Why No One's Happy With The FCC's Net Neutrality

After years of debate, the Federal Communications Commission is moving forward with controversial rules intended to preserve the open Internet. The FCC chairman outlined the proposals this week and criticism came quickly, from all parts of the ideological spectrum.

Ever since he took the job, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has been promising new rules of the road for the phone and cable companies that provide broadband access, as well as the companies and consumers who depend on it.

"It is the Internet's openness and freedom — the ability to speak, innovate and engage in commerce without having to ask anyone's permission — that has enabled the Internet's unparalleled success," he said.

In a brief appearance Wednesday, Genachowski sketched out the rules that he said would ensure that broadband providers treat all of the data on their networks equally — an idea known as net neutrality. But some public interest groups have seen a few more details than Genachowski announced. They say the proposed rules are net neutrality in name only.

Loopholes Abound, Say Some

"What you have is a lot of consumer groups coming out and looking at this and saying this is a real nightmare," Sascha Meinrath says. Meinrath is with the New America Foundation, a think-tank in Washington, D.C. He says the proposed rules are full of loopholes.

For one thing, they would allow broadband providers to offer faster service to some companies — for a price.

"These rules could end up allowing companies to pick and choose the services and applications and even content that we are allowed to see online," Meinrath says. "What it does is it gives legal protection for discriminatory behavior."

Maybe the biggest loophole, Meinrath says, is that the rules would exempt wireless networks from much of the regulation governing the old-fashioned, wired Internet. Net neutrality supporters hope to close that loophole, and they have an advocate in FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who spoke Thursday night at the Columbia School of Journalism in New York.

"Internet freedom also means guaranteeing openness in the wireless world as well as the wired," he said. "As people cut their wired connections, why would we deny them openness, accessibility and consumer protections in a wireless world?"

Who Should Decide?

The wireless companies argue that they need the flexibility to manage traffic on their networks so that a few users can't hog all the bandwidth. Those companies — particularly AT&T — offered lukewarm support for the proposed FCC rules. But Verizon's Link Hoewing still thinks it's Congress, not the FCC, that should be setting policy for the Internet.

"We do need the Congress to look at the antiquated communications policy framework. It just doesn't fit the Internet," he says. "I think ultimately it still needs to be addressed by Congress."

That's not likely to happen anytime soon. Key Republicans in Congress have said Internet providers don't need any new regulation, and they'll try to block the FCC from imposing any. That leaves Chairman Genachowski with few friends on any side of the debate.

"No one was particularly happy with what the FCC chairman is proposing. But that doesn't mean it's not the right answer," says Kevin Werbach, professor at the Wharton School, and a former technology consultant to the Obama administration.

"I can understand those in the public interest community who would like to see something stronger. But having something in place is going to be much better than nothing," he says. "And the reality is that nothing is the alternative."

The full commission is scheduled to vote on the proposed rules on Dec. 21. If they pass, then the real tests — both legal and political — will begin.

al sharpton bill oreilly fox news hamid karzai barak obama

?Senate Votes On Democratic Tax Cut Plans

Their defeat on the Senate floor is predictable and the speeches have the ring of the recent campaign season.

But Democrats are already eyeing the 2012 elections and eager to engineer a showdown over tax cuts in an attempt to depict Republicans as guardians of the rich.

"All those people out there in the tea party that are angry about the economics of Washington, they really need to look at this," Sen. Claire McCaskill., D-Mo., said Friday as Democrats took turns pummeling Republicans.

"They need to pull back the curtain and realize that you've got a Republican Party that's not worried about the people in the tea party," said McCaskill, who will be on the ballot next year. "They're worried about people that can't decide which home to go to over the Christmas holidays."

Republicans dismissed the attacks as the last gasp of a Democratic Party that lost its majority in the House in midterm elections, surrendered several seats in the Senate and will be forced to share power beginning in January.

"All of this finger-pointing is doing nothing to create jobs," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "It's a total waste of time."

Noting that unemployment had risen to 9.8 percent, he added: "Democrats are responding with a vote to slam job creators with a massive tax increase. Millions of out-of-work Americans don't want show-votes or finger-pointing contests. They want jobs."

The Senate agenda featured a pair of votes Saturday, one on a proposal to extend all expiring tax cuts on individuals with incomes of less than $200,000 a year and married couples making less than $250,000; the other to renew them for all tax filers with incomes of less than $1 million.

