Network neutrality and parliamentarian acumen
I understand that the current thinking is that Sen. Stevens won't be able to collect the 60 votes he needs to stop debate on his bill. This is, in my view, good news.
But there are lots of other ways to get a job done.
For instance — what if just the video franchise provisions (hard to fight those) and the universal service fund provisions (attractive to constituents even though the system is entirely broken) were peeled off and stuck in a large appropriations bill? that no one heard about until the day it was offered?
What if those provisions were attached to the E911 bill, which is largely helpful in giving competitive interconnected VoIP providers assistance the FCC denied them?
What if there was a lame duck session — six weeks or so to do more mischief?
So all NN lobbyists will have to bone up on procedure. We're heading into a period of legislative legerdemain.
Speaking of which: I have heard about a really awful revision-to-CALEA draft that is being circulated. Really awful.
Comments
2 Responses to “Network neutrality and parliamentarian acumen”
Got something to say?
On the video franchising rules: while this is not an issue I live and die on, I wrote a paper on this (and muni wireless) for a conference on preemption. I had trouble coming up with good reasons as to why franchising should be done at the federal level, rather than at the state level or locally. I am certainly in favor of more video entry, hence why I can only be so upset of the feds move on this, but I don't see the principle at work as to fed/state allocation. The paper is here if you are interested: http://www.federalismproject.org/preemption/papers/Picker_Telecommunications_Entry_and_Preemption.pdf
Thanks so much, Randy!