Thursday night, August 19, the FCC held a rare public hearing on net neutrality. The issue is whether the FCC will be allowed to regulate and control the Internet for the public good or turn it over to Comcast, Verizon or whoever has the most magic beads. This is an issue of bandwidth and access, especially wireless. There is no issue about the FCC controlling content, that is not their charter. However if GE, Halliburton, NBC or whoever controls the distribution speed, you can bet that content control is right behind.
Complete coverage of hearing and interviews with participants is at : http://theuptake.org/
This is a serious issue for all of us, it has the possibility to be a disaster. It was duly ignored Strib and the rest of the MSM. Why? Their masters do not want net neutrality in any form. NBC, Verizon and the handful of the powerful are drooling over being able to take over the internet, make it a huge money fountain and control content.
Net neutrality is a critical concept for we bloggers. Because of net neutrality, we get the same bandwidth as anybody else. But telecom giants like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast want to end it. They can make even more money by making controlling the internet.
And they will be using fake front groups to do it.
Net neutrality, a guiding principle for preserving a free and fair Internet, means that Internet service providers are not allowed to discriminate based on content for its customers. However, telecommunications firms - like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and others - are firmly against net neutrality because they would like to increase their profits by deciding which websites customers can see, and at what speed. The telecom industry has dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into a lobby campaign against net neutrality. As the FCC now takes up net neutrality rule making, the industry is pushing an "outside approach" of hiring front groups and astroturf operatives.
This morning, representatives from various front groups launched a new coordinated campaign to kill net neutrality. Speaking on Capitol Hill, these front groups took turns decrying the evils of the principle of a fair and unbiased Internet. LULAC, which is funded by AT&T, called Net Neutrality "Obamacare for the Internet." (LULAC was not present at the press conference. The Hispanic Leadership Fund, another group funded by the telecom industry and opposed to net neutrality, spoke at the event. We apologize for the error.) Americans for Prosperity - a corporate front group founded by oil billionaire David Koch but also funded by telecom interests - unveiled a new ad smearing net neutrality as a "government takeover" (the initial ad buy is $1.4 million dollars). And Grover Norquist, representing his "Americans for Tax Reform" corporate front group, said net neutrality is like what China does, "putting policemen on every corner, on the street or on the Internet." Watch it:
My favorite part of this clip, BY FAR, is the end, where she equates Net Neutrality to censorship. How on earth does this airhead manage to dress herself in the morning? It's astounding.
Obviously, she either lying (again) or has not a clue what "net neutrality" means - not that blissful ignorance has ever stopped Bachmann MotorMouth Overdrive from spewing proven lies no matter what the source; either talking points originated from GOP HQ or random factoids springing from her teabag-addled brain. For a recent example of that, link here.
Video and transcript of Bachmann MotorMouth Overdrive's latest lies, below the fold.
Though I've been having fun with debunking the right, I see a need to debunk something on the left too. Specifically, I'm referring to this moroseness afflicting many of us who were getting ready to party a year ago as we looked forward to a new Congress and new president. Plenty has gone wrong this year, sure. We poured our personal wealth and elbow grease into electing people who in some cases have disappointed us. It seems we're always having to give up something really good in hopes of getting just something.
However, a lot has gone right in this year ending tonight, more than many of us have recognized. The health care bill has sucked the air out of the proverbial room. More troops heading to Afghanistan has grabbed most of the attention available for foreign policy. The biggest complaint of many on the left, me included, has been the continuation of Bush policies in regard to civil liberties and human rights.
It's been long enough since I posted part 2 (and here's part 1) that I felt a need to explain the point of these posts again. My own experience is I thought this would be one post, and I was surprised when I finished part two that there was plenty for a part 3.
That's a good thing.
What got me to finally get on this today is something I just learned, and that I'm pretty sure is not common knowledge, but should be. Ever wondered why the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, but the Voting Rights Act was passed separately in 1965? Because the only way to get the Civil Rights Act past the conservative (including the dixiecrats who make up the base of the modern GOP) filibuster was to drop voting rights. Voting rights? And we thought dropping the public option was tough! But voting rights got through the next year, so don't anyone despair about having to do things incrementally.
So let's get started, and I think I'll start with what I expect will be the most controversial silver lining (you can tell me in comments if I'm right), the things that went right in regard to war crimes, human rights and civil liberties.
And when did I turn into a fine Franken fan? It was from speeches where Senator Al Franken equates net neutrality with free speech. Senator Al Franken gave a keynote address at the Future of Music Policy Conference in Washington, DC today.
And you may remember that during a live webcast of a 2007 Pearl Jam concert, AT&T killed the audio for a few beats. Turns out the missing lyrics were criticisms of President Bush.
As long as the interests of consumers of broadband internet services were aligned with those of corporate interests like Google and Microsoft, the telecoms were hamstrung in their efforts to destroy the Internet as we know it. As soon as the corporate interests strike their own deals with the telecoms, consumers on all sides of all political divides end up locked out in the cold, with crappy, expensive, non-competitive internet service.
Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers. ...
One major cable operator in talks with Google says it has been reluctant so far to strike a deal because of concern it might violate Federal Communications Commission guidelines on network neutrality.
"If we did this, Washington would be on fire," says one executive at the cable company who is familiar with the talks, referring to the likely reaction of regulators and lawmakers.
Separately, Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. have withdrawn quietly from a coalition formed two years ago to protect network neutrality. Each company has forged partnerships with the phone and cable companies. In addition, prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their views on the subject.
This is an apolitical issue -- it's truly not Democrat vs. Republican, it's corporate power against the American people. If you value an open internet, in which providers aren't allowed to charge twice for a single service, you should touch base with your congressional representatives and make sure they're Net Neutrality supporters like you.
The good news is that President-elect Barack Obama has said in the past that he supports Net Neutrality. The question is whether the groundswell of activity that causes the Obama administration to take action or stay on the sidelines comes from the corporations or from the millions of American citizens who would be hurt by the fall of the Internet as we know it.
Given the level of vitriol the conservative bloviators bloggers are already breaking out for President-elect Obama, I had a curious thought -- why might they actually thank President Obama someday?
Easy: Net Neutrality. Groups pushing to prevent the internet service providers from creating a "two-tier" internet are looking forward to the Obama administration -- Obama has long been a supporter of Net Neutrality, which protects bloggers by preventing the ISPs from charging you (the reader) for using their pipes to read blog content and charging the blogger (me) for transporting that same data to you.
It's one of the few issues where conservative and liberal bloggers have come together over the past two election cycles.
And there will be President Obama, protecting the rights of those zany conservative bloggers to say ridiculous things about him whenever they please.
