NORTON META TAG

02 December 2010

Tell the President: Make the Arctic Refuge a National Monument! from LCV 1DEZ10

A call to action by the League of Conservation Voters for the permanent protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by making it a national monument. Please participate by clicking the header and then click on 
Ask President Obama to Make the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge a National Monument! President Obama has the power to establish the Arctic Refuge as a ...
action.lcv.org on the action page......

http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=vlm-khJj7n_9haNBGTZNBQ.. 

Ask President Obama to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a National Monument!
Next Monday, December 6th, marks the 50th anniversary of the creation of the iconic Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- 19 million acres of pristine wilderness and wildlife habitat located along the North Slope of Alaska.
In 1960, President Eisenhower was so enamored with the beauty and ecological diversity of the region that he decided to establish the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as one of America’s greatest wilderness regions. He was convinced of the need to create a refuge to be protected and enjoyed by future generations of Americans.  Today, the Arctic Refuge is the largest wildlife refuge in the United States – home to millions of critical wildlife, including the Porcupine Caribou, hundreds of bird species, and thousands of brown and black bears.  They go there each year seeking sanctuary from a world of increasing hazards to receive their most vital needs: sustenance and security for bearing their young.  This cycle has been unbroken for fifty years, and now is the time to ensure that this wildlife is protected for future generations. 
President Obama has the power to provide additional safeguards to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- and its millions of vital wildlife -- from exploitation. The creation of a National Monument is the quickest way to protect this national treasure from drilling and other threats.  As the Refuge celebrates its 50th anniversary, a National Monument designation would be a fitting celebration of the past, present, and future of this extraordinary American wilderness.   
Thank you for taking the time to contact the President and make your voice heard. And thank you – as always – for standing with LCV.
Sincerely,
Gene_only_sig_web.gif
Gene Karpinski
President
League of Conservation Voters
 

MoveOn Calls On Obama To Stiffen Spine On Tax Cuts In National Ad 1DEZ10

LET PRESIDENT OBAMA KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT HIS SPINLESS CAPITULATION TO REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTIONISM BY E MAILING HIM AT 
 http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
BY THE BY, EXTENDING THE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH ADDS $700 BILLION TO THE DEFICIT, EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS ADDS $18 BILLION TO THE DEFICIT. THIS FROM MOVEON.ORG....

WASHINGTON -- In a last-ditch effort to persuade the White House to hold its line on the expiring Bush tax cuts, the progressive advocacy group MoveOn.org is making a major national ad buy, calling on President Barack Obama to let the rates for the wealthy return to Clinton-era levels.
MoveOn, which has been careful in choosing the fights it has picked with the Obama administration, adopts a mildly confrontational tone in the spot, titled "Obama Back," which is set to air on CNN, MSNBC and the cable network Oxygen.
Made up primarily of testimonials from some of its 5 million members, the spot more or less responds with disappointment to the president's decision to leave the tax-cut dilemma to a bipartisan commission.
"What's happened to that bold, progressive man we elected President in 2008?" one woman asks.
"The guy who stands for all the people and is not gonna let himself get pushed around?" follows a man.


The ad likely comes too late, however. The White House is acutely aware that they will provoke anger should they cut a deal and extend the tax cuts for the rich, as is expected. They've just concluded that failing to reach such an agreement -- and letting all the rates expire -- would yield rage that far outweighs progressive disappointments.
Still, lawmakers and organizations see some utility in planting their flag on the issue. And for MoveOn to go after Obama directly at this juncture underscores the growing sentiment that progressive groups get more traction from calling out the White House than being allied with it.
"MoveOn members worked countless hours to help elect President Obama so we would have a leader who would go to the mat for regular Americans," MoveOn Executive Director Justin Ruben said. "At a time when most Americans -- including our members -- are struggling to make ends meet, and local governments are laying off badly needed teachers and firemen, we need the Obama of 2008 back to lead the fight and make the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share."

