WASHINGTON — The Senate gave final approval on Wednesday to a new arms control treaty with Russia, scaling back leftover cold war nuclear arsenals and capping a surprisingly successful lame-duck session for President Obama just weeks after his party’s electoral debacle.
The 71-to-26 vote sends the treaty, known as New Start, to the president for his signature, and cements what is probably the most tangible foreign policy achievement of Mr. Obama’s two years in office. Thirteen Republicans joined a unanimous Democratic caucus to vote in favor, exceeding the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution.
The ratification vote was the third bipartisan victory for the president in the waning days of the session, while Democrats still control both houses of Congress. The treaty had assumed such symbolic importance for Mr. Obama’s presidency that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. took the rare step of presiding personally over the vote, in his role as president of the Senate. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, a former Senator, was on the floor as well.
“This historic Senate vote makes our country safer and moves the world away from the danger of nuclear disaster,” Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who led the floor fight, said after the vote. “The winners are not defined by party or ideology. The winners are the American people, who are safer with fewer Russian missiles aimed at them.”
Senator Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican who led the opposition, lamented the refusal to amend the treaty. “The precedent here that we’re establishing is that the Senate really is a rubber stamp,” he said. “Whatever a president negotiates with the Russians or somebody else we dare not change because otherwise it will have to be renegotiated to some great detriment to humanity.”
Still, the Senate did agree to several proposals by Mr. Kyl and other Republicans to rewrite the resolution of ratification accompanying the treaty to reaffirm American plans to build missile defense in Europe despite Russian objections and to modernize the nation’s nuclear weapons complex to make sure a smaller arsenal is still effective.
Arms control advocates welcomed the Senate vote. Richard Burt, head of an anti-nuclear advocacy group called Global Zero, said the vote “was imperative for national security” and “will strengthen U.S.-Russian relations.” Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, called the vote “remarkable in this time of hyper-partisanship” and called on the Obama administration to move to bring down nuclear stockpiles further.
But Michael A. Needham, chief executive of the conservative Heritage Action advocacy group, said the administration should withdraw from the treaty if Russia attempted to block missile defense, aid Iran or refuse to consider reductions in tactical nuclear weapons. “All eyes are now on the Obama administration,” Mr. Needham said.
The treaty obliges each country to have no more than 1,550 strategic warheads and 700 launchers deployed within seven years, and it provides for a resumption of on-site inspections, which halted when the original Start treaty expired last year. It is the first arms treaty with Russia in eight years, and the first that a Democratic president has both signed and pushed through the Senate.
While it will make smaller reductions in deployed weapons than its predecessors did, the treaty took on outsized importance in recent weeks as both American political parties invested it with greater meaning and turned the ratification debate into a proxy fight over national security in the 21st century. No other Russian-American arms treaty that was ultimately ratified ever generated as much opposition on the final vote.
Republican opponents said the treaty reflected a dangerous and naïve approach by Mr. Obama to the world, “a foreign policy that sends a message of timidity” in search of “a fantasy world that’s nuclear free,” as Senator John Cornyn of Texas put it. Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said the treaty represents “a continued pattern of appeasement.”
But supporters said the treaty, even if flawed, was an important step in reducing nuclear arms, resuming mutual inspections and keeping Russia within a legal agreement. “There’s no question in my mind that this is in our country’s national security interest,” Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said in an interview. “This is not one of those votes where you wonder. This is not even a close call.”
The treaty had the support of the nation’s uniformed military leaders and of a host of Republican national security veterans, including former President George H. W. Bush and five former secretaries of state, Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice. But many of the party’s potential 2012 presidential candidates, like Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and John Thune, came out against it, as did the two top Republican leaders in the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Mr. Kyl, the lead Republican negotiator.
Just a month ago, prospects for the treaty appeared to be bleak, when Mr. Kyl declared that there was not enough time to approve the treaty before the end of the year. Mr. Obama decided to wage a high-profile campaign for the treaty over Mr. Kyl’s objection, risking a large share of his prestige and testing his clout in the new political environment.
To bypass the hostile leaders and win over other Republican Senators, Mr. Obama made a commitment to spend $85 billion over 10 years to modernize the nation’s nuclear weapons complex, so that the smaller arsenal would still be well-maintained and effective. He also gave repeated assurances that he would follow through on development of missile defense in Europe, despite Russian resistance.
The final vote on the treaty came after the Senate disposed of a raft of Republican-proposed amendments Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. Most of them were rejected entirely, but Senator Kerry accepted a few of them as side statements, which do not formally become part of the treaty and therefore do not require renegotiation with Russia.
Among those accepted on Wednesday was one by Mr. Kyl on modernization and one by Mr. Corker on missile defense. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who had been trying to work out his own side statement on missile defense, joined in backing Mr. Corker’s amendment instead.
Mr. Kerry also accepted on Tuesday night a declaration that the United States should open new talks with Russia within a year to negotiate a new treaty curbing tactical nuclear weapons, the smaller battlefield bombs that are not covered by New Start or any previous Russian-American treaty.
Russia has far more such weapons than the United States, and according to American officials, as recently as last spring Russia moved some of them closer to its borders with NATO nations, as a n response to American missile-defense deployments. Some experts consider these smaller bombs a greater risk of theft or black-market diversion to rogue states or terrorist groups.
The New Start treaty lowers the ceiling on strategic weapons set by previous Russian-American treaties, which it will now supplant. Under the Treaty of Moscow, signed by President George W. Bush in 2002, each side was allowed no more than 2,200 strategic warheads as of 2012. Under the original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or Start, signed by the first President Bush in 1991, each side was required to reduce launchers to 1,600 before the treaty expired last year.
The United States currently has 1,950 deployed strategic warheads and 798 deployed launchers, according to the Federation of American Scientists, while Russia has an estimated 2,540 deployed strategic warheads and 574 launchers. The technicalities of counting rules mean that not as many weapons may have to be shelved as those figures imply. The limits do not apply to the thousands of weapons kept in storage.
The treaty must still be approved by the Russian Parliament, an endorsement that the Kremlin had withheld while waiting for the Senate to act. Given the authoritarian nature of Moscow’s political system, that approval is seen as certain.
In addition to Mr. Corker, the Republicans voting for the treaty on Wednesday were Senators Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Robert F. Bennett of Utah, Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and George V. Voinovich of Ohio.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Why bother NOBODY is going to vote for a Old Fat Racist from the South who speaks funny!
Barbour Mulling a ‘Race Speech’
He better stick to the prepared remarks:
Politico says Haley Barbour—who apologized Tuesday for praising a white-supremacist group in an interview with The Weekly Standard—could give a “race speech” next year.
It points to May as the likely date, not longer after his self-imposed deadline for a presidential run and to coincide with Mississippi’s 50th Anniversary of the Freedom Rides.
President Obama famously gave a “race speech” during the 2008 campaign to address his association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright
He better stick to the prepared remarks:
Politico says Haley Barbour—who apologized Tuesday for praising a white-supremacist group in an interview with The Weekly Standard—could give a “race speech” next year.
