The final House vote is coming to repeal Net Neutrality via the Congressional Review Act. I’m pretty interested to see how many Democrats we can get in the House, because it may give a clue of how many Democrats we can get in the Senate. Remember: under the CRA we only need 51, not 60.
I hope we don’t have to fire up the CRA next over socialist wireless data roaming regulation. As I pointed out earlier this week, Sprint stopped investing in its network, while AT&T and Verizon spent even more. So now Sprint customers end up having to roam more when off of Sprint’s network. Should Sprint be allowed to make up for that by getting the government to force a special deal? I don’t think so. Regulation should reward investors and punish free riders. Only then do we truly look out for the public, the people who need more investment made.
Continue reading »
The House of Representatives is likely to vote tomorrow, Thursday, on the repeal of the FCC’s Net Neutrality power grab. Using the Congressional Review Act, the repeal of the Net Neutrality order can be accomplished in an expedited way. In particular this means the bill cannot be filibustered in the Senate, so passing it means something.
This is our first opportunity to rein in the Barack Obama Administration’s ongoing, all-encompassing effort to bypass Congress and enact their Leftist policies via executive branch regulatory fiat.
There are thirteen swing-district Democrats on whom pressure has been put by their leadership to stand for the ridiculous and oppressive notion that is Net Neutrality – by voting Nay on the CRA Resolution.
Let’s persuade them otherwise, shall we?
| Democrats in Question | Phone | Fax | |
| Jason Altmire (PA-4) | (202) 225-2565 | Jason.Altmire@mail.house.gov | (202) 226-2274 |
| Sanford Bishop (GA-2) | (202) 225-3631 | Sanford.Bishop@mail.house.gov | (202) 225-2203 |
| Leonard Boswell (IA-3) | (202) 225-3806 | lbos.ia3@mail.house.gov | (202) 225-5608 |
| Jim Costa (CA-20) | (202) 225-3341 | jimcostamc@mail.house.gov | (202) 225-9308 |
| Henry Cuellar (TX-28) | (202) 225-1640 | from website | (202) 225-1641 |
| Reuben Hinojosa (TX-15) | (202) 225-2531 | Rep.Hinojosa@mail.house.gov | (202) 225-5688 |
| Tim Holden (PA-17) | (202) 225-5546 | from website | (202) 226-0996 |
| Rick Larsen (WA-2) | (202) 225-2605 | Rick.Larsen@mail.house.gov | (202) 225-4420 |
| Mike McIntyre (NC-7) | (202) 225-2731 | from website | (202) 225-5773 |
| Jerry McNerney (CA-11) | (202) 225-1947 | from website | (202) 225-4060 |
| Gregory Meeks (NY-6) | (202) 225-3461 | from website | (202) 226-4169 |
| David Scott (GA-13) | (202) 225-2939 | from website | (202) 225-4628 |
| Heath Shuler (NC-11) | (202) 225-6401 | Heath.Shuler@mail.house.gov | (202) 226-6422 |
I’m late. No excuses. Let’s go.
So the courts threw out Verizon’s challenge of Net Neutrality, rejecting the very clever argument made by Verizon that it wasn’t premature. So now we wait for the actual publication of Net Neutrality to take place.
Well, to a point. The Republicans aren’t waiting and will vote this week in the full House to repeal Net Neutrality under the Congressional Review Act. Remember: this cannot be filibustered in the Senate, and so when it passes the House we only need 51 votes in the Senate, not 60. Seton Motley has some phone numbers to call if you’re represented by a key Democrat.
Tell ’em that even FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, as part of the 2/5 of the FCC that voted against Net Neutrality, still thinks it was a bad idea. Ask them his question: “Nothing is broken on the Internet, so what are we trying to fix?”
Continue reading »
I’m late. No excuses. Let’s go.
So the courts threw out Verizon’s challenge of Net Neutrality, rejecting the very clever argument made by Verizon that it wasn’t premature. So now we wait for the actual publication of Net Neutrality to take place.
