You are here

Is this House less supportive of net neutrality than last Congress'? Markey Bill has only 11 co-sponsors...

It's surprising that in the three months since Chairman Markey introduced his new net neutrality bill HR 5353, only nine members joined the original co-sponsors of Chairman Markey, and Rep. Pickering, who is a retiring Republican from Mississippi. And all of the new nine are Democrats. (see the list at 

  • Given that the SaveTheInternet site has long advertised "100 co-sponsors needed" for the Markey bill, and that ~159 members voted for Chairman Markey's last net neutrality bill, and given that their are now 234 fellow Democrats in the House for Chairman Markey to draw upon, most observers were anticipating Chairman Markey to assemble at least 100-150 co-sponsors to the Markey Net neutrality bill
    • I know of no one that would have predicted only 11. 
  • Interestingly, what the nine co-sponsors have in common is that they all are traditional supporters of

What is one to conclude that only 11 of 435 members of the House, only 10 of 234 House Democrats only 1 of 199 House Republicans have signed onto the latest net neutrality legislation three months after its introduction and almost two years after the issue burst onto Congress' radar?

  • Is there dramatically less real political support for net neutrality now than any time in the last two years? 
  • Did the unanimous support of the House in opposing imposing taxation of the Internet the last time it came to a vote, chasten members from considering regulating the Internet for the first time? 
  • Have members figured out that this is a fringe issue and a factional business dispute that is neither sound Democratic policy nor sound Republican policy? 
  • Have House members figured out that Chairman Markey's bill actually does regulate the Internet despite the Chairman's protestations to the contrary? 
  • Have House members concluded that they have much bigger real and pressing issues to address like the economy, the war, gas and food prices, health care, etc. to focus on rather than alleged, unproven potential issues? 

Bottom line: appear not to be as politically formidable a "net roots" force as their press releases and blogs would indicate. 

  • In Texas, they would say: "all hat and no cattle..."