Why the Senate's net neutrality fumble is so much less news than it should have been

By | November 11, 2011, 5:00am PST

Summary: The Senate failed to get anything done. Again. This time, they failed to undo toothless net neutrality news. Are you proud of your politicians yet? Yeah, neither are we.

The big news in technology politics yesterday was the Senate’s attempt to undo the so-called net neutrality rules that were approved by the FCC last December.

See also: Net neutrality? More like neutered neutrality.

As it turns out, even though the House approved overturning the toothless net neutrality rules, the Senate — not completely controlled by the Republicans — was unable to come up with a majority.

This, sadly, is so not newsworthy.

First, as has been the case for the last twenty years or so, the party in power (to some degree that’s the GOP now) always tries to undo the stuff that the party out of power did, back when it was in power — regardless of whether the stuff done was good, bad, or in the case of our current net neutrality regulations, completely and totally meh.

As I wrote last year, the FCC passed a set of net neutrality rules governing wired communication — right at a time when everything is going wireless. The FCC carefully managed to avoid doing anything to protect our citizens from predatory actions by the wireless carriers because, among other things, the wireless carriers have one heck of a lobby in D.C.

No matter. Because they were put in place by a Democratically appointed FCC chairman, the GOP considered the regulations bad, and wanted to overturn them. Now, please note that this doesn’t mean the GOP was going to step up to the plate to pass good or effective net neutrality regulations.

Nope, it just meant they were just being pissy and combative, because that’s pretty much all that our politicians are good at doing these days.

And, they failed.

So, pretty much same ol’ same ol’.

Like I said, there’s no news here. Nothing to see. Move along.

The Senate failed to get anything done. Again. This time, they failed to undo toothless net neutrality news. Are you proud of your politicians yet? Yeah, neither are we.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
50
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Why the Senate's net neutrality fumble is so much less news than it should have been
gtaylor2 22nd Nov
@pizzaman7 I beleive the issue with the "goverment's the problem. Trust the market viewpoint" is that you trust corporations. If you think all corporations do is make products that you get to buy at Target and they are benign entites, I think you need to do a bit more looking into it. Their drive for profits and power can be as dangerous as the governemnt you fear.
The sad thing is this: unlike the wired world, there is limited wireless specturm and what is available is leased by the government. So there is even greater justification for true net neutrality in the wireless world than the wired world.

Still, we live in an effective plutocracy and Washingon is a playground for lobbyists and prostitutes who write legislation on the side.
@dsf3g
"...Washingon is a playground for lobbyists and prostitutes who write legislation on the side. "

That's awesome, I'm using that, but I'll give props to dsf3g when I do!
@dsf3g

Excellent comment, but please note that prostitutes provide an actual service for fee (plus unamusing collateral hazards). Politicians do not provide an actual service. Remember, with one you may get laid, but with the other, you'll always get screwed.
Yeah, it's tough when you can't undo the news.
In what way is the GOP the "party in power?" The House has a Republican majority, the Senate has a Democrat majority, the Executive Branch is Democrat.
0 Votes
+ -
Long live The Other Guys
Robert Hahn 11th Nov
Your Ministry of Truth reminds you that if something undesireable happens, the Republicans are in power. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a Republican if something we don't like happens.

Why do you think they call it journalism?
0 Votes
+ -
What?
John L. Ries 11th Nov
@Robert Hahn
Sen. Reid is a Democrat. Always has been.
0 Votes
+ -
apparently a sarc tag was needed...
peter.bittle@... 11th Nov
@Robert Hahn - for the terminally serious, you forgot your /sarc tag
0 Votes
+ -
Did you forget to put your reading comprehension glasses on today?
0 Votes
+ -
Technically correct
sboverie 11th Nov
@tfraymond
The senate has a slim majority for the democrats but, the republicans have been able to keep anything from moving forwards using filibuster. The polarization paralyzes everything.
@sboverie@... Paralyzed government is sometimes the best government. I wish it had been paralyzed back when they foisted Obamacare upon us. We will rue the day that the government was not paralyzed when that happened.
practice.

To democrats, and apparently to you, it's okay to be the party of 'no' and polarization when they're in power, but it's pure evil when the republicans use the same tactics.