It points to May as the likely date, not longer after his self-imposed deadline for a presidential run and to coincide with Mississippi’s 50th Anniversary of the Freedom Rides.
President Obama famously gave a “race speech” during the 2008 campaign to address his association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Senators Ask EPA to Set Chromium 6 Standard
LOS ANGELES (AP) — U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein have called on the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the public from hexavalent chromium following a report that found the carcinogen in the tap water of 31 cities across the country.
In a letter obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, Boxer, who chairs the Senate environment and public works committee, said she plans to introduce legislation with California colleague Feinstein that would set a deadline for the EPA to establish an enforceable standard for the chemical also known as chromium 6. The committee will also hold a hearing on the issue in February.
The letter was sent after the release of a study by the Environmental Working Group that analyzed drinking water in 35 cities across the country. The five cities with the highest levels of chromium 6 were Norman, Okla.; Honolulu, Hawaii; Riverside, Calif.; Madison, Wis.; and San Jose, Calif.
The chemical is commonly discharged from steel and pulp mills, metal-plating plants and leather-tanning facilities, the group said in the report.
"There are no enforceable federal standards to protect the public from hexavalent chromium in tap water," read the letter to EPA chief Lisa Jackson.
The EPA currently tests for total chromium levels but the letter said the tests do not show precise amounts of chromium 6. In addition, the agency's chromium standard is outdated because it was set nearly two decades ago, the letter said.
EPA spokesman Jalil Isa could not immediately comment on the letter. However, the agency did issue a response to the study.
"Ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans is a top priority for EPA," the statement said. "The agency regularly reevaluates drinking water standards and, based on new science on chromium 6, had already begun a rigorous and comprehensive review of its health effects."
In September, the agency released a draft of a scientific review. When the assessment is finalized in 2011, the agency will determine whether new standards need to be set.
Studies show that chromium 6 can cause cancer in people and has also been found to cause damage to the gastrointestinal tract, lymph nodes and liver of animals.
The federal government's current total chromium standard is 100 parts per billion. California has set a goal for safe limits for chromium 6 at 0.06 parts per billion.
The public became aware of the dangers of chromium 6 as a result of the hit movie "Erin Brockovich" in 2000, which followed a case in which Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. was accused of leaking the contaminant into the groundwater of Hinckley, a small desert town.
The utility subsequently agreed to a $333 million settlement with more than 600 residents who blamed the contamination for a variety of health problems including cancer.
In a letter obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, Boxer, who chairs the Senate environment and public works committee, said she plans to introduce legislation with California colleague Feinstein that would set a deadline for the EPA to establish an enforceable standard for the chemical also known as chromium 6. The committee will also hold a hearing on the issue in February.
The letter was sent after the release of a study by the Environmental Working Group that analyzed drinking water in 35 cities across the country. The five cities with the highest levels of chromium 6 were Norman, Okla.; Honolulu, Hawaii; Riverside, Calif.; Madison, Wis.; and San Jose, Calif.
The chemical is commonly discharged from steel and pulp mills, metal-plating plants and leather-tanning facilities, the group said in the report.
"There are no enforceable federal standards to protect the public from hexavalent chromium in tap water," read the letter to EPA chief Lisa Jackson.
The EPA currently tests for total chromium levels but the letter said the tests do not show precise amounts of chromium 6. In addition, the agency's chromium standard is outdated because it was set nearly two decades ago, the letter said.
EPA spokesman Jalil Isa could not immediately comment on the letter. However, the agency did issue a response to the study.
"Ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans is a top priority for EPA," the statement said. "The agency regularly reevaluates drinking water standards and, based on new science on chromium 6, had already begun a rigorous and comprehensive review of its health effects."
In September, the agency released a draft of a scientific review. When the assessment is finalized in 2011, the agency will determine whether new standards need to be set.
Studies show that chromium 6 can cause cancer in people and has also been found to cause damage to the gastrointestinal tract, lymph nodes and liver of animals.
The federal government's current total chromium standard is 100 parts per billion. California has set a goal for safe limits for chromium 6 at 0.06 parts per billion.
The public became aware of the dangers of chromium 6 as a result of the hit movie "Erin Brockovich" in 2000, which followed a case in which Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. was accused of leaking the contaminant into the groundwater of Hinckley, a small desert town.
The utility subsequently agreed to a $333 million settlement with more than 600 residents who blamed the contamination for a variety of health problems including cancer.
Hyundai, VW Top Insurance Industry Safe Car List
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Recognizes 66 Vehicles with Its "Top Safety Pick Award" for 2011 Model Year
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recognized 66 vehicles on Wednesday with its "top safety pick award" for the 2011 model year, the most-ever awarded by the Virginia-based group. The number was more than double the 27 vehicles selected last year.
Hyundai Motor Corp. and its affiliate Kia Motors Corp., and Volkswagen AG and its Audi brand received the most awards with nine, followed by eight awards apiece by General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. The awards, used in advertising to attract car buyers, bolster Hyundai and Volkswagen as they attempt to build a larger foothold in the United States.
Hyundai's Genesis sedan, Sonata midsize and Santa Fe and Tucson sport utility vehicles picked up awards, while Kia was recognized for the Optima midsize car, the Forte and Soul small cars, and the Sorento and Sportage SUVs. Volkswagen won plaudits for the Jetta and Jetta SportWagen, the Golf and GTI small cars and the Touareg and Tiguan SUVs. Audi's A3 and A4 sedans and Q5 SUV also made the list.
Subaru and Chrysler received five awards apiece while Volvo and Mercedes had four. Subaru was the only automaker to win awards in every vehicle category in which it competes. Nissan and Honda had two awards each and Mitsubishi and BMW had one.
Hyundai said the award was particularly sweet for the Sonata, which also received the top score of five stars in the government's crash test program. The combination put Sonata "in a safety position unsurpassed in the industry," said John Krafcik, president and CEO of Hyundai Motor America.
Mark Barnes, Volkswagen of America's chief operating officer, said the recognition for VW was a "testament to our commitment to engineering safe vehicles."
GM's winners include the Chevrolet Malibu, Cruze and Equinox; Cadillac CTS and SRX; Buick LaCrosse and Regal and GMC Terrain. Chris Perry, vice president of Chevrolet marketing, said the award would build on "the already strong global safety reputation of the Cruze."
Ford's picks include the Ford Taurus, Fusion, Fiesta, Explorer and Flex; and the Lincoln MKS, MKZ and MKT. Ford vice president Sue Cischke said the Explorer, which arrived at dealer showrooms earlier this month, offered a good example of the company's safety improvements, including inflatable seat belts and technology that helps a driver maintain control of the vehicle along tough curves.
Toyota, which has grappled with several high-profile recalls during the past year, scored with the Toyota Avalon, Corolla, Sienna, Highlander and Venza; the Lexus RX; and the Scion tC and xB. Toyota said its eight safety picks were "reflective of our ongoing commitment to developing safe and reliable vehicles for our customers."
