Here in Washington, a classic way to get a bad policy passed is to attach it to the back of some unrelated “must pass” piece of legislation. Attaching one bad idea to a bill is sneaky.  Attaching two bad ideas is bold.  Attaching three?  Well, that’s what we have with a trio of horrible wireless ideas that some people in Congress are trying to attach to the upcoming Payroll Tax bill.

It is almost as if the proponents of these additions took a few years’ worth of ideas that will make wireless worse, wrapped them up in a bundle, and glued them to the underside of a bill that – if it does not pass – will raise taxes for millions of Americans.  In this case, these conditions would apply to spectrum freed up by the transition to digital TV broadcasting, and would impact some of the most useful spectrum to become available for years.  What are these conditions?

The following statement is attributed to Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge:

“It is unfortunate that the Federal Communications Commission chose to give wireless Internet access a second-class status to becoming an open network.

“Today’s dispute between Google and Verizon is just the type of situation that likely would not happen if it were clear that a firm ‘no discrimination’ standard were in effect for wireless services.

In the alternate world in which the professional Google-haters live, the Senate vote yesterday to retain the modest open Internet rules drawn up by the Federal Communications Commission should not have even been close.

After all, between Google and George Soros, public opinion is something to be shaped and melded with ease.  Policies that are drawn up by Google, for the advancement of Google are certain to gain quick and easy approval in Washington.

The U.S. Senate today defeated a resolution to overturn the FCC's Open Internet rules by a vote of 52 to 46.

The following statement is attributed to Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge:

 “The United States Senate today made it clear that consumers should have control over their experiences on an Open Internet.  Despite the cloak of anti-government rhetoric of the legislation's opponents, the reality is that a defeat of the resolution would have given control over to Big Telecom companies for their benefit on an Internet manipulated for their benefit.

"We certainly agree with Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Cantwell and others that more work needs to be done to protect consumers who use the Internet through wireless devices.  For now, though, it is sufficient for the rules the Federal Communications Commission has crafted to go into effect on Nov. 20."

It says something about the messed up world of telecom today that the “Connect America Fund” the FCC will vote on tomorrow has become the “what the heck are we going to do about IP-based interconnection” proceeding. In particular, the rather high-profile spat between AT&T and Comcast (and other cable companies) over access charges illustrates exactly the kind of cosmic cluster#@$! we predicted would happen if the FCC failed to classify broadband as a Title II telecom service.

In February 2011, opponents to an open Internet started a process known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which is an expedited tool rarely used by Congress to repeal rules issued by federal agencies.

This process requires action by Congress within 60 business days after the rules are published and allows for 30 Senators to force a vote in the U.S. Senate without a filibuster and without a hearing by the Senate Commerce Committee. The CRA has been invoked a number of times but has only been successful once, in 2001.

On December 21, 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted in favor of an order that establishes rules of the road to preserve the open Internet.

Public Knowledge’s Position

There are several glaring shortcomings of the FCC’s rules, including the absence of strong protections for wireless Internet connections. Furthermore, the rules do not provide certainty, but instead provide a path for further litigation and continued debate over Net Neutrality.

Despite these flaws, the rules still provide basic consumer protections that we believe will help to preserve an open Internet.

Public Knowledge will continue to defend and advocate for enforceable rules of the road to prevent Internet access providers from picking winners and losers online before consumers can do so themselves.

Public Knowledge is

In 2007, Comcast blocked its subscribers’ use of the BitTorrent protocol. In response, Public Knowledge and Free Press asked the FCC to reprimand Comcast because the blocking violated the FCC's network neutrality principles.  The FCC agreed, but Comcast quickly challenged the FCC's authority to protect consumers (and to act under Title I) in court.

In January of 2010, Comcast seemed likely to win their case against the FCC. Public Knowledge filed comments with the FCC, urging it to bring broadband Internet access back under Title II because Title II would give the FCC a much stronger legal basis to protect consumers online.