Hypocrites!
@tfraymond

As a matter of civility in discourse, can we refer to the parties as the "Republican" and "Democratic" parties? The "Democrat" reference is a dead giveaway. That nit aside, I'm still annoyed that the two ineffective parties abide by a gentleman's rule that all legislation effectively requires a 60% majority to pass - what's up with that?
@Biotechguy
The reason for the 60% figure is that it takes into account a possible veto override which is 2/3. Most bills are a simple majority but they like the higher prcent to send the message they can override. Some types of bills by law require a 60% majority (super majority) to pass based on the law.
0 Votes
+ -
@Biotechguy
...is invocation of cloture (closing debate). Under the (now rarely used) default rules of the Senate, any senator can speak as long as he likes and a vote can't be taken until everybody is done talking.

It used to be that filibusters were rare, but now the mere threat of one is sufficient to kill a bill, unless cloture can be invoked, and threats are made frequently. The only way (IMHO) to stop it is for the Majority Leader (regardless of party) to start calling bluffs and to allow real filibusters to go forward (and insist that a quorum be present at all times), thus imposing a cost on obstructionist behavior.
0 Votes
+ -
Denial of legitimacy
John L. Ries Updated - 12th Nov
@Biotechguy
It seems that one of the unwritten rules of party loyalty is to never acknowledge the legitimacy of the opposition. The insistence of many Republicans on never referring to the Democratic Party by its proper name is part of it, but also refusing to refer to opposition politicians by title, thus declining to admit that they actually hold office. There are other such practices.

Supporters of both parties play these sorts of games, but Republicans do it more than Democrats, and that's been true since at least the Civil War.

Edit: I shouldn't have made the last statement, as it is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is that a large number of people (on both the right and the left) regard politics as a form of cold war and completely deny the right of others to disagree with them. The attitude is completely incompatible with the concept of free elections and representative government, and *will* destroy our constitutional system if it persists and becomes general. We've already had one civil war because a large part of the population of the USA refused to accept the results of a free election in 1860; it *can* happen again.

Reply to Adornoe: I don't need a survey. I've been hearing Republicans say "Democrat Party" all my life and I've been hearing people of both parties use the last names of opposing politicians as a form of profanity for a good 25 years or so, (which is why I insist on referring to elected officials by their proper titles, even if I don't like them). Its' a way of denying legitimacy and always has been. I note that you personally adhere to both of the practices I mention (which is probably why you're offended).

Even totalitarians are happy to accept the results of a free election if it comes out their way. Representative government (by whatever name) depends on everybody accepting the outcome, even if they don't like it.
Or, do you get a lot of pleasure from making things up?

Can you find or quote from a survey to back up you assertions about republicans denying the legitimacy of democrats and refusing to address by their titles or the democratic party by it's real name?

If anything, it's the complete opposite of what you state.

But, here again, you're demonstrating your allegiance to your party and defending it like it's your duty. But, when it comes to lying and delegitimizing, not just republicans, but anyone that disagrees with them, the democrats are the experts and the most experienced at it, and the ones that do it with impunity and joy.
What you perceive is tainted by your prejudices, and you are obviously, a democrat, even if you can't bring yourself to admit it openly.

But, you haven't undone my argument, and you can't.

So, what I said is still true, and here goes:


Do you get a lot of pleasure from making things up?

Can you find or quote from a survey to back up you assertions about republicans denying the legitimacy of democrats and refusing to address by their titles or the democratic party by it's real name?

If anything, it's the complete opposite of what you state.

But, here again, you're demonstrating your allegiance to your party and defending it like it's your duty. But, when it comes to lying and delegitimizing, not just republicans, but anyone that disagrees with them, the democrats are the experts and the most experienced at it, and the ones that do it with impunity and joy.
@tfraymond Because the Senate can block anything that the House and President try to do. Have you seen the news lately?
0 Votes
+ -
@thombone
...(and does) without the consent of either house of Congress.
@tfraymond
Because the house is where most/all laws originate. The are also suppose to be closest to the people, hence, people representatives. Recently, the people are left wondering just who are the people that they are representing?? Maybe that's what he meant???
0 Votes
+ -
Bill may originate in either house
John L. Ries Updated - 12th Nov
@windozefreak
The only constitutional restriction is that revenue bills must originate in the House (but the Senate may "concur with amendments, as on other bills"). In practice, the vast majority of money bills are considered first by the House, but other than that, I think the number of bills that actually become law are about evenly divided between those that originate in the House, and those that originate in the Senate.

Reply to Adornoe:

You've already made it abundantly clear that the only way Democrats can win an election is by fraud (though you've never given any evidence of that). Presumably, if Congress were truly representative, there would always be a 2/3 Republican majority in both houses.
then Obamacare would not have even come close to passing in 2009, when a good majority of the people, on all sides, were against the bill. And, surveys still show the majority of the people still opposed to Obamacare.
Look, there is no doubt that there is election fraud, on both sides. However, there is no doubt that election fraud is coming more from democrats than republicans.

