- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmit.online
The US Senate today confirmed nominee Anna Gomez to the Federal Communications Commission, finally giving President Biden a Democratic majority on the telecom regulator more than two and a half years into his presidency. The vote to confirm Gomez was 55-43 and went mostly along party lines.
Biden’s first nominee was Gigi Sohn, a longtime consumer advocate who drew united opposition from Republicans and doubts from more conservative Democrats. Sohn withdrew her nomination in March 2023, blaming the cable lobby and “unlimited dark money” for scuttling her appointment. The Senate never scheduled a floor vote on Sohn.
Biden tried again in May with the nomination of Gomez, a State Department digital policy official who was previously deputy assistant secretary at the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) from 2009 to 2023. A lawyer, Gomez was vice president of government affairs at Sprint Nextel from 2006 to 2009 and before that spent about 12 years at the FCC in several roles.
Gomez got through the confirmation process with relative ease, though most Republicans voted against her. Both parties seem to expect the FCC to reinstate net neutrality rules now that Democrats will have a majority.
Net neutrality
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) warned about the return of net neutrality rules when he spoke against the Gomez nomination on the Senate floor today. “If confirmed, she would give the Democrats a majority at the FCC that would enable them to impose a radical left-wing agenda, including investment-killing and job-killing so-called net neutrality rules, otherwise known as Obamacare for the Internet,” Cruz said. “I strongly oppose her nomination and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.”
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) also brought up net neutrality in a floor speech today. “With three Democratic commissioners, the FCC can act swiftly to restore net neutrality and protect a free and open Internet… It has been nearly six years since the Trump FCC repealed net neutrality. We cannot wait any longer for Republicans to come to their senses. We must confirm Ms. Gomez so that the FCC can act without delay,” Markey said.
After the vote, Markey issued a statement saying that the “new majority will finally be able to use the FCC’s authority to restore their rightful authority over broadband Internet access.” That is a reference to regulating ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act, the authority underpinning the former net neutrality rules.
Five Republicans voted yes
Five Republicans voted in favor of the Gomez nomination, according to the Senate Press Gallery. The Republican yes votes came from Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, and Todd Young of Indiana. Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kans.) did not vote.
“Glad to see some Republicans showing sense. Annoyed at how many vote no on a candidate as qualified and non-controversial as this,” commented Harold Feld, senior VP and consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge.
Media advocacy group Free Press said the “unprecedented 32-month delay” that deadlocked the FCC “was the result of concerted efforts by the phone, cable, and broadcast lobbies to hamstring the agency that oversees their businesses. Gomez’s confirmation restores the agency’s full complement of commissioners and provides a tie-breaking vote on issues related to diversifying media ownership, promoting broadband affordability and protecting the rights of Internet users.”
You must log in or register to comment.
“If confirmed, she would give the Democrats a majority at the FCC that would enable them to impose a radical left-wing agenda, including investment-killing and job-killing so-called net neutrality rules, otherwise known as Obamacare for the Internet,” Cruz said.
Wtf does he think net neutrality is?
It doesn’t matter what he thinks it is. Republicans have been paid by telecomms to paint Net Neutrality as a creeping horror, an unspeakable evil that will kill us all in our sleep. The fact that it was used to prevent telecomms from double-dipping (charging people for tiered access to websites, while simultaneously charging websites for tiered access to reach them) is obviously beside the point.
God, Ted Cruz is a fucking melt.
Don’t compare that blob of failure to a rather tasty style of sandwiches.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Biden tried again in May with the nomination of Gomez, a State Department digital policy official who was previously deputy assistant secretary at the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) from 2009 to 2023.
“If confirmed, she would give the Democrats a majority at the FCC that would enable them to impose a radical left-wing agenda, including investment-killing and job-killing so-called net neutrality rules, otherwise known as Obamacare for the Internet,” Cruz said.
The Republican yes votes came from Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, and Todd Young of Indiana.
Annoyed at how many vote no on a candidate as qualified and non-controversial as this," commented Harold Feld, senior VP and consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge.
Media advocacy group Free Press said the “unprecedented 32-month delay” that deadlocked the FCC "was the result of concerted efforts by the phone, cable, and broadcast lobbies to hamstring the agency that oversees their businesses.
Gomez’s confirmation restores the agency’s full complement of commissioners and provides a tie-breaking vote on issues related to diversifying media ownership, promoting broadband affordability and protecting the rights of Internet users."
The original article contains 556 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Ajit Pai, the head chairman of the FCC (ex-lawyer for AT&T) who led the way in dismantling net neutrality, was originally appointed by Obama.
I don’t have much hope of restoring anything. Just words, from both the Dems and the Republicans. One side making false promises and the other trying to fan flames. Cruz called net neutrality “Obamacare for the internet”.
I guess he assumes his base doesn’t know what net neutrality means.
He was appointed a commissioner by Obama. Trump made him chairman.
There’s still something shitty about Democrats “reaching across the aisle” their whole terms and giving bad appointments in the process, but the guy who actually handed him the reins to pull the trigger on net neutrality was Trump.
The context is a little more complicated than the “both sides” narrative.
It’s not ‘reaching across the aisle’. It’s a revolving door. Ajit Pai worked for AT&T. Gomez worked for Sprint. Now Pai has a nice cushy job working for a private equity firm that buys up telecommunications companies (they own the 2nd largest telecom company in PR, some Canadian companies) and when Gomez is done with doing nothing, she will likewise be sitting somewhere making a bunch of money as a thank you for not doing anything
On certain things, the parties are on the same side. When Trump put sanctions on Chinese steel, Biden came in and didn’t do anything about it. When Trump cancelled the Iran nuclear deal unilaterally, Biden didn’t do anything about it. Trump attempted a coup in Venezuela and recognized a random congressman as the “rightful leader” of Venezuela which allowed them to freeze all their foreign assets - Biden holds the same position. Trump used Title 42 as a method to kick out people looking for asylum - using the pandemic as a means to do something he couldn’t legally do. Biden liked the idea and continued using Title 42 even after the pandemic. Trump moved the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem… illegally occupied land against international law… and Biden hasn’t done anything about it. We sure care about international law under the context of Russia and Ukraine, but you don’t hear Biden say a peep about Israel.
Certain policies are simply not decided by elections and democratic process. Telecommunications is one of those policies. That is decided by the internet companies. It doesn’t matter who you elect… it won’t make a difference.
There are differences between the parties on certain policies. And that’s why I will vote Democrat against the GOP death cult every time… But almost all of the 3 letter government organization are undemocratic and controlled by whatever corporate interest they are meant to be regulating. Always remember the Princeton study that found through statistical analysis that public opinion has virtually zero impact on public policy.
And remember when Yanis was elected and went into a meeting with the Eurogroup finance ministers… “democratic elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy”. It is the EU but it’s basically the same here.
I’m not a “both sides” centrist - but don’t drink the koolaid… we barely even live in a democracy
That’s a lot of whatabout for something I never actually said.
What I did was (correctly) point out that Obama was not responsible for giving Ajit Pai the power to bring the axe down on net neutrality. Trump was.
What I didn’t say was that the Democratic Party is above reproach and that they are not complicit in decades of neoliberal policy that has fundamentally ruined any sense of equity and functional governance.
You said it yourself. There’s a fundamental difference in policy between Democrats and Republicans that makes one of those parties objectively a lot worse than the other. I think it’s unfair to point at Democrats as the triggerman in a situation where they did not take the action to do so.
Your criticisms of the party are legitimate, and I agree with them. To throw another log on the fire, Biden has changed virtually none of Trump’s abhorrent and inhumane border policies, and gets zero press coverage for not only doing nothing to end them, but in some situations make them even worse.
I would welcome the dissolution of the Democratic Party with glee. They wield a slightly smaller corporate hammer in their policy. And it makes them culpable in an enormous amount of the same crimes and unfathomably short-sighted policy.
But in this ONE instance, the Dems weren’t the ones that pulled the trigger. They appointed Wheeler, who came close, but they eventually caved. Ajit Pai was made a commissioner to make Telecom happy having a guy on the inside and giving them a voice in the FCC. Should he have been appointed in the first place? No. But that’s a failure of neoliberal policy for fetishizing compromise.
But Trump handed him the executioner’s axe, and he did it for one reason and one reason alone. And that is a difference. Wheeler was a Telecom guy, too. But he caved to pressure and backed off. When Trump appointed Pai, axing net neutrality was the first thing he did, the only thing that mattered that he accomplish, and he wasn’t going to cave under any circumstances because he literally had one job.
And my condolences. I bounced the fuck out and moved to an actually democratic country. Enjoying my universal healthcare and well-funded public infrastructure. 💀
I think we more or less agree although I am more cynical than you towards the Democrats on the FCC front. Obama didn’t appoint Pai because of compromise. Obama appointed Pai because business interests are more important than democracy.
Look at what happened during the vote to end net neutrality. They had a period of public comment. I’m not sure if you remember, but millions, iirc tens of millions of comments were made on the FCC’s website. When polled independently, the vast majority of Americans supported keeping net neutrality when explained to them what it meant. However, when looking at the comments on the FCC’s website… millions and millions were supporting the repeal. Why?
Well, it turns out that the majority of the comments were all fake. They were fabricated. The attorney general of NY released a report on it if you want to read more, but essentially the FCC was complicit in allowing these millions of fake comments in order to create the illusion that there was broad public support for this unpopular and undemocratic decision.
And what did the Dems do about it? Not a peep. Obama didn’t speak up. Clinton didn’t speak up. This is the type of thing that should demand outrage from every single person who believes in democracy. But I don’t remember anyone saying or doing anything.
Why? Because if they could have done it earlier, they would have done it themselves. Speaking out would have meant losing $$$ and support from large powerful business interests.
And my condolences. I bounced the fuck out and moved to an actually democratic country
I’m happy for you. I’m guessing Europe? I was born in South America so I’m no stranger to false democracies. My parents grew up in a military dictatorship. I still prefer the US because while the democracy is flawed, there still exist lots of personal freedoms and protections as well as a strong economy with lots of opportunity.
I do remember that. It was a big load of horseshit. The fact that Dems don’t directly address or contest anything is kind of their whole problem and why Trump’s strategy works so well. When he commits a power grab, and you either don’t address it or go about it in the most prolonged manner possible, he’s already completed four more power grabs since you’ve addressed the first one.
That’s part of the reason I left. There’s no doubt the US is on the fascist fast-track, but I have little faith in the Democrats to do anything about it. Even Trump’s trial isn’t going to do shit.
And no, not Europe. Taiwan. Which obviously comes with its very own set of problems, but the government and society that is here currently is quite lovely, and it’s the most progressive country is Asia by far.
