The Federal Communications Commission has published the agenda for its November Open Meeting. It comes two days after the Democrats took their shellacking in the midterm Congressional elections. And once again, the FCC's Open Internet proposals are nowhere to be found on the list of action items.

Why not? Here's one idea: Net neutrality foes point out that none of the nearly one hundred Democratic candidates who signed a pledge to support the policy won their race.

"The FCC should take note that the main 'political' driver behind trying to make net neutrality into a national grass roots issue, FreePress/PCCC/Moveon.org, could not get the issue to register on the election radar screen," observed Scott Cleland on Wednesday, "and where ever they did attract a candidate endorsement of their position, they failed 100 percent [of] the time in having that candidate get elected." (Update: Free Press response to this at the end of the post).

No doubt that the concept was buried under a pile of front-burner concerns—the economy, health care, and immigration the biggest among them. All the more reason to wonder whether this election can be construed as a national plebiscite on net neutrality. When do telecom issues ever get that far?

It is certainly true, however, that the House is now packed with headline-hungry politicians ready to pounce on the double n-word at a moment's notice. They squelched Henry Waxman's (D-CA) modest compromise proposal in a matter of days. That's got to be giving the FCC's boss Julius Genachowski a jitter or two.

Last week's theories

We've heard all kinds of theories about why the Commission didn't pursue its open Internet proposals prior to Tuesday. The big one was that White House economist Larry Summers and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel put pressure on the agency to keep the issue on a low flame. But they've moved on, and can't be blamed for the delay any longer.

Another popular thesis was that Genachowski just doesn't want to "man up" to the pushback he's been getting from the phone and cable industries on the question. We do telecom rather than testosterone analysis around here, so we'll pass on that observation.

In any event, if the FCC's boss actually wants to do something about net neutrality, he still can. He's got three votes. The FCC could launch its proposal to partially reclassify ISPs as common carriers. Or it could propose something like the Google/Verizon plan—a far weaker enforcement scheme with its exemptions for wireless broadband. Or it could cook up something in between these scenarios.

As for all the political fallout that will come with any action—here's an idea. Why not wait and see how hard the Republican House tries to defund the Obama administration's health care bill? If Washington, D.C. shuts down in the ensuing stalemate, and electricity around Capitol Hill goes out, who'll notice if the FCC issues a net neutrality order via candlelight and batteries?

Just a thought. Never mind.

Update

Free Press's Jean Ettinger sent us some interesting pushback on Cleland's comments:

"Scott Cleland fails to account for the 25 of the 74 Dem signers of Rep. Green’s ANTI-Net Neutrality letter who lost their races," she writes, "and all 32 who signed Rep. Inslee’s PRO-Net Neutrality letter who won. (Exception for Rep. Hodes who retired from the House and lost his Senate bid)."

Greene letter here. Inslee’s letter here.

It still seems like interpreting the election as a referendum on net neutrality one way or another is a bit of a stretch.