NN: Holding their breath until they turn blue?

I thought neutrality-ites believed it is urgent for Congress to pass NN legislation to overrule the FCC's currently operative ruling that DSL is an unregulated information service.  On SavetheInternet.org website it says: "If Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful Net Neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk."  Itsournet.org's website says: "If Congress does not put these protections back soon, it could be a lot harder to reach your church or school, your local businesses or online communities that you care about." 

Hello! If no legislation passes, neutrality-ites get NOTHING, none of the protections they say they must have because the FCC decision becomes operative next month. All this effort resulting in zero NN protections.

Like the child that threatens to hold their breath until they turn blue, neutrality-ites are hurting themselves in potentially bringing down legislation they say they urgently need. The Stevens Bill provides the First Amendment protections Savetheinternet.org says they seek and it codifies the FCC's NN principles. In Washington, the Stevens Bill is commonly referred to as "a half a loaf" compromise. In demanding the whole loaf of the Snowe-Dorgan Bill which everyone knows is unpassable in its current form, Neutrality-ites are likely to end up with NOTHING for their efforts. 

And when the sky does not fall over the next year as the neutrality chicken littles are saying it will, and as more broadband competition further undermines the tenuous broadband duopoly allegation, neutrality-ites will have diminishing leverage to get the protections they seek. 

Is this all just mid-term election political posturing fund-raising? Or is their adult supervision among the neutrality-ites, that recognize that they are taking their own interests hostage?