The vehicles were chosen for protection in front, side and rear crash tests. To qualify for the award, the insurance industry group also requires the vehicles to have anti-rollover electronic stability control, or ESC, and receive top scores in roof strength tests.
Institute president Adrian Lund credited automakers for "quickly rising to meet the more-challenging criteria for `Top Safety Pick."' He said several automakers have requested tests for new models coming out early next year and Lund predicted more winners would be added.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recognized 66 vehicles on Wednesday with its "top safety pick award" for the 2011 model year, the most-ever awarded by the Virginia-based group. The number was more than double the 27 vehicles selected last year.
Hyundai Motor Corp. and its affiliate Kia Motors Corp., and Volkswagen AG and its Audi brand received the most awards with nine, followed by eight awards apiece by General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. The awards, used in advertising to attract car buyers, bolster Hyundai and Volkswagen as they attempt to build a larger foothold in the United States.
Hyundai's Genesis sedan, Sonata midsize and Santa Fe and Tucson sport utility vehicles picked up awards, while Kia was recognized for the Optima midsize car, the Forte and Soul small cars, and the Sorento and Sportage SUVs. Volkswagen won plaudits for the Jetta and Jetta SportWagen, the Golf and GTI small cars and the Touareg and Tiguan SUVs. Audi's A3 and A4 sedans and Q5 SUV also made the list.
Subaru and Chrysler received five awards apiece while Volvo and Mercedes had four. Subaru was the only automaker to win awards in every vehicle category in which it competes. Nissan and Honda had two awards each and Mitsubishi and BMW had one.
Hyundai said the award was particularly sweet for the Sonata, which also received the top score of five stars in the government's crash test program. The combination put Sonata "in a safety position unsurpassed in the industry," said John Krafcik, president and CEO of Hyundai Motor America.
Mark Barnes, Volkswagen of America's chief operating officer, said the recognition for VW was a "testament to our commitment to engineering safe vehicles."
GM's winners include the Chevrolet Malibu, Cruze and Equinox; Cadillac CTS and SRX; Buick LaCrosse and Regal and GMC Terrain. Chris Perry, vice president of Chevrolet marketing, said the award would build on "the already strong global safety reputation of the Cruze."
Ford's picks include the Ford Taurus, Fusion, Fiesta, Explorer and Flex; and the Lincoln MKS, MKZ and MKT. Ford vice president Sue Cischke said the Explorer, which arrived at dealer showrooms earlier this month, offered a good example of the company's safety improvements, including inflatable seat belts and technology that helps a driver maintain control of the vehicle along tough curves.
Toyota, which has grappled with several high-profile recalls during the past year, scored with the Toyota Avalon, Corolla, Sienna, Highlander and Venza; the Lexus RX; and the Scion tC and xB. Toyota said its eight safety picks were "reflective of our ongoing commitment to developing safe and reliable vehicles for our customers."
The vehicles were chosen for protection in front, side and rear crash tests. To qualify for the award, the insurance industry group also requires the vehicles to have anti-rollover electronic stability control, or ESC, and receive top scores in roof strength tests.
Institute president Adrian Lund credited automakers for "quickly rising to meet the more-challenging criteria for `Top Safety Pick."' He said several automakers have requested tests for new models coming out early next year and Lund predicted more winners would be added.
FCC's Split Vote on Network-Neutrality Rules Only Inflames Debate
The rancor in Washington over network neutrality is about to enter a new phase: all-out political and judicial warfare. Federal Communications Commission approval today of ambitious new regulations for Internet service has triggered a heated debate over the government’s role in regulating cyberspace—providing ample fodder for an empowered Republican Party as it prepares to take control of the House next month.
The rules were adopted on a 3-2 partisan vote, with the agency's three Democrats backing passage and the two Republican commissioners strongly opposed. The regulations are designed to ensure that the Internet is not dominated by major telecommunications and cable companies. They prohibit anti-competitive blocking and degrading of competing online services and are enforceable by the agency.
Dismissing the regulations as an unnecessary government intrusion in the marketplace, Republicans in both chambers vowed to try to block them, while industry and watchdog critics sharpened their legal daggers as they made plans to challenge the rules in court.
President Obama touted net neutrality during his presidential bid and is a friend of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. He said the decision “will help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet while encouraging innovation, protecting consumer choice, and defending free speech.” Genachowski proclaimed that the vote signals “a very good day” for innovators, consumers, and the Internet’s future. “It is essential that the FCC fulfill its historic role as a cop on the beat to ensure the vitality of our communications networks and to empower and protect consumers of those networks.”
But in an effort to halt the regulations, Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, announced that she will introduce a “resolution of disapproval” under the Congressional Review Act, which gives Congress a limited amount of time after a federal agency issues a rule to review it and pass a resolution to block it. “We have an Internet that is working. It does not need the heavy hand of government,” she said during a floor speech. Asserting that Congress must take a stand, she added: “We have not delegated this authority to the FCC.”
"Today is a sad day for innovation in this country," echoed Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, the ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce Communications Subcommittee. "As the rest of the world forges ahead, the United States will face a technological 'Lost Decade.'” Mocking the agency’s action, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the FCC really stands for “Fabricating a Crisis Commission.”
Also critical was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who called net neutrality “a first step in controlling how Americans use the Internet by establishing federal regulations on its use.” He added: “This would harm investment, stifle innovation, and lead to job losses.”
On the House side, presumptive Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said that bureaucrats should not be regulating the Internet. “The new House majority will work to reverse this unnecessary and harmful federal government power grab next year,” he vowed.
Prominent GOP members pledged to pursue a similar resolution to Hutchison’s and use other avenues to block the rules. In a conference call, incoming Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., said his panel’s first hearing next year will be on this topic, with more sessions to follow. Upton spoke along with incoming Energy and Commerce Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore. “We are going to be exploring every option to try to reverse this order,” Upton said. The lawmakers noted that there is bipartisan opposition to the FCC’s rules.
National Journal reported earlier today that Verizon, the nation’s second-largest telecommunications carrier, may sue the FCC in an effort to overturn the rules. In a statement, the company said it was “deeply concerned” by the new framework, which it said would “yield continued uncertainty for industry, innovators, and investors.”
“Lawsuits could come from both sides: companies that feel the FCC has gone too far and entities that don’t think the FCC went far enough,” Jeff Silva, a telecom analyst with Medley Global Advisors, said in an interview. During a press conference, Genachowski said he’s confident that legal challenges would fail. “We have a legal basis for the rules we adopted today that is very strong, that gives us the authority we need, and I’m confident we’ll win in court,” he said.
The commission’s action received some qualified praise from powerful Democrats, including Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. “While many champions of the open Internet would have preferred a stricter decision—and I myself have real reservations about treating wireless broadband differently from wired broadband—I think today's decision is a meaningful step forward,” he wrote. Critics have complained that the rules are weak for wireless carriers even though Americans are fast gravitating to mobile broadband service.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said the FCC’s action represents a floor, not a ceiling. “If the rule’s protections prove insufficient and consumers and innovation suffer, they will need to be strengthened, and I will vigorously support that effort,” he said in a statement.