Well, to a point. The Republicans aren’t waiting and will vote this week in the full House to repeal Net Neutrality under the Congressional Review Act. Remember: this cannot be filibustered in the Senate, and so when it passes the House we only need 51 votes in the Senate, not 60. Seton Motley has some phone numbers to call if you’re represented by a key Democrat.
Tell ’em that even FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, as part of the 2/5 of the FCC that voted against Net Neutrality, still thinks it was a bad idea. Ask them his question: “Nothing is broken on the Internet, so what are we trying to fix?”
Continue reading »
Correction on the title of this piece: His campaign advisory role carried over to a ongoing Presidential advisory role, so “Former” isn’t quite accurate.
Google Chairman and former CEO Eric Schmidt tried to use his influence within Google to gain privacy from searches about him, specifically trying to hide his political donations through secret “whitelists” whose existence has only recently been admitted.
This revelation from Steven Levy’s new book In the Plex is not surprising given Schmidt’s high level of political activity, advising candidate Barack Obama on tech issues, and now rumored as a candidate to be the next Secretary of Commerce. He’s in deep politically, and probably doesn’t want that to hurt him personally or in business.
But given Schmidt’s history, he’s now exposed as a massive hypocrite.
Continue reading »
Hello! As is my right, I’m going to start tonight by shamelessly promoting my own piece arguing for the assignment of the D block of wireless spectrum to civil defense and public safety. I keep calling it civil defense because we learned about the need for this after 9/11, and if the actions of the first responders after those attacks wasn’t wartime civil defense, I don’t know what is.
I know some (but certainly not all) libertarian-leaning Republicans oppose this plan, despite or even because the 9/11 commission chairmen have come out for it. But I’m of the view that there are legitimate government roles in society, and that not all things must be (or even should be) sold or given off to the private sector. Civil defense is one of those that is perfectly fine in government hands.
Continue reading »
Remember the Digital TV transition? That was when we took advantage of improved technology by making all the broadcast TV stations give up their old, huge blocks of wireless spectrum, in exchange for receiving new, narrower blocks. By making the switch, we made room for new wireless technologies to bloom.
That room was split into 5 “blocks.” The C block, for example, was auctioned off to Verizon, who’s using it for 4G LTE wireless Internet. The B block has been bought up heavily by AT&T for the same use. However the D block went unsold. When it went up for auction, nobody even met the reserve price, so today the D block remains available.
After 9/11, we learned that we need to make more spectrum available to first responders. The D block would work great for that purpose. So why don’t we just hand out the D block to first responders across the country? You’d think that’d be obvious, but unfortunately some Republicans are hesitant.
Instead of just showing leadership and doing what we need to do for honest-to-goodness civil defense, we’re playing with cargo cult markets.
Continue reading »
Remember when I seemed to write about Net Neutrality four times a week, which was really something when I was only posting three times? Well, the AT&T/T-Mobile deal is probably going to get that much discussion for now.
Of course there’s nothing new yet. Discussion is all there is until government actually starts acting. My job is to find the interesting discussion, I suppose. So let’s start with Douglas Holtz-Eakin at NRO, who makes very well the key thing we all must remember when it comes to the wireless market: size isn’t what matters. Competition matters. And as I’ve been saying from the start, taking the sick man in T-Mobile and combining him with the #2 firm only helps competition by putting pressure on the high-flying, LTE-deploying #1 Verizon.
Continue reading »
After that flurry of activity online, we seem be having a bit of a slow Friday. It’s no wonder: we have a long fight ahead with respect to the AT&T/T-Mobile deal, a process that Mike Wendy calls Legalized Extortion. And when property rights are made contingent on acceptance of a goverment-dictated consent degree, it’s hard to argue with the thrust of Wendy’s point.
Scary thought for all users of SecurID, after the RSA breakin: What if SecurID has a backdoor? If it does, then there could be real danger ahead for all its users.
Continue reading »