Yesterday the FCC decided on some “net neutrality” regulations that had some in the the leftie blogosphere sputtering about an “Obama sellout.” Now the Right is weighing in, and they don’t like the new regs, either.
The Federal Communications Commission’s new “net neutrality” rules, passed on a partisan 3-2 vote yesterday, represent a huge win for a slick lobbying campaign run by liberal activist groups and foundations. The losers are likely to be consumers who will see innovation and investment chilled by regulations that treat the Internet like a public utility.
Fund goes on to explain that the whole “net neutrality” issue is a scam thought up by some socialist-Marxist academics and fringe organizations like the Pew Charitable Trusts.
Free Press has been funded by a network of liberal foundations that helped the lobby invent the purported problem that net neutrality is supposed to solve. They then fashioned a political strategy similar to the one employed by activists behind the political speech restrictions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill. The methods of that earlier campaign were discussed in 2004 by Sean Treglia, a former program officer for the Pew Charitable Trusts, during a talk at the University of Southern California. Far from being the efforts of genuine grass-roots activists, Mr. Treglia noted, the campaign-finance reform lobby was controlled and funded by foundations like Pew.
I don’t know that anyone claimed “net neutrality” is a “grassroots” issue, since the people who understand and care about net neutrality are those of us who live online most of the time. And unlike the Right, lefties don’t use astroturf organization to conjure a facade of populism in front of issues that are really being pushed by the elite.
But, basically, Fund’s argument is that anything thought up by liberals must be part of a totalitarian plot. Seriously.
As I’ve looked at some comments today, it strikes me that some people view the Internet primarily as a tool for free speech, and others view it primarily as a tool for commerce, and these two groups are way not in alignment. But the Right today is reacting with a viciousness that suggests someone very high on the food chain with very deep pockets is really, really angry, and the tools have been ordered to fight the regs tooth and nail.
So, dutifully, Little Lulu has declared that Net Neutrality is “Obamacare for the Web” and declares that “Internet access is not a civil right.” Pretty rich, coming from someone whose career is largely based on her Web activities.
Nate Anderson has a good background article on why everyone hates the new net regulations. The main players are FCC chairman Julius Genachowski and one of the Republican commissioners, Meredith Baker.
To Baker, charging companies like Netflix for better access to ISP customers is unabashedly pro-consumer, since it might (insert a gentle cough of skepticism here) lower consumer broadband prices. As for network management, it’s an “engineering marvel.” Baker’s statement made clear—repeatedly—that she was bewildered by any view of ISPs as huge companies that might misuse their power and control, and she rejects any attempt to limit their “innovation.”
Genachowski apparently started from a more pro-neutrality position, but then attempted a “pro-investment” compromise that preserved part of the “net netrality” platform. But people aren’t in much of a mood to compromise these days, are they?
Anyway, Republicans vow to drag the regulations into court to have them overturned, so the fight is far from over.
Sounds like Genachowski was offered some money to change his opinion on net nutrality.
I don’t think I’d go that far. I think it’s more likely he is a creature of the Beltway trying to be a good centrist.
Yes, some good things, but not far enough, in my opinion.
Anything less than absolutely equal access for any and every individual or group is a loss for all. PERIOD!
And seperating the web from mobile phones may prove to be a first step down a slippery slope.
Yesterday’s action also still leaves unanswered why the USA is so far behind the rest of the industrialized world in broadband access and speed. And it does little for those unwilling or unable to pay for the the most broadband and the highest speed. Not going far enough may prove to be another strike against citizen access to information, and for equal access to as many voices as possible. The same companies that largely control all of our newspapers, TV and radio stations, and publishing houses, will now be given a medium that they can use as a starting point – mobile phones, and use that to slowly encroach on home computers. But, maybe I’m just getting more and more paranoid. I wonder why?
As for Little Lulu, ‘Hey Stooooopid, internet access is currently NOT a civil right.’ and the FCC did nothing to amke it one. You still have to pay an ISP for access, and your speed already is determined not just on where you may live geographically, but on how much you have, or are willing, to pay, and that’s only if you even have access. Try rural and urban poor areas and see how bad cable, phone and wireless access already are. Now, got to a rich or suburban area. Wow, what a difference, huh! Surprised? I didn’t think so…
And of course someone with deep pockets is against anything that doesn’t allow them to indiscriminately stuff those pockets with as much cash as possible, consequences to all others be damned. And the usual suspects, like Frum and Little Lulu, having been given their marching orders, limit their line of site to the ass of the lemming directly in front of them. To conservatives, loyalty is the willingness to blindly follow any asshole in front of them, even if it means that not only your little lemming group, but a whole country goes off a cliff.