But there also was criticism from the left. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., dismissed the safeguards as “inadequate” to protect consumers or preserve the free and open Internet. He’s particularly disappointed that the rules permit Internet toll lanes for companies willing to pay for faster transmissions—under limited circumstances—and decried what he sees as insufficient protections for mobile service.
Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.., former chairman of a powerful House subcommittee that shapes telecom policy, had a mixed reaction, saying the new rules don’t contain everything he wanted. “Still, it does represent a step forward in the process of preserving the Internet as a vibrant marketplace.”
Several prominent watchdogs, including Free Press and Public Knowledge, complained that the agency missed its opportunity to fully preserve the Internet’s much-heralded openness. In an interview, Andrew Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director for the Media Access Project, said the public-interest law firm is “very displeased” with the rules and might sue the FCC “over its failure to adequately cover wireless services” under the restrictions. He thinks there’s a “good chance” the entire plan will be overturned in court because the FCC “has used the wrong legal authority on which to base this.”
Addressing the concerns about mobile carriers, Genachowski emphasized to reporters that wireline and wireless services are different, with the latter facing unique congestion challenges that require more flexibility in managing traffic on networks.
Industry reaction, meanwhile, was mixed, with some key supporters of an earlier version of Genachowski’s plan—including AT&T and CTIA, the main wireless industry association—reserving final judgment until they’ve seen the fine print about the newly adopted rules.
“Though a final view must await a careful reading of the FCC’s order, we believe the Chairman’s compromise can provide . . . certainty while taking steps to preserve flexibility for investment and innovation,” AT&T Senior Executive Vice President Jim Cicconi said in a blog post. The U.S. Telecommunications Association said it opposes the expansion of regulatory powers while Comcast and Sprint offered tepid support.
The satellite television provider DISH Network and the Computer and Communications Industry Association said they wish the FCC had gone further, while the Information Technology Industry Council, whose members include Apple, Hewlett-Packard, IBM and Intel, said the regulations would spur investment and innovation.
The FCC's two Democratic commissioners, Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn, made clear that they’re unhappy with several provisions, including the less stringent rules for wireless carriers.
“To be clear, we do not anchor ourselves on what I believe to be the best legal framework,” Copps told the packed audience in the FCC meeting room. “Nor have we crafted rules as strong as I would have liked. But with today’s action, we do nonetheless appear to steer ourselves back toward a better course.” In his vote, Copps concurred, which is the weakest form of approval. Clyburn approved in part and concurred in part, while Genachowski cast a yes vote.
The FCC met amid heavy police security both inside and outside the agency, as the debate over the future of the Internet drew national attention on the Drudge Report and elsewhere in the media during the run-up to the vote.
The agency’s two Republicans were blunt in their negative assessments of the effects of the new regulations, warning that the rules amount to government overreach, could dissuade investment and could encourage other countries to tighten their control over the Web. “Not only is today the winter solstice, the darkest day of the year, but it marks one of the darkest days in recent FCC history,” Commissioner Robert McDowell, the agency’s senior GOP member, said in a lengthy denunciation. “The FCC is capable of better—today is not its finest hour.”
Echoing the sentiment, Meredith Attwell Baker said she fears that the government will now play “too big a role” in shaping tomorrow’s Internet. “The FCC literally has no power to act until and unless Congress gives it power.”
The rules were adopted on a 3-2 partisan vote, with the agency's three Democrats backing passage and the two Republican commissioners strongly opposed. The regulations are designed to ensure that the Internet is not dominated by major telecommunications and cable companies. They prohibit anti-competitive blocking and degrading of competing online services and are enforceable by the agency.
Dismissing the regulations as an unnecessary government intrusion in the marketplace, Republicans in both chambers vowed to try to block them, while industry and watchdog critics sharpened their legal daggers as they made plans to challenge the rules in court.
President Obama touted net neutrality during his presidential bid and is a friend of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. He said the decision “will help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet while encouraging innovation, protecting consumer choice, and defending free speech.” Genachowski proclaimed that the vote signals “a very good day” for innovators, consumers, and the Internet’s future. “It is essential that the FCC fulfill its historic role as a cop on the beat to ensure the vitality of our communications networks and to empower and protect consumers of those networks.”
But in an effort to halt the regulations, Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, announced that she will introduce a “resolution of disapproval” under the Congressional Review Act, which gives Congress a limited amount of time after a federal agency issues a rule to review it and pass a resolution to block it. “We have an Internet that is working. It does not need the heavy hand of government,” she said during a floor speech. Asserting that Congress must take a stand, she added: “We have not delegated this authority to the FCC.”
"Today is a sad day for innovation in this country," echoed Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, the ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce Communications Subcommittee. "As the rest of the world forges ahead, the United States will face a technological 'Lost Decade.'” Mocking the agency’s action, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the FCC really stands for “Fabricating a Crisis Commission.”
Also critical was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who called net neutrality “a first step in controlling how Americans use the Internet by establishing federal regulations on its use.” He added: “This would harm investment, stifle innovation, and lead to job losses.”
On the House side, presumptive Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said that bureaucrats should not be regulating the Internet. “The new House majority will work to reverse this unnecessary and harmful federal government power grab next year,” he vowed.
Prominent GOP members pledged to pursue a similar resolution to Hutchison’s and use other avenues to block the rules. In a conference call, incoming Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., said his panel’s first hearing next year will be on this topic, with more sessions to follow. Upton spoke along with incoming Energy and Commerce Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore. “We are going to be exploring every option to try to reverse this order,” Upton said. The lawmakers noted that there is bipartisan opposition to the FCC’s rules.
National Journal reported earlier today that Verizon, the nation’s second-largest telecommunications carrier, may sue the FCC in an effort to overturn the rules. In a statement, the company said it was “deeply concerned” by the new framework, which it said would “yield continued uncertainty for industry, innovators, and investors.”
“Lawsuits could come from both sides: companies that feel the FCC has gone too far and entities that don’t think the FCC went far enough,” Jeff Silva, a telecom analyst with Medley Global Advisors, said in an interview. During a press conference, Genachowski said he’s confident that legal challenges would fail. “We have a legal basis for the rules we adopted today that is very strong, that gives us the authority we need, and I’m confident we’ll win in court,” he said.
The commission’s action received some qualified praise from powerful Democrats, including Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. “While many champions of the open Internet would have preferred a stricter decision—and I myself have real reservations about treating wireless broadband differently from wired broadband—I think today's decision is a meaningful step forward,” he wrote. Critics have complained that the rules are weak for wireless carriers even though Americans are fast gravitating to mobile broadband service.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said the FCC’s action represents a floor, not a ceiling. “If the rule’s protections prove insufficient and consumers and innovation suffer, they will need to be strengthened, and I will vigorously support that effort,” he said in a statement.
But there also was criticism from the left. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., dismissed the safeguards as “inadequate” to protect consumers or preserve the free and open Internet. He’s particularly disappointed that the rules permit Internet toll lanes for companies willing to pay for faster transmissions—under limited circumstances—and decried what he sees as insufficient protections for mobile service.
Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.., former chairman of a powerful House subcommittee that shapes telecom policy, had a mixed reaction, saying the new rules don’t contain everything he wanted. “Still, it does represent a step forward in the process of preserving the Internet as a vibrant marketplace.”
Several prominent watchdogs, including Free Press and Public Knowledge, complained that the agency missed its opportunity to fully preserve the Internet’s much-heralded openness. In an interview, Andrew Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director for the Media Access Project, said the public-interest law firm is “very displeased” with the rules and might sue the FCC “over its failure to adequately cover wireless services” under the restrictions. He thinks there’s a “good chance” the entire plan will be overturned in court because the FCC “has used the wrong legal authority on which to base this.”
Addressing the concerns about mobile carriers, Genachowski emphasized to reporters that wireline and wireless services are different, with the latter facing unique congestion challenges that require more flexibility in managing traffic on networks.
Industry reaction, meanwhile, was mixed, with some key supporters of an earlier version of Genachowski’s plan—including AT&T and CTIA, the main wireless industry association—reserving final judgment until they’ve seen the fine print about the newly adopted rules.
“Though a final view must await a careful reading of the FCC’s order, we believe the Chairman’s compromise can provide . . . certainty while taking steps to preserve flexibility for investment and innovation,” AT&T Senior Executive Vice President Jim Cicconi said in a blog post. The U.S. Telecommunications Association said it opposes the expansion of regulatory powers while Comcast and Sprint offered tepid support.
The satellite television provider DISH Network and the Computer and Communications Industry Association said they wish the FCC had gone further, while the Information Technology Industry Council, whose members include Apple, Hewlett-Packard, IBM and Intel, said the regulations would spur investment and innovation.
The FCC's two Democratic commissioners, Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn, made clear that they’re unhappy with several provisions, including the less stringent rules for wireless carriers.
“To be clear, we do not anchor ourselves on what I believe to be the best legal framework,” Copps told the packed audience in the FCC meeting room. “Nor have we crafted rules as strong as I would have liked. But with today’s action, we do nonetheless appear to steer ourselves back toward a better course.” In his vote, Copps concurred, which is the weakest form of approval. Clyburn approved in part and concurred in part, while Genachowski cast a yes vote.
The FCC met amid heavy police security both inside and outside the agency, as the debate over the future of the Internet drew national attention on the Drudge Report and elsewhere in the media during the run-up to the vote.
The agency’s two Republicans were blunt in their negative assessments of the effects of the new regulations, warning that the rules amount to government overreach, could dissuade investment and could encourage other countries to tighten their control over the Web. “Not only is today the winter solstice, the darkest day of the year, but it marks one of the darkest days in recent FCC history,” Commissioner Robert McDowell, the agency’s senior GOP member, said in a lengthy denunciation. “The FCC is capable of better—today is not its finest hour.”
Echoing the sentiment, Meredith Attwell Baker said she fears that the government will now play “too big a role” in shaping tomorrow’s Internet. “The FCC literally has no power to act until and unless Congress gives it power.”
Obama, Latino lawmakers take pragmatic view on immigration
OA path to legal status for illegal residents might not happen soon, the president agrees in a meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. But he says he's not giving up.
President Obama and Latino lawmakers agreed Tuesday that chances are dimming for passageof an immigration overhaul that would provide a path to legal status for millions of illegal residents, according to people familiar with the private session.
Instead, the president and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus concurred that, until after the 2012 election, a more realistic goal would be to stave off legislation targeting illegal immigrants.
That said, Obama told the group, he was not giving up on an immigration overhaul, which he promised to accomplish during his 2008 presidential campaign. He said he would mention the issue in his State of the Union address next month, a move that Democrats hope might pressure Republicans into accommodating the fast-growing Latino voting bloc.
"The reality is, we're no longer on the House side in charge of the agenda,'' said Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D- Texas), who attended the meeting. "We would never have had a vote on the Dream Act if the Republicans were in charge. So we need to understand that.''
The Dream Act, which died over the weekend when the Senate failed to cut off debate, was an attempt to offer a path to legal status for young undocumented immigrants who met certain criteria. It would have allowed those brought to this country before age 16 to attain legal residency and perhaps eventually citizenship if they had lived here more than five years and attended college or served in the military.
Opponents derided it as a form of amnesty. Experts estimated that about 1.2 million immigrants could have benefited.
Proponents of a new immigration system fear that once Republicans take control of the House next month, they will put together a package of laws that stress tough enforcement.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, helped pass legislation in 1996 that increased penalties against illegal immigrants. The bill, signed by President Clinton, limited the discretion of U.S. immigration judges and increased the time immigrants could be detained while awaiting a hearing.
In the last few weeks, Smith stated that immigration enforcement would be one of his priorities and that he intended to "enact policies that will better secure our borders and discourage illegal immigration, human smuggling and drug trafficking."
Amid concern about such efforts, Obama told the five Latino lawmakers who met with him in the Oval Office that he would veto certain punitive legislation if need be.
Democrats will still control the Senate. But with power realigned in the Capitol, prospects for a comprehensive immigration overhaul are far dimmer than at any point in the last two years, when Democrats controlled both chambers.
For starters, an immigration overhaul would go through Smith's Judiciary Committee. In a statement, Smith said it is "pointless'' to take up immigration bills granting "amnesty'' until the border is better secured.
More delays in passing an immigration bill pose risks for both parties. As a candidate in 2008, Obama said he would deal with the issue in his first year in office. Now he faces the reality that his promise might not be met before 2013.
As for the GOP, some seasoned Republican operatives warn that it is self-defeating for the party to take an uncompromising stance on immigration given the growing numbers of Latino voters.
"As a practical political issue and as a principled position, the majority of the party needs to speak up against a very small minority that are coming at this from a jingoistic or racist perspective," Rob Stutzman, a longtime Republican strategist based in California, said in an interview. "It's time to really condemn and put that behind us.''
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said he believes some Republicans grasp the political risks.
"There are Republican senators who view the exclusion of Hispanic voters to be very short-sighted politically, and they are looking for a way to meet the needs of the Hispanic community without antagonizing their political base,'' Durbin said.
During the waning days of the lame-duck Congress, Republicans and Democrats failed to find an immigration compromise. Democratic senators had offered to negotiate on the Dream Act — for example, by lowering the age limit for those who would qualify.
But a counter-offer never came, according to an Obama administration official familiar with the negotiations.
In the end, only three Republican senators backed a procedural move that would have brought the Dream Act to a vote. Five Democrats voted against it. The final tally was 55 to 41, five votes short.
peter.nicholas@latimes.com
President Obama and Latino lawmakers agreed Tuesday that chances are dimming for passageof an immigration overhaul that would provide a path to legal status for millions of illegal residents, according to people familiar with the private session.
Instead, the president and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus concurred that, until after the 2012 election, a more realistic goal would be to stave off legislation targeting illegal immigrants.