Republicans want to head off tax increases at all income levels, and neither Democratic proposal was likely to get the 60 votes needed to advance.

Democrats said that wasn't the point. "This is going to be a winning argument, not just for this week, but for the next two years," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., looking ahead to 2012.

Political maneuvering aside, the events were seen as a prelude to completing negotiations on a compromise that could avert a Jan. 1 tax increase at all levels.

President Barack Obama has already signaled he is prepared to sign a compromise along those lines, and the White House has been negotiating privately with Republicans on a broader bill that would include Democratic priorities as well.

Among them are an extension of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed and extension of additional expiring tax breaks for lower- and middle-income workers even if they don't make enough to owe the IRS money. College students would also benefit under the White House's proposals, as would companies that hire the unemployed.

Also part of the discussions is a possible increase in the federal debt limit, which allows the government to continue to borrow to meet its financial obligations.

In the weekly White House radio and Internet address, Vice President Joe Biden, skipped lightly over Obama's willingness to negotiate with the GOP on the Bush-era tax breaks.

"We've got to extend the tax cuts for the middle class that are set to expire at the end of the month," he said. "If we don't, millions of middle-class families will see a big bite out of their paychecks starting January 1. And that's the last thing we should let happen."

"And the second thing we've got to do is extend unemployment insurance for Americans who have lost their jobs in a tough economy," Biden said.

Delivering the Republican address, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, who was sworn into office this week, said voters in the midterm elections demonstrated their distaste for any tax increases.

"The current leaders of Congress should not move forward with plans that were just rejected by the American people," he said. "These leaders should not raise taxes and risk another recession. Instead, Congress should reduce spending and prevent another tax hike on American taxpayers."

———

Biden address: http://www.whitehouse.gov

GOP address: http://www.youtube.com/gopweeklyaddress

harry reid john mccain al gore bill clinton newt gingrich

Hope For Life After Deficit Plan's Death

President Obama's deficit commission couldn't garner enough support to send its plan to Congress. But the plan could generate more debate and actual progress on the deficit. Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky, who voted against the plan, and Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona discuss why they think the plan fell short and how to move forward.

hillary clinton george w bush nancy pelosi harry reid john mccain

Military's 'Don't Ask' Testimony Won't Be Final Word

It's been an important week — but not a decisive one — in the debate over gays in the military.

First, a Pentagon survey of troops found that more than two-thirds of them had little problem serving with gays and lesbians.

Then, the secretary of Defense and the nation's top military officer testified in favor of repealing "don't ask, don't tell," the law barring homosexuals from serving openly.

But Friday, the top generals in the Marine Corps and Army told a Senate committee that they are not ready for change just yet.

Not If, Say Generals, But When

Army Gen. George Casey and Marine Gen. Jim Amos agree that eventually gays will be allowed to serve openly. The Pentagon survey, they said, showed it's a challenge that can be managed. For them, it comes down to a question of when.

"I would not recommend going forward at this time given everything the Army has on its plate," Casey told the committee.

With his soldiers busy fighting two wars, Casey said such sweeping change would add what he called "another level of stress."

Amos agreed. Repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" law should be delayed, he said.

"I just ask for the opportunity to be able to do it with my forces when they're not singularly focused on combat," Amos said.

Which Numbers Make The Case?

The survey shows that those combat troops — the armor and infantry units on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan — are most resistant to allowing gays to serve openly.

According to the Pentagon survey, half of Army combat troops polled said they were against ending "don't ask, don't tell." For the Marines, the number was even higher: 60 percent.

Republican Sen. John McCain, who opposes ending the ban seized on the parts of the survey about those combat troops wary of change.

"I guess when you look at any report it's like — a little bit like studying the Bible," he said. "You can draw most any conclusion from what part of it that you examine."

Most Democrats at Friday's Senate hearing read from a different chapter in the Pentagon survey. They focused on the 70 percent who had little problem with allowing gays to serve openly.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Mike Mullen, has been the most forceful advocate of change. He has said that it's wrong to force people to lie about who they are.

Mullen told senators earlier in the week that repealing "don't ask" is the right thing to do for our military, our nation and our collective honor.

But repeal is also a question of numbers — finding enough senators to approve it.

john mccain al gore bill clinton newt gingrich sarah palin