More Scrutiny of Rep. Udall's Vote for Bill That Would Kill Net Neutrality

Steve Terrell has published an article in the Santa Fe New Mexican (with a companion post on his website) that examines CD3 NM Rep. Tom Udall's vote for the COPE bill that would destroy the system of net neutrality that has been in place since the inception of the internet. Terrell cites our recent post on Rep. Udall's vote, which takes him to task for the vote.

According to Terrell's article, Rep. Udall explained his vote this way:

I supported the COPE Act because it will bring faster broadband in more places, especially in rural areas like those in New Mexico, by boosting deployment of high-speed broadband as telephone providers upgrade their networks to offer video service," Udall said in an e-mail newsletter. "The COPE Act will also bring more jobs and make the U.S. more competitive in the global economy when telephone companies make new investments in advanced networks.

... Udall insisted that in spite of his vote, he is a supporter of "net neutrality." He pointed out he supported an amendment to the bill sponsored by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., that stated broadband-network providers must not interfere with users' ability to Internet access or offer lawful content. Markey's amendment was defeated.

Sure, we'd all like the telecoms to provide vastly expanded broadband access, especially in rural and poor areas. The problem is, they've already received more than $200 BILLION in tax breaks over the past 15 years to do just that. In addition, they have been collecting generous fees to use their services, often with little local competition. Where has all this money gone?

Another problem is that the bill's requirements for the telecoms to expand into underserved areas lack teeth to require compliance. The provisions for holding them to the bargain -- which amounts to allowing them to own the internet pipelines and control content, access and speed, in exchange for their expansion of broadband -- are weakly written and easily sidestepped.

Given the numerous organizations that support net netrality and also advocate on behalf of ordinary working class people and consumers, it seems odd they would be fighting against the COPE bill if what Rep. Udall claims is true.

Although Udall claims to be looking out for the interests of consumers in NM, here's a very critical economic analysis  of the bill, produced for Free Press, Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America.

Moreover, here's what Save the Internet has to say about a highly inaccurate and wrongheaded Washington Post editorial backing COPE:

The Post editorial laments “the fact that the U.S. broadband infrastructure lags behind that of East Asia and Europe.” It advocates network discrimination as the solution, but it fails to note that those nations did not get ahead by allowing network discrimination. On the contrary, the nations who have surpassed us have done so because they adopted national policies to promote broadband deployment and forced the network operators to run neutral networks, relying on competition for services, unimpeded by network gatekeepers and toll collectors, to drive adoption.

I've read that Democrats like Rep. Udall, who voted for Rep. Markey's unsuccessful net neutrality amendment but voted for the COPE bill, did so because they knew the bill would pass anyway. Why threaten your relationship with the telecoms and cable companies when you're going to lose anyway? Why not vote for the bill and please these corporations? You never know -- their financial support might come in handy in the future.

Unfortunately, this is the same excuse used by many Democrats in voting on issues pushed by corporate concerns and the right wing. Instead of using such votes to make a statement and highlight their opposition party status, they insist such stands would make no difference because their vote wouldn't result in a "win." Senator Jeff Binaman's vote for the horribly unfair bankruptcy bill and his refusal to support a filibuster of Sam Alito come to mind.

I have always had very high regard for Rep. Udall and believed him to be one of the most ethical lawmakers in Washington. In this case, however, he has made a big mistake. Read the article by John Nichols on Common Dreams for more on this issue and how big dollar lobbyists pushed for passage of COPE. Excerpt:

Joining [Bernie] Sanders in voting against the legislation were most members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including its co-chairs, California Representatives Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey...

...Among the Democrats who followed the lead of Hastert and Boehner – as opposed to that of Pelosi – were House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer and Maryland Representative Ben Cardin, who is running for that state's open Senate seat in a September Democratic-primary contest with former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume. Illinois Democrat Melissa Bean, who frequently splits with her party on issues of interest to corporate donors, voted with the Republican leadership, as did corporate-friendly "New Democrats" such as Alabama's Artur Davis, Washington's Adam Smith and Wisconsin's Ron Kind – all co-chairs of the Democratic Leadership Council-tied House New Democrat Coalition.

It's really unfortunate that Rep. Udall sided with most DLC Democrats, rather than the progressive wing of the Dem Party, isn't it? Depressing and confusing are the words that come to mind.

The COPE bill is now in the Senate. I suggest you contact both of New Mexico's Senators to encourage them in no uncertain terms to vote against this bill.  Click for contact information for both Sen. Domenici and Sen. Bingaman.