That said, Obama told the group, he was not giving up on an immigration overhaul, which he promised to accomplish during his 2008 presidential campaign. He said he would mention the issue in his State of the Union address next month, a move that Democrats hope might pressure Republicans into accommodating the fast-growing Latino voting bloc.
"The reality is, we're no longer on the House side in charge of the agenda,'' said Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D- Texas), who attended the meeting. "We would never have had a vote on the Dream Act if the Republicans were in charge. So we need to understand that.''
The Dream Act, which died over the weekend when the Senate failed to cut off debate, was an attempt to offer a path to legal status for young undocumented immigrants who met certain criteria. It would have allowed those brought to this country before age 16 to attain legal residency and perhaps eventually citizenship if they had lived here more than five years and attended college or served in the military.
Opponents derided it as a form of amnesty. Experts estimated that about 1.2 million immigrants could have benefited.
Proponents of a new immigration system fear that once Republicans take control of the House next month, they will put together a package of laws that stress tough enforcement.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, helped pass legislation in 1996 that increased penalties against illegal immigrants. The bill, signed by President Clinton, limited the discretion of U.S. immigration judges and increased the time immigrants could be detained while awaiting a hearing.
In the last few weeks, Smith stated that immigration enforcement would be one of his priorities and that he intended to "enact policies that will better secure our borders and discourage illegal immigration, human smuggling and drug trafficking."
Amid concern about such efforts, Obama told the five Latino lawmakers who met with him in the Oval Office that he would veto certain punitive legislation if need be.
Democrats will still control the Senate. But with power realigned in the Capitol, prospects for a comprehensive immigration overhaul are far dimmer than at any point in the last two years, when Democrats controlled both chambers.
For starters, an immigration overhaul would go through Smith's Judiciary Committee. In a statement, Smith said it is "pointless'' to take up immigration bills granting "amnesty'' until the border is better secured.
More delays in passing an immigration bill pose risks for both parties. As a candidate in 2008, Obama said he would deal with the issue in his first year in office. Now he faces the reality that his promise might not be met before 2013.
As for the GOP, some seasoned Republican operatives warn that it is self-defeating for the party to take an uncompromising stance on immigration given the growing numbers of Latino voters.
"As a practical political issue and as a principled position, the majority of the party needs to speak up against a very small minority that are coming at this from a jingoistic or racist perspective," Rob Stutzman, a longtime Republican strategist based in California, said in an interview. "It's time to really condemn and put that behind us.''
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said he believes some Republicans grasp the political risks.
"There are Republican senators who view the exclusion of Hispanic voters to be very short-sighted politically, and they are looking for a way to meet the needs of the Hispanic community without antagonizing their political base,'' Durbin said.
During the waning days of the lame-duck Congress, Republicans and Democrats failed to find an immigration compromise. Democratic senators had offered to negotiate on the Dream Act — for example, by lowering the age limit for those who would qualify.
But a counter-offer never came, according to an Obama administration official familiar with the negotiations.
In the end, only three Republican senators backed a procedural move that would have brought the Dream Act to a vote. Five Democrats voted against it. The final tally was 55 to 41, five votes short.
peter.nicholas@latimes.com
REHAB WORKING? NOT!!
Lindsay Lohan Under Investigation for Battery
Though Lindsay Lohan seemed to be bettering herself in rehab, reports are now surfacing that the actress is under investigation for battery after an allegedly heated exchange with an employee at the Betty Ford Center.
Just two weeks before she is scheduled to finish treatment, the staffer reportedly involved in the altercation says she plans to take Lohan to court, according to TMZ.
Lohan and the woman reportedly got into a “hand-to-hand” fight when the staffer asked the starlet to submit to a drug and alcohol test after she’d been out at a bar, according to a Palm Desert Police Department spokesperson.
Police are investigating the situation as a misdemeanor, but the district attorney has yet to decide if they will press charges, according to Entertainment Weekly.
Judge for the Los Angeles Superior Court previously told Lohan that she could be sent back to jail for another six months if she faces any other charges while on probation. Lohan’s lawyer was unavailable for comment when EW reached out.
TMZ
Though Lindsay Lohan seemed to be bettering herself in rehab, reports are now surfacing that the actress is under investigation for battery after an allegedly heated exchange with an employee at the Betty Ford Center.
Just two weeks before she is scheduled to finish treatment, the staffer reportedly involved in the altercation says she plans to take Lohan to court, according to TMZ.
Lohan and the woman reportedly got into a “hand-to-hand” fight when the staffer asked the starlet to submit to a drug and alcohol test after she’d been out at a bar, according to a Palm Desert Police Department spokesperson.
Police are investigating the situation as a misdemeanor, but the district attorney has yet to decide if they will press charges, according to Entertainment Weekly.
Judge for the Los Angeles Superior Court previously told Lohan that she could be sent back to jail for another six months if she faces any other charges while on probation. Lohan’s lawyer was unavailable for comment when EW reached out.
TMZ
Police: Man kills bride, best man, self at wedding
A bridegroom fatally shot his new wife, his best man and then himself after announcing to horrified guests that he had a "surprise" for them, authorities said Monday.
Witnesses reported that 29-year-old Rogerio Damascena, a sales manager in Camaragibe, outside the northeastern Brazilian city of Recife, did not give any previous indication that anything was wrong at his wedding reception, police investigator Joao Brito said.
Brito would not speculate on a possible motive, saying family members were in shock and he had not interviewed them yet.
Brito did say the killings are believed to be premeditated because of the groom's announcement and because he had hidden a gun in his father's pickup truck.
Twenty-five-year-old bride Renata Alexandre Costa Coelho and best man Marcelo Guimaraes were both killed in Saturday's murder-suicide. A brother of the bride was treated at a hospital and released.
The website Globo.com quoted a sister of the bride who left before the shootings as saying she didn't believe it was a crime of passion.
"My sister was a wonderful person who loved and wanted to be loved," Lucia Helena Coelho was quoted as saying.
"He was happy, she was happy, the party was beautiful. His family adored her and doesn't understand this," Coelho told Globo.com. "He revealed himself as a sociopath who fooled the entire family and killed his best friend, who was ... the best man."
Witnesses reported that 29-year-old Rogerio Damascena, a sales manager in Camaragibe, outside the northeastern Brazilian city of Recife, did not give any previous indication that anything was wrong at his wedding reception, police investigator Joao Brito said.
Brito would not speculate on a possible motive, saying family members were in shock and he had not interviewed them yet.
Brito did say the killings are believed to be premeditated because of the groom's announcement and because he had hidden a gun in his father's pickup truck.
Twenty-five-year-old bride Renata Alexandre Costa Coelho and best man Marcelo Guimaraes were both killed in Saturday's murder-suicide. A brother of the bride was treated at a hospital and released.
The website Globo.com quoted a sister of the bride who left before the shootings as saying she didn't believe it was a crime of passion.
"My sister was a wonderful person who loved and wanted to be loved," Lucia Helena Coelho was quoted as saying.
