've got to learn how to read.  Can't do it with your knee always jerking. 

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Historical context (0.00 / 0)
They've had 80 years to build the network at this point sure, but what'd they do 80 years ago to get rolling?

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

Suckled on the mother's milk of politics (0.00 / 0)
Need you ask?

The Bell companies have been in the game since the beginning, and it's worth remembering that the act that established the FCC in 1934 was after a wave of consolidation in radio during the 1920s, which had started out very open and very diverse.

The more things change...


[ Parent ]
Hispanic astroturf push against net neutrality? (0.00 / 0)
I found this in the letters to the editor in the Buffalo News today. Hope its OK if I just paste it in. I don't really understand this guys argument. It sounds pretty convoluted, Anyone Know about a pressing Latino problem with Net Neutrality? Here's the letter:

----------------------------------------------------------------

Change would harm Hispanics, other minorities

By Robert de Posada
Updated: 07/30/07 5:57 AM

Recently in the state capitol, some lawmakers have been flirting with the latest fad idea about regulating the Internet - the so-called "Net neutrality" rules. The corporate giants pushing the proposal, Internet companies like Google and eBay, say that the rules are needed to prevent broadband providers from discriminating against certain web sites.
Certainly, a "free" and "open" Internet is a concept that everyone supports. But most lawmakers have grown cold to the proposed Net neutrality regulations. Why? The most glaring problem is that the proposed regulations seek to cure a problem that doesn't exist. Worse, they could reverse competitive pressure on broadband prices that has enabled Latinos and communities of color to connect to the Internet.

For years, Google and others have warned that broadband companies would find ways to cloister the Internet and block access to sites and services the company somehow does not like. But this Internet apocalypse has not come to pass, and it's unlikely it ever will given the increased competition for broadband consumers. What is more, the notion that we should start imposing regulations to cure speculative problems is a dubious one, particularly when there are many likely adverse unintended consequences.

The Internet today faces two main challenges - expanding broadband capacity and closing the digital divide - and Net neutrality could undermine our capacity to address both.

Broadband capacity is going to have to expand by a factor of five-fold in order to meet consumer demand for bandwidth-intensive applications like the latest video services. Ironically, Net neutrality regulations would give the large Internet companies that run these applications new legal tools to shield themselves from having to pay for the expansion of broadband capacity.

If costs of new network capacity are shifted to consumers as they inevitably would be, the digital divide is likely to explode. Only 29 percent of Latino adults subscribe to broadband at home, compared to 43 percent of white Americans. Finally, the overregulation of Internet commerce could stifle rather than facilitate entrepreneurism. New York's power grids can, with some significant investments, be turned into another robust broadband transmission pipe, reaching millions instantly with existing infrastructure. But if a video content company like NetFlix wanted to partner with a utility company to generate those investments, Net neutrality rules could give any other video provider the right to veto the partnership under the theory that the partnership could disfavor their own video content.

I fully subscribe to an open Internet, but competition has proven the best antidote for bad behavior by broadband companies, and the Net neutrality campaign may be a case where the cure is far worse than the poison.

Robert de Posada is president of the Latino Coalition, a non-profit, non-partisan organization addressing policy issues affecting Hispanics in the United States.


check out their sponsors (0.00 / 0)
AT&T, Verizon, etc...

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox