With the benefit of hindsight, it's clear that Russell Shaw should stick to covering telecom issues and not handicapping elections. But even more to the point, it's worth correcting his opinion that Tuesday's results wouldn't change the net neutrality debate. The guess here is that things will change dramatically, and instead of pushing for some small net neutrality provisions, perhaps we can all -- finally -- move to a more meaningful debate about how to really build new, powerful, neutral, competitive broadband offerings, leaving no option (yes, including government-funded ones) unexplored.]]>
At the time of this writing (11:43 pm California), two Senate races are still undecided (Montana and Virginia), but both are leaning toward the Democratic challengers. Both GOP incumbents, Allen (Va.) and Burns, are on the Senate Commerce Committee and have been telco allies in the fight to keep net neutrality language out of any overall telecom reform. So how can the debate not change in favor of net neutrality ideas with Allen and Burns potentially out the door?
(UPDATE, 11/8: AP reports that both Allen and Burns have lost, giving control of the Senate to the Democrats)
Since Senate Commerce chair Ted Stevens couldn't even muster the votes (or the political juice) to force an anti-NN vote when Republicans had all the power, even action in the lame-duck timeframe probably wouldn't stand for long. (And if he couldn't get a vote then, how hard will it be to muster one in the next month, with even more pressing issues at hand?)
Instead -- with Democratic control or near control of both houses -- what we could see is a total reworking of the telecom reform legislation, either in the form of some new omnibus bill (which includes net neutrality language) or smalller-subject efforts (like video franchising reform) during the next year.
Or? We may see not much at all from the new Congress as the Demos get used to holding the reins again, and reshaping the war in Iraq becomes a daily question for this country.
But -- what I truly disagree with is the opinion of Phil Wolff, who saw the tree but missed the forest when he said:
Since nobody will win on a "net neutrality" platform, no political capital will be earned for NN. So NN won't be a priority in the 2008 election. It's not like anyone tied NN to big issues like jobs, the war in Iraq, political corruption, or public morals.
And nobody raised a million dollars to advocate for net neutrality.
Um, yes, nobody tied net neutrality to big issues, simply because it isn't part of one. Yet. But about the million bucks -- it wasn't just one million, but multiple millions spent by the telcos in attempts to keep net neutrality out of any telecom reform. Unfortunately for their pocketbooks, many of the kinds of folks they supported are now looking for employment.
And while network neutrality as a standalone issue may not be a big deal in ANY election, it will most assuredly be a part of debate and discussion about the economy, jobs creation, broadband penetration, and the ability for the U.S. to remain competitive in a digital world, going forward. And in a newly Democratic House, where Ed Markey will be on the side of power, surely the debate will change from the previous House committee leaders, who prided themselves on not knowing what net neutrality was.
(If they want a lesson, they can read Ed's take on the issue from Fall VON.)
What is heartening is that we may see the debate (or the steps forward) take place in the market before we have to wait for Washington to catch up. Perhaps already sniffing the winds of change, we have recently seen the telcos warm up to the idea of municipal-run networks, best done in private-public partnerships. And then on Tuesday, we heard of a potential deal between Verizon and YouTube, which probably means we won't hear Verizon execs spouting off about Google's free lunch anymore.
What's next? Ed Whitacre telling us how clear the Vonage connection is at his ranch? Well, maybe not.
But wouldn't we all rather see broadband's future worked out by some coalition of technologists, telecom experts and civic leaders instead of politicians who only have time to listen to lobbyists? What Tuesday's results mean is a time for change -- and that includes the current tired take on telecom reform.
To quote Mr. Markey, who at VON pledged to keep fighting for net neutrality and to assure every American access to affordable choices:
"We cannot afford not to have a plan."
Time to start writing one, no?
]]>