"He was happy, she was happy, the party was beautiful. His family adored her and doesn't understand this," Coelho told Globo.com. "He revealed himself as a sociopath who fooled the entire family and killed his best friend, who was ... the best man."
The Internet Splits in Two
Today’s FCC ruling on net neutrality shifts billions in profits and boils down to one fact: There will soon be a fast Internet for the rich and a slow Internet for the poor.
The Federal Communications Commission approved a set of net neutrality rules today, and nobody is happy. While liberals claim the FCC has caved to pressure from carriers, right-wingers are calling the new rules a government takeover of the Internet.
In their tea-addled brains, the new rules represent yet another example of creeping socialism taking over every aspect of our lives. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is "Julius Seizure." Cue the black helicopters.
U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski speaks to the media on the importance of net neutrality December 1, 2010 at the headquarters of the FCC in Washington, DC.
No matter what you think about the new rules, however, they signal an important turning point in the development of the Internet. We are going from Phase One, where everything is free and open and untamed, into Phase Two, which is all about centralization, consolidation, control—and money.
Because don’t kid yourself. Money is driving all of this. As in: Hey, we’ve created this marvelous new platform for communicating with each other. We’ve demonstrated that very large sums of money can be generated by sending stuff over these wires. Now let’s figure out who gets what.
Today’s new FCC rules grant two big concessions to carriers. First, the rules will apply to wired broadband connections, but they will pretty much leave wireless alone. Second, carriers remain free to create “fast lanes” on the Internet. They can charge Internet companies to ride on the faster pipes, and perhaps also charge consumers more money to get access to those speedy services.
The first 15 years of the Internet, where it was all about peace and love and freedom, are drawing to a close.
That is a huge deal. It means we are entering an age in which we will have two Internets—the fast one, with great content, that costs more (maybe a lot more) to use, and then the MuggleNet, which is free but slow and crappy. Cable TV vs. rabbit ears.
On wireless—which eventually will be the more important platform—that disparity will be even more evident. The rich will get great stuff. The poor will get, well, what the poor usually get, which is not much.
Oddly enough this bifurcation resonates beyond just the speed of our Internet connection. It also is happening to information itself. We could be heading into a world where the rich get better information, from a wider choice of sources, while the poor get less.
That’s already happening, to some extent. If you’re a trader on Wall Street and can afford a Bloomberg terminal, you get better information sooner than the poor schlumps who are home trying to play at being day traders.
It will happen even more as news organizations, like Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and The New York Times, start putting content behind pay walls.
And so the digital divide widens into an information divide, which of course has huge implications for politics, economics, and even democracy itself.
Consider that in the 2008 election both sides were struggling to reach so-called low information voters. What happens when access to information becomes even more restricted? Where your ability to become informed is based upon your ability to pay?
That’s the world we’re heading into. The first 15 years of the Internet, where it was all about peace and love and freedom, are drawing to a close.
The ultimate irony is that we are creating an information age where some of us—many of us—will get less information instead of more.
In his terrific new book, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, Columbia University professor Tim Wu describes the way every new communication platform starts out with a phase where there is openness and innovation, and where lots of amateurs (today we call many of them “hackers”) try out different things and spout lots of utopian rhetoric about making the world a better place.
Then, about 15 years in, things start to close down and become more centralized. The new platform becomes dominated by a small number of companies in the hands of powerful visionaries with an urge for empire-building. This also happened in telegraph, movies, radio, telephone—and now it’s happening to the Internet.
Steve Jobs is building an empire around selling music, movies, and news to people who own iPhones and iPads. Mark Zuckerberg is building an empire around the gathering and selling of the personal data of a half a billion people.
Now the carriers get their slice of the action. A lot of people hate the carriers, but try, for a moment, to see the world through their eyes. For 15 years they have sat around watching hundreds of billions of dollars of market value get created on the end of their wires (Google, eBay, Apple, Netflix, Amazon, Facebook) while all they get is a puny monthly subscriber fee.
The carriers won’t say this publicly, but I’m sure they resent being denied a share of the wealth being created on the platform that they’ve been so kind as to build and maintain for the rest of us. What they also won’t say publicly, or at least not in this blunt a fashion, is: If you want us to keep building out more bandwidth, then start sharing the loot. Otherwise you can go build your own high-speed network.
Obnoxious? Certainly. But also persuasive. The FCC’s compromise probably represents the best deal anyone could get.
What this means for society remains to be seen. But I’m pretty sure those of us who have been around for Phase One of the Internet are going to look back on these last 15 years as the good old days.
Dan Lyons is technology editor at Newsweek
The Federal Communications Commission approved a set of net neutrality rules today, and nobody is happy. While liberals claim the FCC has caved to pressure from carriers, right-wingers are calling the new rules a government takeover of the Internet.
In their tea-addled brains, the new rules represent yet another example of creeping socialism taking over every aspect of our lives. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is "Julius Seizure." Cue the black helicopters.
U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski speaks to the media on the importance of net neutrality December 1, 2010 at the headquarters of the FCC in Washington, DC.
No matter what you think about the new rules, however, they signal an important turning point in the development of the Internet. We are going from Phase One, where everything is free and open and untamed, into Phase Two, which is all about centralization, consolidation, control—and money.
Because don’t kid yourself. Money is driving all of this. As in: Hey, we’ve created this marvelous new platform for communicating with each other. We’ve demonstrated that very large sums of money can be generated by sending stuff over these wires. Now let’s figure out who gets what.
Today’s new FCC rules grant two big concessions to carriers. First, the rules will apply to wired broadband connections, but they will pretty much leave wireless alone. Second, carriers remain free to create “fast lanes” on the Internet. They can charge Internet companies to ride on the faster pipes, and perhaps also charge consumers more money to get access to those speedy services.
The first 15 years of the Internet, where it was all about peace and love and freedom, are drawing to a close.
That is a huge deal. It means we are entering an age in which we will have two Internets—the fast one, with great content, that costs more (maybe a lot more) to use, and then the MuggleNet, which is free but slow and crappy. Cable TV vs. rabbit ears.
On wireless—which eventually will be the more important platform—that disparity will be even more evident. The rich will get great stuff. The poor will get, well, what the poor usually get, which is not much.
Oddly enough this bifurcation resonates beyond just the speed of our Internet connection. It also is happening to information itself. We could be heading into a world where the rich get better information, from a wider choice of sources, while the poor get less.
That’s already happening, to some extent. If you’re a trader on Wall Street and can afford a Bloomberg terminal, you get better information sooner than the poor schlumps who are home trying to play at being day traders.
It will happen even more as news organizations, like Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and The New York Times, start putting content behind pay walls.
And so the digital divide widens into an information divide, which of course has huge implications for politics, economics, and even democracy itself.
Consider that in the 2008 election both sides were struggling to reach so-called low information voters. What happens when access to information becomes even more restricted? Where your ability to become informed is based upon your ability to pay?
That’s the world we’re heading into. The first 15 years of the Internet, where it was all about peace and love and freedom, are drawing to a close.
