All 95 Pro-Net Neutrality Candidates Lost On Tuesday

d2c38847c1db1b492f361f030cd1-grandePrior to this week’s election, 95 candidates running for the House and Senate had taken a pledge promising support of Net neutrality. On Tuesday, all 95 candidates lost. That’s right, every single one. Is that dismal result the “final nail in the coffin for Net neutrality” as CNN claims?

Before Tuesday’s midterm elections, there were 95 House and Senate candidates who pledged support for Net neutrality, a bill that would force Internet providers to not charge users more for certain kinds of Web content.

All of them lost — and that could mean the contentious proposal may now be all but dead.

The Federal Communications Commission tried to implement Net neutrality rules but got smacked down in April by a court ruling saying it did not have the authority to do so. As a result, it is preparing a proposal asking Congress to give it new authority to regulate broadband Internet service.

If passed, the Net neutrality law would require Internet providers like phone and cable companies to treat all Web content equally. They would prevent providers from restricting access to certain sites or applications, or collecting fees to deliver some sites faster than others.

The debate over Net neutrality has been fiercely fought on both sides, and experts say the FCC’s proposed legislation had little chance of passing even in the current Congress.

The way the FCC is considering implementing the new regulations is vehemently opposed by cable and telecom companies, as well as many Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

The FCC has proposed that broadband be reclassified as a “Title II” telecommunications service, similar to other telephone companies. Opponents say this is a nuclear option, since it could potentially prevent broadband providers from implementing legitimate controls over their service, such as curbing massive downloads that swallow up bandwidth for users.

, ,

  • FarmerBukowski

    How disheartening and completely unsurprising.

  • FarmerBukowski

    How disheartening and completely unsurprising.

  • Ironaddict06

    While I agree the idea is good. I have no doubt that once the FCC gets control over the internet-it will mean more govt. intervention, control, and expanded govt.

  • Ironaddict06

    While I agree the idea is good. I have no doubt that once the FCC gets control over the internet-it will mean more govt. intervention, control, and expanded govt.

  • Cerebralcaustic
    • 5by5

      NO, it isn’t, because consumers are on the net too.

      What internet freedom/net neutrality does, is protect any small business site, or individual site from being artificially put into the slow lane, while the mega-corps get the high-speed data service, giving them an unfair, even monopolistic advantage over any up-and-coming competitors.

      Competition is good for consumers.

      Those who oppose net neutrality, are anti-consumer.

    • rtb61

      http://www.netcompetition.org is a perfect Orwellian example of doublespeak, the goal, corporate driven censorship and exclusion of the majority from active participation on the internet ie. using false scarcity to increase pricing via cartel control and to promote marketing as news and truth and to ban reality.
      Net neutrality is pro consumer, just a equal access to phones is pro consumer and equal access to public roads is pro consumer.

  • Cerebralcaustic
  • MoxAmok

    Just because 95 politicians that signed a pledge lost doesn’t mean all winners are against net neutrality. Misleading headline.

  • MoxAmok

    Just because 95 politicians that signed a pledge lost doesn’t mean all winners are against net neutrality. Misleading headline.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    I support the concept of net neutrality…but not all of the particulars regarding how that bill was constructed. Trust congress to take a simple idea…keeping the bandwidth open equally to all consumers…and fuck it beyond redemption with a few earmarks and special requests from lobbyists. In any case, since public dollars covered the research tab for building and expanding the web, its ours…period…and the fashion in which it is made available to us is 100% supportable as a matter for government, not corporations, to administrate. I know there isn’t much difference between the two agencies anymore, but at least in principle this is something for public servants to administer. Privatizing it completely will only allow what happens every time you privatize ANYTHING…the prices will go up until the market is diminished and all the smaller players are forced out…creating a web depression to match the non-virtual one we’re already experiencing.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    I support the concept of net neutrality…but not all of the particulars regarding how that bill was constructed. Trust congress to take a simple idea…keeping the bandwidth open equally to all consumers…and fuck it beyond redemption with a few earmarks and special requests from lobbyists. In any case, since public dollars covered the research tab for building and expanding the web, its ours…period…and the fashion in which it is made available to us is 100% supportable as a matter for government, not corporations, to administrate. I know there isn’t much difference between the two agencies anymore, but at least in principle this is something for public servants to administer. Privatizing it completely will only allow what happens every time you privatize ANYTHING…the prices will go up until the market is diminished and all the smaller players are forced out…creating a web depression to match the non-virtual one we’re already experiencing.

  • Anonymous

    NO, it isn’t, because consumers are on the net too.

    What internet freedom/net neutrality does, is protect any small business site, or individual site from being artificially put into the slow lane, while the mega-corps get the high-speed data service, giving them an unfair, even monopolistic advantage over any up-and-coming competitors.

    Competition is good for consumers.

    Those who oppose net neutrality, are anti-consumer.

  • 5by5

    Go to the article on Olberrman’s suspension and read how these two issues relate.

  • Anonymous

    Go to the article on Olberrman’s suspension and read how these two issues relate.

  • Anonymous

    http://www.netcompetition.org is a perfect Orwellian example of doublespeak, the goal, corporate driven censorship and exclusion of the majority from active participation on the internet ie. using false scarcity to increase pricing via cartel control and to promote marketing as news and truth and to ban reality.
    Net neutrality is pro consumer, just a equal access to phones is pro consumer and equal access to public roads is pro consumer.

  • http://www.L-I-N-K-E-D.com SeekGeek

    And nobody even questions this result? Isn’t it a bit too coincidental??

  • http://www.L-I-N-K-E-D.com SeekGeek

    And nobody even questions this result? Isn’t it a bit too coincidental??