<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;payroll&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Feb 2012 19:14:32 PST</pubDate>
<title>Congress Trying To Regulate Certain Wireless Spectrum Issues... In A Payroll Tax Bill?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120202/04002017636/congress-trying-to-regulate-certain-wireless-spectrum-issues-payroll-tax-bill.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120202/04002017636/congress-trying-to-regulate-certain-wireless-spectrum-issues-payroll-tax-bill.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've all seen how Congress sneaks controversial issues into larger "must pass" bills.  The folks over at Public Knowledge are highlighting how our elected officials are trying to <a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/sneaking-3-horrible-wireless-ideas-one-bill" target="_blank">sneak three questionable policies</a> -- all related to wireless technologies and access -- into a single "must pass" payroll tax bill, that has absolutely nothing to do with wireless technologies:
<blockquote><i>
<b>No Net Neutrality Protections.</b>&nbsp; Forget your feelings about the FCC&#8217;s formal <a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/fccs-open-internet-rules" target="_blank">Open Internet Rules</a>.&nbsp; An amendment by Rep. Marsha Blackburn would prevent any restrictions on network management, block any requirements to make connectivity available on a wholesale basis (which would increase competition), and stop the FCC from passing a rule allowing users to attach any non-harmful device to the network.&nbsp; As a result, the winner of the spectrum auction would be able to throttle, block, and discriminate however it sees fit &#8211; something that runs counter to any definition of network neutrality.<br /><br /><strong>No Safeguards Against Further Consolidation.</strong>&nbsp; It is no secret that one of the reasons that there are only four nationwide wireless carriers (and two dominant ones) is that only a few companies control most of the available spectrum in the United States.&nbsp; This amendment would prevent the FCC from making sure that new spectrum goes towards new or under-provisioned competitors instead of being further consolidated by AT&#038;T and Verizon.&nbsp;&nbsp; That&#8217;s probably why <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/206925-overnight-tech-atat-presses-congress-to-pass-spectrum-bill-that-restricts-fcc-" target="_blank">AT&#038;T is pushing so hard for this amendment</a>.<br /><br /><strong>No Super-Wifi.</strong>&nbsp; One of the greatest boons of the transition from analog to digital TV broadcasting was supposed to be the creation of <a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/public-airwaves" target="_blank">unlicensed &#8220;whitespaces&#8221; or &#8220;super-wifi.&#8221;</a>&nbsp; This new spectrum &#8211; which is much better at communicating long distances and through walls than current wifi spectrum &#8211; would be used cooperatively by everyone and usher in a new era of wireless devices.&nbsp; However, a third amendment would destroy the FCC&#8217;s power to allocate some of this great spectrum for unlicensed uses.&nbsp; That means that opportunity would simply pass us by.
</i></blockquote>
I'm not necessarily convinced that all three things are quite as "horrible" as described, but at the very least, I think everyone can agree that they have no business (at all) being in a payroll tax bill.  If these are ideas worth considering, they should be put in a separate bill where they can be debated accordingly.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120202/04002017636/congress-trying-to-regulate-certain-wireless-spectrum-issues-payroll-tax-bill.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120202/04002017636/congress-trying-to-regulate-certain-wireless-spectrum-issues-payroll-tax-bill.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120202/04002017636/congress-trying-to-regulate-certain-wireless-spectrum-issues-payroll-tax-bill.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>politics-at-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120202/04002017636</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>