The ultimate irony is that we are creating an information age where some of us—many of us—will get less information instead of more.
In his terrific new book, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, Columbia University professor Tim Wu describes the way every new communication platform starts out with a phase where there is openness and innovation, and where lots of amateurs (today we call many of them “hackers”) try out different things and spout lots of utopian rhetoric about making the world a better place.
Then, about 15 years in, things start to close down and become more centralized. The new platform becomes dominated by a small number of companies in the hands of powerful visionaries with an urge for empire-building. This also happened in telegraph, movies, radio, telephone—and now it’s happening to the Internet.
Steve Jobs is building an empire around selling music, movies, and news to people who own iPhones and iPads. Mark Zuckerberg is building an empire around the gathering and selling of the personal data of a half a billion people.
Now the carriers get their slice of the action. A lot of people hate the carriers, but try, for a moment, to see the world through their eyes. For 15 years they have sat around watching hundreds of billions of dollars of market value get created on the end of their wires (Google, eBay, Apple, Netflix, Amazon, Facebook) while all they get is a puny monthly subscriber fee.
The carriers won’t say this publicly, but I’m sure they resent being denied a share of the wealth being created on the platform that they’ve been so kind as to build and maintain for the rest of us. What they also won’t say publicly, or at least not in this blunt a fashion, is: If you want us to keep building out more bandwidth, then start sharing the loot. Otherwise you can go build your own high-speed network.
Obnoxious? Certainly. But also persuasive. The FCC’s compromise probably represents the best deal anyone could get.
What this means for society remains to be seen. But I’m pretty sure those of us who have been around for Phase One of the Internet are going to look back on these last 15 years as the good old days.
Dan Lyons is technology editor at Newsweek
I wish The Sanctimonious old fart had of acted better during his Senate years!
Specter assails ideological 'cannibalism' in Senate in farewell speech
Sen. Arlen Specter began his goodbye speech after 30 years in office Tuesday morning by declaring "this is not a farewell address but rather a closing argument."
And argumentative he was. The Pennsylvania Republican-turned-Democrat berated his colleagues for stripping the "world's greatest deliberative body" of its collegiality. In a bitter, at times angry, speech, Specter accused leaders of both parties of abusing the Senate's "cerebral procedures" in the service of partisan rancor and gridlock.
Referring to the 2010 election cycle in which he and more than a half-dozen colleagues were defeated in party primaries, Specter condemned senators for campaigning against one another.
"Collegiality can obviously not be maintained when negotiating with someone simultaneously out to defeat you - especially within your own party," Specter said. "In some quarters, 'compromising' has become a dirty word. Some senators insist on ideological purity as a precondition."
Specter, 80, surveyed the wreckage of Republicans defeated by tea party insurgents in primaries this year. He said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.) was rejected in a Senate primary in favor of "a candidate who thought it necessary to defend herself as not being a witch" - a reference from the Senate floor to defeated Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell that caused a few colleagues to smile and hold back laughter.
"Eating or defeating your own is a form of sophisticated cannibalism," Specter added.
Specter's speech stood in stark contrast to the soaring, valedictory odes to the Senate that Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and other veteran legislators have delivered in recent weeks. And it was not lost on anyone that, unlike Dodd and Gregg, Specter - who earned the nickname "Snarlin' Arlen" - is not exiting on his own terms.
A moderate Republican since his first election to the Senate in 1980, Specter switched parties in spring 2009 when it became clear to him that he would lose reelection in a GOP primary. But as a Democrat, he faced a surprisingly strong primary challenge from insurgent Rep. Joe Sestak, who beat Specter to the nomination but lost in the general election to Sen.-elect Pat Toomey (R).
"Civility is a state of mind," Specter said. "It reflects respect for your opponents and for the institutions you serve together. . . . This polarization will make civility in the next Congress more difficult - and more necessary - than ever."
Specter cited the unlikely write-in victory by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) as evidence that America still wants to be governed by the center. Specter has seen his coalition of moderate senators shrink drastically. In his speech, he rattled off a roll call of moderate Republicans who ate lunch together - "a glorious tradition," he said. Almost all those colleagues are gone from the Senate.
"That's a far cry from later years, when moderates could fit in a telephone booth," he added.
Specter told senators he was not retiring. "I do not say farewell to my continuing involvement in public policy, which I will pursue in a different venue," he said.
And indeed, Specter retook the floor shortly after giving his farewell to offer his thoughts on the nuclear arms treaty.
Sen. Arlen Specter began his goodbye speech after 30 years in office Tuesday morning by declaring "this is not a farewell address but rather a closing argument."
And argumentative he was. The Pennsylvania Republican-turned-Democrat berated his colleagues for stripping the "world's greatest deliberative body" of its collegiality. In a bitter, at times angry, speech, Specter accused leaders of both parties of abusing the Senate's "cerebral procedures" in the service of partisan rancor and gridlock.
Referring to the 2010 election cycle in which he and more than a half-dozen colleagues were defeated in party primaries, Specter condemned senators for campaigning against one another.
"Collegiality can obviously not be maintained when negotiating with someone simultaneously out to defeat you - especially within your own party," Specter said. "In some quarters, 'compromising' has become a dirty word. Some senators insist on ideological purity as a precondition."
Specter, 80, surveyed the wreckage of Republicans defeated by tea party insurgents in primaries this year. He said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.) was rejected in a Senate primary in favor of "a candidate who thought it necessary to defend herself as not being a witch" - a reference from the Senate floor to defeated Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell that caused a few colleagues to smile and hold back laughter.
"Eating or defeating your own is a form of sophisticated cannibalism," Specter added.
Specter's speech stood in stark contrast to the soaring, valedictory odes to the Senate that Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and other veteran legislators have delivered in recent weeks. And it was not lost on anyone that, unlike Dodd and Gregg, Specter - who earned the nickname "Snarlin' Arlen" - is not exiting on his own terms.
A moderate Republican since his first election to the Senate in 1980, Specter switched parties in spring 2009 when it became clear to him that he would lose reelection in a GOP primary. But as a Democrat, he faced a surprisingly strong primary challenge from insurgent Rep. Joe Sestak, who beat Specter to the nomination but lost in the general election to Sen.-elect Pat Toomey (R).
"Civility is a state of mind," Specter said. "It reflects respect for your opponents and for the institutions you serve together. . . . This polarization will make civility in the next Congress more difficult - and more necessary - than ever."
Specter cited the unlikely write-in victory by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) as evidence that America still wants to be governed by the center. Specter has seen his coalition of moderate senators shrink drastically. In his speech, he rattled off a roll call of moderate Republicans who ate lunch together - "a glorious tradition," he said. Almost all those colleagues are gone from the Senate.
"That's a far cry from later years, when moderates could fit in a telephone booth," he added.
Specter told senators he was not retiring. "I do not say farewell to my continuing involvement in public policy, which I will pursue in a different venue," he said.
And indeed, Specter retook the floor shortly after giving his farewell to offer his thoughts on the nuclear arms treaty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)