Why Exactly Is President Obama Acting Like George McFly? 1DEZ10

BRAVO Bob Cesca, I agree 100%! President Obama has to stop being the WIMP OF WASHINGTON and stand up to the gop and tea-baggers for the good of the country. NO EXTENSION OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, NO CUTS OF SOCIAL SECURITY NOR RAISING THE RETIREMENT AGE (AFTER ALL SOCIAL SECURITY IS FORBIDDEN BY LAW TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEFICIT), AND GET UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS EXTENDED! The right-wing fanatics and their corporate masters don't take over the House until January 2011, until then the Democrats are in charge and they, along with the President, need to stand up to the gop and tea-baggers and do what is right for the nation. PRESIDENT OBAMA, MAJORITY LEADERS REID AND PELOSI, LEAD!!! LEAD THE NATION, LEAD THE PARTY, LEAD CONGRESS AND FIGHT LIKE HELL FOR US!!!

More often than not, I've attempted to give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt, both in terms of policy and politics. That's not to say I've embraced every idea -- I most certainly haven't. But even when I've vocally disagreed with a policy position, I've attempted to see the wisdom and pragmatism behind the president's choices.
But this week I have no blessed clue what the hell he's up to. I've tried to look at this from every angle and each one leads me back to weak, weak, weak.
He's following rules that no longer exist, pandering to voter attitudes that will have zero consequence in terms of both his approval numbers and his reelection chances. He's completely off the rails -- well beyond any notion of post-partisanship. In fact, if his intention has been to "change the way Washington does business," he's currently and epically failing because I simply can't believe that the new and improved way is this way.
Within roughly 24 hours, President Obama preemptively capitulated to the Republicans and proposed an unabridged GOP idea -- freezing federal worker salaries, then, almost as if on cue, the Senate Republicans put their unflinching childish obstructionism in writing and pledged to block everything unless the president extends the deficit-ballooning Bush tax rates. And in that mix, the Republicans blocked extensions of unemployment benefits. Twice.
The upshot? The president looks extraordinarily weak. Weaker than at any other time in his presidency. It probably didn't help that he was literally beaten and bloodied when he announced the pay freeze, due to his weekend basketball fracas.
Of course the intention isn't to appear weak. The intention is to appear magnanimous. The intention is to secure support from voters who buy into the ridiculous "both sides are the same" meme and who tell pollsters that they want more bipartisan cooperation, while incongruously voting for total gridlock and the potential of a government shutdown. During his pay freeze address, the president said the American people didn't vote for gridlock. Really?
Unfortunately, however, bipartisan cooperation in this era has been entirely redefined to the point of virtual extinction. There's no such thing as mutual cooperation between both parties. Modern bipartisanship is all about one party, the Democrats, flailing around and desperately struggling to appease the Republicans who return the favor by smacking the textbooks out of the president's hands then kicking him in the ass while he picks up his crap off the floor -- embarrassed and chuckling while muttering, "Oh, you guys."
That character doesn't look cooperative at all. He looks like a very smart and very serious... wimp.
He looks like he's unable to handle negotiations. He looks like George McFly. He looks like he's capitulating to a fraternity of hooples who are wrong about everything; who deny basic economics; who deny basic math; who exist for no other reason than to, as DougJ at Balloon Juice described, win elections "by fighting hard over imaginary issues."
In other words, the Republicans have constructed a political and media machine that allows them to function with impunity. All of cable news is packed wall-to-wall with Republicans who robotically repeat the same false, fact-free ideas over and over -- and they're given complete latitude because of the press's self-flagellation over the "liberal media" myth. They've managed to guilt the press into supporting and repeating unvarnished bullshit like "tax cuts stimulate the economy and unemployment benefits don't" and "allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will hurt jobs" and "the stimulus didn't work" and "the Democrats are spending us into oblivion." None of that is true. The Bush tax rates for the wealthy don't stimulate the economy, but unemployment benefits do. The Bush tax cuts haven't created any jobs in ten years, and middle class wages have stagnated. The stimulus worked (not well enough, but it worked). And the Democrats slashed the budget deficit by record numbers.
You'd never know it, though, because whenever a Democrat -- say, Bernie Sanders or Anthony Weiner or the outgoing Alan Grayson, for example -- steps up and forcefully tells the truth, they're assaulted by political hipsters who harrumph and bitch about "both sides" acting insane and shrill and why can't we all just be nice! You know, nice like the glorious olden days when there weren't witch hunts or duels or beatings or civil wars. Meanwhile, the Republicans line up in lockstep on television and repeat the same lines over and over and over. The media repeats and validates during Sunday morning "smackdown" often featuring John McCain. The Democrats concede. And the Republicans win the debate -- usually by grinding it into the ground with nonstop crazy and by filibustering everything.
The Republicans are on television every day admitting that their entire goal is simply to screw the president by sabotaging the economic recovery. This is unbelievable. Eight years ago, these were the same people who insisted that merely criticizing the commander-in-chief during wartime would endanger the troops. Now these same bastards are not just criticizing the president, but they're questioning his religion, his citizenship, his loyalty to America -- and they're endeavoring, as their primary goal, to make him fail by dragging the economy down. They're doing this by filibustering policies that stimulate economic growth (unemployment benefits, for example), while promoting ideas that don't stimulate economic growth at all (Bush tax rates, for example).
The president, meanwhile, appears to be operating under the frustratingly obvious misapprehension that the Republicans will reciprocate his generosity, and, if they don't, the American people will punish the Republicans accordingly. The Republicans won't reciprocate at all, of course, and the American people won't notice their grabassery. And the ones who do will get caught up in the Fox News, AM radio tsunami and somehow end up blaming the president for being overly partisan.
At this point, I'd really like to see how the White House intends for their calculus to unfold. If they've figured out a path around the Republican filibusters and their disassociation with reality without unilaterally giving away the store, then it might be nice to have a hint about the plan. And I'm not suggesting they reveal their strategy, but maybe just show us some results. Show us that this is process of appearing wimpy in the face of Republican intransigence will actually work to undermine the Republicans and pass the president's agenda. If not, we can only assume that they're just giving up their principles and letting the Republicans drive. I can't imagine anything more destructive. Especially now.
Listen to the Bob & Elvis Show, with Bob Cesca and Elvis Dingeldein, on iTunes.
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!

Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go
Related News On Huffington Post:
MoveOn Calls On Obama To Stiffen Spine On Tax Cuts In National Ad

WASHINGTON -- In a last-ditch effort to persuade the White House to hold its line on the expiring Bush tax cuts, the progressive advocacy group...

Anderson Cooper's must-see birther interview from CNN 30NOV10

THIS fool from Texas keeps showing how stupid, ignorant and prejudiced he is all on his own, Anderson Cooper didn't have to help him or guide him at all......

CNN anchor coolly takes down Texas State Rep. who asks why we don't "know anything at all" about the president Video

01 December 2010

November FAIL Video: An Epic Month Of People's Cringe-Worthy Failures

As we wave goodbye to another November, let's take a few minutes to look back on all those people who tried so hard and just could not succeed. From car crashes and drunken falls to sports and stunts gone wrong, November 2010 was a particularly rich month for the mediocre among us.
So, for those about to fail, we salute you.
WATCH: (via The Daily What)

Entire Senate Republican Caucus Commits To Filibustering Anything Prior To Budget, Tax Cuts 1DEZ10

SO much for working together for the good of the nation, eh gop and tea-baggers?
This story has been updated
WASHINGTON -- The entire Republican Senate caucus has signed a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid, informing him that they will filibuster any legislative measure that comes before the Senate prior to the body considering a budget or tax cut legislation
The Associated Press first reported the letter last night. But on Wednesday morning Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office passed a copy on to reporters, showing that he had secured signatures from every Senate Republican.
"[W]e write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers," the letter reads. "With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike."
The maneuver comes, notably, just hours after congressional leadership met with President Barack Obama in an effort to chart out how to work in a bipartisan fashion. It also dropped on the same day that a bipartisan group of lawmakers was set to meet with the Secretary of the Treasury and head of the Office of Management and Budget to discuss a resolution to the tax cut debate. Pointing to the latter, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took the floor on Wednesday to condemn, what he called, a "cynical" tactic to delay legislative progress.
"My Republican colleagues knew [about the tax cuts meeting] as they drafted this letter," Reid said. "Therefore, they also know that the true effect of this letter is to prevent the Senate from acting on many important issues that have bipartisan support. With this letter they have simply put in writing the political strategy the Republicans have pursued this entire congress: Mainly, obstruct and delay, obstruct delay action on critical matters, and then blame the Democrats for not addressing the needs of the American people. Very cynical but very obvious and very transparent."
Democrats have been planning to deal with immigration reform and the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell legislation during the lame duck session. A continuing resolution for the budget was on the docket, as was one for tax cuts. But there was no sense about prioritizing those two before the former measures.
How Reid and the White House respond to the letter could give observers a fairly strong sense, not only about how the lame duck session will play out, but also how bipartisanship will be defined in the closing years of Obama's first term in office.
FULL LETTER:

priority letters
UPDATE: The Associated Press reports that the START treaty -- a nuclear arms pact with Russia -- will no be affected by the new GOP pledge. And Mark Helmke, a senior adviser to Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), the main Republican Senator behind START, tells Amanda Terkel of the Huffington Post that the treaty is not endangered.
"We're still pushing for the START Treaty to move forward. We're hoping to do that the week of the 13th," Helmke said. "We don't need to have the House in session for the treaty. ... This is assuming we're going to get these things [budget, tax issues] done in the next two weeks, then we take up START in the third week."

FURTHER UPDATE: McConnell took the floor shortly after Reid delivering the following remarks:
With just a few weeks to go before the end of the session, Democrats continue to place their own priorities over the priorities of the American people. These are the things Democrats have chosen to do instead of preventing a massive tax hike that economists tell us would stifle the economy. Republicans have pleaded with Democrats to put aside their wish-list -- to focus on the things Americans want us to focus on. They've ignored us. The voters repudiated their agenda at the polls. They've ignored them. Time is running out. They're ignoring that.
UPDATED 10:15 AM: HuffPost's Howard Fineman reports:
"Senator Reid keeps stalling and we're looking at another week of dealing with issues that aren't the central ones," said one top GOP aide. "He's had months and months to deal with this other stuff."
The surprisingly easy passage of the Food Safety Bill -- hailed as a hopeful sign of bipartisanship -- made the GOP leadership all the more determined to take control of the timetable.
The unified pledge also helps GOP leader Mitch McConnell keep control of Republicans willing to work on side deals -- among them Sen. John McCain, who has expressed optimism about passage of the New START treaty.

‘Blasphemy’ death sentence controversy another wakeup call for Pakistan government 30NOV10

I am tired of our government blindly supporting repressive regimes in the name of out national security or corporate greed while ignoring violations of human rights like the freedom of religion that result in the deaths of religious minorities either by the actions of the government or the governments choice to allow others to commit atrocities against religious and ethnic minorities and against women and girls. This has to end and the American government has to take a strong forceful stand with Pakistan, Afghanistan and Egypt and all other repressive governments, especially those who are our "allies".
Pakistani Christians protesting Asia Bibi's death sentence ©Demotix/Hussain Jan
By Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International Programme Director for the Asia-Pacific
The international outcry over Asia Bibi, the Christian Pakistani woman sentenced to death for blasphemy, has set off an internal backlash against perceived Western influence in Pakistan.  This has put the government in a difficult position – but one of its own making.
The Lahore High Court has ruled that the country’s president can’t yet pardon Asia Bibi, as her case is still being appealed. The government had been making moves towards a pardon, but the ruling has taken place amid pressure from conservative political parties and the street, including protests calling for Asia Bibi’s immediate execution.
The more international condemnation Pakistan faces for discriminatory laws or persecution of religious minorities like Shi’as, Ahmadis, and Christians, the more these cases fuel the anti-Western mood – and from there they can take on a life of their own, in which no-one can predict the outcome, either inside or outside Pakistan.
The religious extremists are no longer even limiting themselves to attacking religious minorities – they have also turned on Sunnis whom they view as insufficiently extreme, such as various Sufi groups that have been part of the region’s variegated religious culture for centuries.
Out of wariness of provoking religious extremists against the government, and desire to avoid making clear decisions either way, the Pakistan government has procrastinated on dealing with the blasphemy laws.  But this has just meant that they have failed to prevent patently outrageous injustices that ‘go international’ like the Asia Bibi case: a festering human rights problem that generates terrible PR and can only be solved through – yes – clear decisions.
How can the Pakistani government get away from this destructive dynamic?  The Zardari government holds the solution, but has been sitting on its hands, much like its predecessors in General Musharraf’s military government.
After the burning alive of at least seven Christians and the destruction of Christian homes the town of Gojra in August last year, carried out by extremists under pretext of outrage at an alleged act of blasphemy, the Prime Minister announced he would have a committee review “laws detrimental to religious harmony”.  A welcome announcement, but so far there have been no concrete results.
The Zardari administration needs to ally with human rights friendly forces within the government and civil society, who have also been embarrassed, if not outraged, by the recent surge in attacks on minorities, ranging from the Asia Bibi case to bomb attacks against Sufis and assaults on girls’ schools and women’s health care clinics.  They too are calling for the fulfilment of promises made on the blasphemy laws.  Pakistan needs to amend or abolish them, particularly section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code which carries a mandatory death penalty for anyone found guilty of blasphemy.
The vaguely formulated and arbitrarily enforced blasphemy laws are typically employed to harass and persecute religious minorities.  For example, in January this year, five Ahmadis, including one minor, were detained on spurious charges of blasphemy in the Layyah district, with no evidence or witnesses to support the charges against them.  Even a Pakistani government minister has already said that Asia Bibi’s charges appear to have resulted from a petty squabble at the community well.
As so little evidence is required, blasphemy accusations tend to be unfounded, and too easily motivated either by petty conflicts or mendacious reasons. Although no-one has been executed under the blasphemy laws, there have been unlawful killings of blasphemy suspects in prison, allegedly by guards or other prisoners.
Asia Bibi’s case is yet another wakeup call for the Pakistani government to deal with the religious extremism that is blowing great holes in the country.  But with attacks on minority targets escalating in recent years, like this year’s Lahore bombings of a famed Sufi shrine and an Ahmadi mosque, the Pakistan government has received wakeup call after wakeup call.  When will it stop sleepwalking toward disaster, and fix the country’s shameful blasphemy laws?

A Second Federal Judge Holds That The Affordable Care Act Is Constitutional 30NOV10

AGAIN federal courts have ruled the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, a big smack down of the gop and tea-baggers in their fight for the greed of the insurance companies and corporate America. Yet these right wing fanatics will continue to waste tax payers money and clog the courts with these frivolous lawsuits and spreading lies, manipulating their supporters with their propaganda....pathetic....See earlier post on this blog 'ENTITLEMENT HYPOCRISY & GOP FROSH: WHERE'S MY HEALTHCARE? 19NOV10', '$86.2 MILLION DOLLARS & HEALTHCARE LAW GIVES NOTABLE IMPROVEMENT TO DEBT OUTLOOK IF IMPLEMENTED:GAO REPORT 18NOV10', AND 'HEALTH CARE REFORM CHALLENGE REJECTED BY SUPREME COURT 12NOV10'.


Last month, the first judge ever to consider the issue reached the obviously correct conclusion that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.  Today, a second federal judge reached the same conclusion.  The lengthy opinion by Judge Norman Moon of the Western District of Virginia gives several reasons why the Act’s provision requiring all Americans to either carry insurance or pay slightly higher income taxes easily fits within Congress’ broad authority to regulate the national economy, including the fact that striking down this provision would make it impossible to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to persons with preexisting conditions:
The conduct regulated by the individual coverage provision is also within the scope of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause because it is rational to believe the failure to regulate the uninsured would undercut the Act’s larger regulatory scheme for the interstate health care market. The Act institutes a number of reforms of the interstate insurance market to increase the availability and affordability of health insurance, including the requirement that insurers guarantee coverage for all individuals, even those with preexisting medical conditions. As Congress stated in its findings, the individual coverage provision is “essential” to this larger regulatory scheme because, without it, individuals would postpone health insurance until they need substantial care, at which point the Act would obligate insurers to cover them at the same cost as everyone else. This would increase the cost of health insurance and decrease the number of insured individuals—precisely the harms that Congress sought to address with the Act’s regulatory measures.
Today’s decision is just another nail in the coffin of the many meritless lawsuits challenging health reform.  While conservatives have touted a pair of procedural victories they won in two high-profile lawsuits, the fact remains that every single judge to consider merits of these challenges has upheld the law.  Indeed, even ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia has indicated that he agrees with today’s decision.  As Scalia wrote in Gonzales v. Raich, “where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.”