Liberals and Democrats can see it, but Conservatives and Republicans can’t or won’t – maybe it’s that they aren’t smart enough to see it, or are banking on ‘favorite blog’ status, or something like that if net neutrality is seriosly breached. Little Lulu knows she’s a good little conservative voice, and they woudn’t DARE not have that vipers nest of idiocy and hatred that is her website, not get more speed than maha, Steve M., Steve B., or John Cole, would they? If that spiteful witch winds up as a loser in this, maybe there’s some good in it after all – just kidding.
Setting up one set of rules for mobile access, and another for home and laptops just seems like a likely launching point for further limitations. Maybe I’m getting a little bit too nuts, but I agree with the great Senator Al Franken, who calls net neutrality the greatest free speach issue of our time. And it just seems like we allowed some of it to be limited yesterday.
a huge win for a slick lobbying campaign run by liberal activist groups and foundations
Well, I’ve puzzed til my puzzler’s sore; what, exactly, does “a slick lobbying campaign” win? An all-expenses-paid trip to The Nonexistent Entities Convention, held this year in Narnia? (Last year, it was in Sunnydale CA; the year before that, Smallville KS.)
innovation and investment chilled by regulations that treat the Internet like a public utility
And all the “innovation and investment” of the Internet that will be chilled by open availability to consumers… oh dear God, won’t somebody think of the investors?!?!
In short, what in Santa’s toyshop is this knee-jerk blathering about?
your [Internet access] already is determined not just on where you may live geographically, but on how much you have, or are willing, to pay, and that’s only if you even have access
Oh man, don’t I know it. Only recently have I become willing to pay more. Once again, Lulu reveals that she doesn’t understand the topic under discussion. Fast Download Speed does not = Quick On The Uptake.
Lulu’s comments bring up something else that puzzles me — access by users is one issue, big a big concern of Net Neutrality is to enable the small start-up web business or independent blogger to get his website hosted, indexed, spider-crawled, ranked, and otherwise become as findable by those users as corporate sites. There’s concern that the Big Guns will find a way to keep small fry sites off the Web, or at least find a way to make small fry sites harder to find and use. I’ve read several articles today and not seen that issue addressed at all.
Since this is a leftie blog, here’s your Karl Marx trivia of the day:
“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
Guess what percentage of Americans thought that this sentence came from the US Constitution, and not Karl Marx?
40 to 60+ percent:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
and
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0917/Why-do-Americans-get-the-Constitution-so-wrong
Are we a stupid and misguided country, or what?
“regulations that treat the Internet like a public utility”
Well that is exactly what it is isn’t it? These knuckle draggers seem to think that the ISP’s ought to be free to jimmy the rules and slant access anyway they seem fit cause they (the ISP’s) pay for the infrastructure and maintenance of their systems. Bullshit, most of the new high speed infrastructure (fiber networks) where indeed installed by the ISP’s but they received hefty goverment subsidies, taxcuts, incentives…. As far as maintenance, it is the customers who pay the monthly cable bill, they pay for the upkeep and the access, all NN is doing is setting some ground rules to prevent the ISP’s from denying full access based on the content one is seeking. Any one with half a brain (this excludes 90% of the righties) know that given the opportunity corporate giants like comcast, cox cable, etc. would have the internet dominated by one side much like they have accomplished with talk radio and cable TV “news”. They just don’t fucking understand what the internet is. The internet is the utility infrastructure, those who sell access to it should stay the fuck out of the business of favoring one website access over another. Once again the republicant, knuckle dragger, dimwitted teabaggers come out against equal access, they can’t compete on a level playing field so they need the money men and corporate masters to jimmy rig the rules.
“From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded, and from the one who has been entrusted with much more will be asked.” St. Luke was obviously a Marxist!! I wonder what citizen Beck would have to say about this.
How many people think “God helps those who help themselves.” is Biblical? We are a nation too ignorant to savor our own culture. Oh well, we do make some wonderful bourbons.
Pingback: No, it is not time to abolish the F.C.C. « Political Byline
uncledad, thanks so much. You said much of what I was also thinking. I’ve said since before net neutrality was a concept to enjoy the internet now because our oligarchs will figure out a way to ruin it as soon as it becomes popular(profitable) enough to do so.
I’m all for people using the internet for legal commerce. It’s being done all over right now. It’s a part of something more like a public utility. When commerce becomes its primary purpose and driving force the perversion is complete.
Fyi – I worked for years in the cable industry for years, and by the late ’90’s profit margins were shriking drastically, and it was dying out. Then, ‘Road Runner’ (for TW Cable) came out. Bingo! Profit margins went through the roof. Sure, there were infrastructure costs like rebuilding plant (partly subsidized by local, state and fedral money – and all physical improvements could be depreciated) and staffing (no outside help or depreciation – does that answer why it takes forever to get through to a human being?) for a new service, but that was only a small part of the masive amount of money coming in. Time Warners greatest margin of profit was no longer basic cable, or expanded, or the pay channels like HBO, or even Road Runner – it was EarthLInk customers, because their customers used the exisiting grid, and outside of physical cable problems, all other support issues with EarthLink customers went to EarthLink – hence, the huge profit.
