Is it possible? Could Internet advocates really win the network neutrality fight?
It’s still an uphill battle. But the Bell attempts to kill municipal networks on the state level were turned around, after early victories against a backdrop of no publicity.
Could the same be happening here?
Some news from the front:
- Bell advocate Mike McCurry is getting some serious push-back, fellow Democrats calling him a sell-out because he took Bell money for Astroturfing. He’s squealing like a pig.
- A House vote on the Barton bill has reportedly been delayed (they don’t have the votes).
- The Hill newspaper (which hides behind a firewall) says financial institutions are starting to weigh-in, in favor of net neutrality. They see the Internet as an information shipping charge and don’t want to pay more.
- Business analysts are no longer confident a bill will pass.
- Senators Dorgan and Snowe (the latter is a Republican) will offer fairly decent net neutrality language on their side of the Capitol, so even if the Barton bill passes the issue will be kept alive.
- Sen. Ted Stevens has introduced a broader telecomm bill that may stall Barton in the Senate. It lacks network neutrality language (and thus Democratic support).
- The New York Times (login required) has editorialized against the Bell language and in favor of net neutrality.
- SavetheInternet now boasts such right-wing sponsors as Glenn Reynolds, the Gun Owners of America and the Parents Television Council.
When a legislative fight reaches this point, at this late date on a
legislative calendar, the chances of an impasse become better
day-by-day.
Time, in other words, is on network neutrality’s side. At this point it
would take a big push from the Administration to get the Barton bill,
as written, across the finish line. And the Administration is unlikely
to deliver.