WE'RE STILL AT WAR from MOJO 1DEZ10


LOGAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan – U.S. Army Cpl. Mitchell A. Weaver, a Williamsport, Md., native and a wheeled vehicle mechanic assigned to Company F, 2nd Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment’s Task Force Storm, troubleshoots Lal-Mohammad-Trabi’s three-kilowatt generator at Baraki Barak in Logar Province Nov. 18. (Photo by U.S. Army Cpl. Cooper T. Cash, 210th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment, Task Force Patriot)

FCC Prepares For Net Neutrality Vote 1DEZ10

THE fight for Net Neutrality is almost over and comes down to this proposal from the Chairman of the FCC, more details to be made available later today....
WASHINGTON — Federal regulators are moving ahead with a plan to prohibit phone and cable companies from blocking or discriminating against Internet traffic flowing over their broadband networks.
Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, will outline his proposal for so-called "network neutrality" rules in a speech on Wednesday. Despite Republican opposition in Congress, Genachowski plans to bring his proposal to a vote by the full commission before the end of the year.
Net neutrality rules were one of the Obama administration's top campaign pledges to the technology industry and have been among Genachowski's priorities since he took over the FCC more than a year ago.
Many big Internet companies, such as search leader Google Inc. and calling service Skype, as well as public-interest groups, insist regulations are needed to ensure broadband companies don't use their control over Internet connections to dictate where consumers can go and what they can do online.
But Genachowski has run into substantial opposition from big phone and cable companies, including AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp., which argue that they should be allowed to manage their networks as they see fit. Genachowski has spent the past several months trying to craft a compromise.
His new proposal would "culminate recent efforts to find common ground" and create "rules of the road to preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet," according to an advance copy of his remarks.
The plan – which builds on a set of FCC principles first established under the previous administration in 2005 – would require that broadband providers let subscribers access all legal online content, applications and services over their wireline networks.
But it would give broadband providers flexibility to manage their systems to deal with problems such as network congestion and unwanted traffic like spam as long as they publicly disclose their network management practices.
The proposal would also prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any Web sites or competing applications such as Internet calling services on mobile devices, and would require them to disclose their network management practices.
But it would give wireless carriers more leeway to manage data traffic since wireless systems have more bandwidth constraints than wired networks. That provision is likely to draw fire from public-interest groups, which argue that wireless networks should have the same protections as wired systems, particularly as more and more Americans go online using mobile devices.
In addition, the proposal would allow broadband providers to experiment with routing traffic from specialized services such as smart grids and home security systems over dedicated networks as long as these services do not hurt the public Internet.
In one key victory for the phone and cable companies, Genachowski's proposal would leave in place the FCC's current regulatory framework for broadband, which treats broadband as a lightly regulated "information service."
The agency has been trying to come up with a new framework since a federal appeals court in April ruled that the FCC had overstepped its existing authority in sanctioning cable giant Comcast for discriminating against Internet file-sharing traffic on its network – violating the very net neutrality principles that Genachowski now hopes to adopt as formal rules.
In order to ensure that the commission would be on solid legal ground in adopting net neutrality rules and other broadband regulations following that decision, Genachowski had proposed redefining broadband as a telecommunications service subject to "common carrier" obligations to treat all traffic equally. But that effort quickly triggered a fierce backlash from the phone and cable companies, as well as many Republicans on Capitol Hill – prompting Genachowski to abandon it in his current plan.
Genachowski's new plan is based in large part on a proposal that Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the outgoing chairman of the House Commerce Committee, tried unsuccessfully to push in Congress several months ago. Waxman, too, ran into opposition from Republicans who warn that net neutrality rules amount to burdensome regulation that would discourage broadband providers from investing in their networks.
With Republicans set to take over the House next year, Genachowski is running out of time to get his net neutrality proposal through the FCC without being blocked by lawmakers.
Supporters argue that net neutrality rules are critical to preserving an open Internet and ensuring that phone and cable companies cannot slow or block online phone calls, Web video and other Internet services that compete with their core businesses.
Indeed, the online file-sharing service blocked by Comcast was used in large part to trade movies and other video over the Internet. Net neutrality proponents also want rules to ensure that broadband companies cannot favor their own online traffic or the traffic of business partners that can pay for priority access.
But the phone and cable companies insist they need flexibility to manage network traffic so that high-bandwidth applications – such as online video – don't hog capacity and slow down their systems. They say this is particularly true for wireless networks. The communications companies also argue that after spending billions to upgrade their lines for broadband, they need to be able earn a healthy return by offering premium services.