I never said that democrats can only win through fraud. Stop making things up. What I did say is that, democrats use a lot of fraud to win a lot of elections (a lot is not the same as a majority). However, I've no doubt that, without fraud on both sides, that republicans would have more control of states and congress than what has occurred in the past.

And, yes, if congress were truly representative of the wishes of the people, the republicans would have a majority in both houses of congress most of the time, while not necessarily with a 2/3 majority every time.

The fact is that, when people are surveyed or polled, and asked individual questions on the specific issues, most of them fall on the conservative side in their views. However, there are too many who will vote more on the money issues, where far too many have become dependent upon government largess, like welfare and "free" or subsidized housing, and free food and free transportation and a lot of other goodies. Without that dependence, most elections would trend towards conservatism, because, deep down inside, most people are conservative on most issues.
@tfraymond If there was a group in power then things would get done. The fact of the matter is that for decades no one has been in power and it is getting worse.
Unfortunately for your wishes, we still have a constitutional form of government, and a democratic republic, and no dictator, and no group in charge, like you can find in communist countries where the communist party is in absolute control.
0 Votes
+ -
We don't need someone to be in "power"
John L. Ries Updated - 12th Nov
@Bradish@...
All we need is for elected officials to do their jobs as described in the Constitution, to deliberate on the issues of the day in good faith, and to make their decisions solely on the basis of the public interest.
@tfraymond
A little lesson in the American political system inspired by the Consitution of the U.S. Things got done in Washington before the Tea Party took over the House, even if you didn't like what was being done, i.e. what some call the Bama HealthCare Plan. However since the Tea Party take-over of the House, nothing useful has been done. So what was your question? The party in power is the always the party to controls the House. I know the Republicans are trying to get two years for free and blame everything bad on the Dems, but the truth is as anyone can see, the Repukeniks are so sick, they can't even tell the difference between their own idiocies and the idiocy of others.
To me, it is just another example of a knee jerk reaction and following the suggestion of special interest group request--money in their pockets.
0 Votes
+ -
So the attempt to block the FCC's net neutrality rules wasn't likely to pass anyway.
Like how to generate another tsunammi wave of cheap, pliant foreign labor with flexible ethics by perverting the J visa, expanding in some under-the-table manner the F, H-1B and L visas via weakening of the already nearly non-existent requirements, creating even more exemptions, turning most of them into green cards...
0 Votes
+ -
Actually, I think the (Democrats in the) Senate did EXACTLY the right thing. Wired technology is mature, it makes perfect sense to apply "net neutrality", and the chance of unintended consequences is low. Wireless? Not so true. I can think of half-a-dozen ways that wireless will play out, VERY differently than wired, and some of them would be affected by net neutrality. What's the right answer? I don't know. AND NEITHER DO YOU.

And FWIW, I applaud Obama for having the guts to announce he'd veto the bill even if the Senate did pass it.
0 Votes
+ -
Poorly written article
pizzaman7 11th Nov
Net Neutrality = more government control. the FCC chairpeople are mostly democrats. If you think the FCC controlling Net Neutrality I have a bridge to sell you.

What's wrong with the Internet. We have good competition and you need competition to bring about lower prices. If it isn't broke leave it alone.

Government has all kinds of regulations in mind. If you operate a site and they ask for records they will want you to produce all your documented traffic. We don't need big brother.
@pizzaman7 I beleive the issue with the "goverment's the problem. Trust the market viewpoint" is that you trust corporations. If you think all corporations do is make products that you get to buy at Target and they are benign entites, I think you need to do a bit more looking into it. Their drive for profits and power can be as dangerous as the governemnt you fear.
Net neutrality is (left-wing) code for Government take-over. The best our distinguinshed author can say about the rules is, "Because they were put in place by a Democratically appointed FCC chairman, the GOP considered the regulations bad, and wanted to overturn them." Basically, no substance here, move along. In fact, "net neutrality" aims to bar broadband providers from discriminating against Internet content, services, or applications. The FCC is oversteping it's bounds here, and Greg Walden, R-Ore is quoted as saying, "If left unchallenged, this claim of authority would allow the FCC to regulate any matter it discussed in the national broadband plan"
@albumen@...
Isn't Net Neutrality simply a way to protect consumers from the predatory practices of big business? I'm not sure how one jumps to "government takeover" from there without serious self-medication.

We know that if left to their own devices corporations will eventually screw us. That is capitalism. One might act in good faith, but another will undercut it with cheaper practices or more ruthless ways of bilking the consumer, driving the first player out of business. Capitalism - left unregulated - is a race to the bottom.