So, I love it when I hear these cries of poverty when they’re asked to make required improvements. And, to accomodate more bandwidth, there are simple things that could be upgraded – ah, but that would cut into the profit margins, and that’s why they claim they need to charge more for people who use a trifling acount more than the average customer.
PIGS!
Again, the questions about why we lag in access and speed need to be answered. But no one in Congress is asking the right questions, if they’re asking them at all.
Republicans really hate level playing fields – social, political and economic justice are anathema to their basic system of beliefs. They more often than not sound like children who throw tantrums when they don’t get their own way. Really unattractive.
Republicans really hate level playing fields
Deep down, as individuals, they feel inadequate. That’s why they “think” in herds, cling to “exceptionalism,” and can’t see the leaders they follow are crooks and clowns. And deep down, they think the only way they can win is to rig the game.
I honestly think this is naive and a gross oversimplification but maybe it’s just a bit under-elaborated and I miss the intended meaning. I’m in no way impeded in the commerce when it comes to online ordering or even B-to-B endeavors like CRM (customer relationship management). If you mean commerce by creating new fees and revenue sources from those who would like to use the internet then I agree. That is worth diving into deeper.
OK, I saw your last message…on the right track. Just keep thinking what they’d do to make maximum $$$, regardless of how crazy it seems or how unspoken it might be. That’s the endgame.
It’s not that these two apparently competing concerns occasionally run up against one another. It seems that the unspoken end-game is captive audiences. Via artificial boundaries erected on the internet consumers can be charged to cross them. Cellular providers have tried this by providing “featured” sites and services not available elsewhere but inevitably consumers choose the richness of all that’s out there over the confines of a caged existence.
The barriers would be built around speed. Consumers would be offered a slow tier (e.g. incapable of netflix streaming) but for more money they could be offered the exerience to which we’re all now accustomed.
As long as I keep the captive audience in mind all the jockeying we’re experiencing makes infinitely more sense. This is squarely a counter to free speech and hardly tangential. Cost will inevitably be a barrier to entry to all but corporate voices.
They’ll try anything though. It was pretty funny when they co-opted Ted Stevens who tried to speak intelligently about it even though he knew less about the topic than my grandparents did. Corporate concerns like AT&T have the ear of our elected representatives with only the FCC between the way we like it now and creative new ways to take our money and limit free speech. Apparently there’s a lot of room for co-opting a number of the ignorant yet powerful.
It’s ironic that this is coming from those who want maximum freedom from regulation where their interests are concerned, isn’t it?
Pat — Yes, you’re sort of illustrating what I’m saying. The Web represents different things to different people. I’m thinking like a small website owner who uses the web to reach out to people. I want my site to be as “findable” as any other site. Right now, the Web is at least partly a meritocracy, where a really good writer or a site with something unique to offer can get lots of attention without corporate sponsorship. All you need is a web host account — you can get an unlimited bandwidth account for as little as $2 a month, and there are still a few places offering free web hosting, with bandwidth restrictions — and persistence.
Or, as it’s been explained to me, the money people could rig the web to make access to their sites much easier than to non-corporate sites. Users may not be charged more; they just would be less likely to find and use all but the corporate sites. I fear the money guys are going to rig the system so that people with personal websites (like me) without money are shut out. And I’m sure all kinds of small web-based businesses might be shut out.
Hi, Maha, I hear you are big in the liberal blogosphere. Thx for linking to me! I’m proud to be a part of your sphere, assuming I am, that is.
I’m promoting something a little different than the rest of the liberal-Left blogosphere, but I still think it’s worth people discussing it.
I’m just curious, why are reasoned objections to this proposal considered “leftie blogosphere sputtering”? Nice colorful phrase, maybe a little overused, but it doesn’t explain why it’s unreasonable for neutrality advocates to object to the administration’s latest compromise (maybe they’re spluttering reasonably, just asking).
The linked article was a leetle lacking in detail, and maybe it was representative of “the leftie blogosphere”, but I’ve never heard of the guy. (Hi Robert, didn’t see you there, I have heard of you now)
His description of Obama’s history of regulatory appointees looks pretty accurate to me, and I’ll admit I have a hard time recounting it without doing a little spluttering myself.
I’m not that well-versed in the issue, but sounds to me like the big problem is exempting wireless from the same neutrality requirements as wired. Presumably, the net will be increasingly wireless, maybe predominantly wireless before too many years.