Anyway, we've had the FCC for decades, and I fail to see how it has hampered business in any relevant way.
by trying to resolve a problem that doesn't exist, they are using the rules and possible legislation to follow, as a step to further regulate that which is not under the control of the feds right now. It's the foot-in-the-door strategy, and a tactic which has been used in the past to get more power to the government, like what's happened with the destruction of the original intent of the commerce clause in the constitution.
@Biotechguy
What civility in discourse are you talking about? Certainly not in DC.
takes office, when those regulations can be undone or kept in place.

So, why even bother when the industries affected won't have the kind of certainty they need in order to run their businesses effectively?

The real fact is that, neither the FCC nor the government in general, should be regulating any part of industry that is a means for free speech or freedom of the press. Government has taken on a power that was never granted to them in the constitution, and, any power not specifically granted to the feds in the constitution, belongs at the local level, which therefore, renders any FCC regulations unconstitutional. If somebody were to challenge any of those regulations in court, chances are that the government would lose.
@adornoe@...
Congress have the power to write legislation to clarify and/or strengthen what the constitution says. For instance, if we just relied on the constitution, one could say that the constitution does not even mentions internet, wired or wireless???
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong on all counts!
adornoe@... Updated - 11th Nov
It's not within the power of congress to re-write the constitution, and the interpretation of the constitution is the function of the judicial branch of government.

The constitution is clear enough as it is, and writing legislation to "clarify" or "strengthen" it, is not the function of congress. The constitution can only be modified by a constitutional convention, which is the function of the states, and with the permission of the people.

The constitution did not need to specify any specific technology or any inventions or any innovation or any advancements. The wording was a general document for the structure of our government, and it was never intended to address every single issue that could arise. That is the wisdom of the way it was written, and the wisdom of the framers, who knew that, by adding specifics, there would be cases in the future when the constitution would be rendered useless and incomprehensible and a waste after just a few decades. The constitution is short and sweet and to the point, without having to include any specifics except the separation of powers. Most power was intended to remain with the people and the states, and the nonsense that we have now, such as the FCC and so many other agencies, is precisely what the founding fathers were trying to avoid.
It's no longer a question of Democrats or Republicans. DC is a den of bureaucrats. Whether executive, congressional, or judicial, they're all useless at this point. I believe the FCC is part of the executive branch, so that translates as "don't do anything to make the president look bad". And congress' mantra is "don't do anything to piss the lobbyists off, or they'll stop lavishing gifts on us". And the judicial? They're quagmired in so much patent BS, the carriers have no fear of them.

I have no use for Washington DC and its bureaucrats.
It don't matter if it's a democrat or a republican, they're all out for the same thing, to line their pockets. If people would become independents instead of partisans and vote for the person, not the party, then perhaps something good will develope. That's why I left the republican party and became an independent, got tired of the democrats giving it all away and the republicans taking it all away.....
0 Votes
+ -
Truth, plain and simple.
droozilla 11th Nov
Government needs to stay the hell off the net unless they're looking for escorts.
0 Votes
+ -
Wired?
Curtis-Neeley 11th Nov
There is no such thing as wireless. Nothing that uses electricity gets that electricity without a wire. Batteries need wires to ever be charged. etc...
0 Votes
+ -
Only in the U.S.A.. Our politicians, this senate is S.O.R.R.Y.
0 Votes
+ -
You wrote:

"Because they were put in place by a Democratically appointed FCC chairman, the GOP considered the regulations bad, and wanted to overturn them."

That's so wrong. The GOP considers the regulations bad because they are the lap dogs of the corporations that as a consequence lose just a tiny bit of their massive control over the very substance that is power - information! It's all of the GOP, and the majority of the Democrats that have been co-opted by this corporate money and influence, and it's not the GOP nor the Dems that control Washington. It's the corporations.
wishes than the people in Washington.

Corporations live and die through the decisions that people make on a daily basis, and, if people decide that a certain product is too expensive, or not useful or not worthy of their time, then that corporation will have effectively destroyed itself. Congress is not as democratic, because, we can't easily undo their decisions, and many of those decisions are incorporated into the fabric of our society, whether we like them or not, and thus, we end up having to swallow those decisions, which is then, a lot more undemocratic than what we could do with corporations and their products and services.

The fact is that, corporations serve a lot more useful functions in society than most of government. And, there are a lot more people in those corporations than elected officials, and thus, the corporations are a lot more representative of what the people want and think than any level of government.
This iis the 4th Time getting this same identical mail now; what, no imagination?

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix