COPE passes without Net Neutrality

The horrible COPE bill, which serves up our Internet as a nice little garnish on a fat juicey meal of money and power to the Telephone & Cable companies (who have become, not incidentally, another arm of the authoritarian regime now in power), passed the House last night. The Markey amendment, which would have protected Net Neutrality, failed by 117 votes, of which 58 came from Democrats. Eleven Republicans and one independent voted with the good guys on this one.

Call me a pessimist, but I think this is a bigger story than YearlyKos or Coulter or Al Zaquari (?spelling?).

As usual, Harold Feld, the First Amendment lawyer at the Media Access Project, has the details at his Tales of the Sausage Factory column.  Disclosure: Harold's column is part of my blog Wetmachine.

To see how your Congressperson voted, go here.

Our last stand will be in the Senate. Perhaps with enough effort, and some serious reaching across the political divide to groups who don't share our politics but do share our desire to preserve the Internet, we can stop this juggernaut yet. Please do your bit to preserve the Internet as a public good.  To borrow a line from the helpful sparrow to Peter Rabbit, when Peter was ensnared and losing hope, I exhort you to exert yourself.

•  If we were to build a...

  ... progressive subscription service, we’d have more clout to fight the un-democratization of the Internet.

  Carolyn Kay
  MakeThemAccountable.com

  by cmkay on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 04:36:11 AM PDT

  •  Think Tanks Mock Net Neutrality With Fake Amendme

    http://techdirt.com/...

    While most of the press attention today on net neutrality is about how the House rejected net neutrality language, there's one side story that's a bit disappointing, in that it shows how low some think tanks and politicians have stooped in this debate. Declan McCullough, over at News.com, plays along with a silly and misleading attempt by some think tanks and a Congressman to mock network neutrality support, by introducing an obviously stupid amendment to apply "neutrality" to all companies that do business on the internet -- such as Google or Amazon. So, for example, the backers of the bill claim, Amazon couldn't do an exclusive deal with Toys R Us, because that would be "discriminatory." They put forth this bill and support it with idiotic quotes from the same think tanks that have been against network neutrality, by saying this proves the bad logic of supporting network neutrality. Except, it doesn't. All it shows is that these think tanks either don't actually understand what network neutrality means (doubtful) or are being purposely misleading in describing what it means. Obviously, some may say that it's no surprise these think tanks would be purposely misleading, but you would hope that they would at least take the debate seriously.

    Through out this debate, we've tried to stay pretty neutral, while pointing out problems with the arguments on both sides, but the statements in this article are really bad. It's yet another case of think tanks (including our friends over at the Progress & Freedom Foundation) setting up a totally bogus strawman, and then destroying it to support their argument. The point of network neutrality isn't some Utopian "everyone must be equal" concept -- but a real concern for a lack of competition in the broadband space. The telcos were given a ton of money in subsidies and incentives to build out a wired, natural monopoly network. The government gave them rights of way which no one else can get. In exchange, they had to open their networks up to others to provide services. In other countries, this has resulted in robust competition and better services -- which was the point.

    With companies like Google and Amazon, that doesn't apply. There was no government granted natural monopoly. There are no rights of way issues. There were no subsidies and incentives in exchange for promises that weren't met. There is no stifling of competition. The purpose of network neutrality isn't a Utopian vision, but a simple response to a natural monopoly where competition is going to lead to better results. To pretend otherwise for the sake of a cheap publicity stunt is really a sad move by a group of people who clearly have no desire to actually discuss the root of the issue.

    by km4 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:18:21 AM PDT

    •  The 'Wild West'...

      although enshrined in hundreds of movies and novels, didn't last all that long.

      The early days of the internet have often been likened to the wild west.

      The long arm of the law eventually arrives. Ownership of everything valuable is established.

      Wealth always trumps freedom.

      Why does anyone think something's changed?

      by Mr X on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 04:08:28 PM PDT

  •  The day the Internet Died

    How truly sad.  Where shall I emigrate?

    by altscott on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:43:35 AM PDT

    •  Google. Dark Fiber.

      pass it on.

      by Cheez Whiz on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:36:34 AM PDT

      •  iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinteresting.

        very much so.

        by baccaruda on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:30:53 AM PDT

      •  The network is not just pipe

        It is also lots of switches and routers.  These thiings are usually the bottlenecks.  Big bucks for Cisco.

        by NHlib on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:54:22 AM PDT

      •  I had a former neighbor

        who worked for Level 3 years back building this type of infrastructure.  He went all over the country setting up their computer management systems at switching facilities, etc.  Lots of $$$ worth of investment and I always wondered how they were going to recoup it all.  Now I'm getting the idea.  I think.

        by gatorcog on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:41:30 PM PDT

      •  I hope so

        If COPE passes the Senate without Net Neutrality, I would love to see Google purchase a large amount of dark fiber and start up the Google ISP/telco Corp.

        by Canootsun on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:22:57 PM PDT

  •  Where there is a will there is a way!

     Especially on the internet.

    by missliberties on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:57:52 PM PDT

    •  Small Internet Business

      Aren't there any other companies on the net who would want to get involved in this fight?  Ask them if they trust a few telco companies not to mess with the future of their industry.  

      by medleysoul on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:10:41 PM PDT

•  kudos to Louise Slaughter for

  trying so hard and for keeping us informed.  It's a pity that though her diary yesterday made the rec list there was not more discussion.
  But people will go on a meta dairy about nothing and slug it out for hours.
  Al Gore and many other politicians I respect have said we need to keep the internet free and open.  When will we pay attention?

  by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 04:44:22 AM PDT

  •  Does anyone have a link to Louise's diary

    from yesterday.

    I tried a search on "Louise Slaughter", Diaries By, and came up empty.

    by CitizenOfEarth on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:35:17 AM PDT

    •  here it is

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      by BlueInARedState on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:38:25 AM PDT

  •  I think that the 'we' (people)...

    Are paying attention, more attention generally to issues than ever before in my memory (which goes back a fair number of years).  What this instance illustrates is that the politicians, as has always been the case in my lifetime, are paying scant attention, if any at all, to the 'we', to the people -- and far more to the money-bags lobbyists.

    by wgard on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:29:05 AM PDT

    •  good point

      however I still think that people here on dkos are more interested in metadiaries about blog celebrities than actually protecting the internet they spend so much time on.  
      I am glad to see this diary has made it to the rec list.

      by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:08:22 AM PDT

      •  Perhaps...

        You are right about people's interests here.  And I too am glad to see the diary on the rec list!  

        CheersL)

        by wgard on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:26:11 AM PDT

      •  That is is my gut feeling too TinPa...

        people here on dkos are more interested in metadiaries about blog celebrities than actually protecting the internet they spend so much time on.

        Personally, if contributors had spent just a fraction of the time they use here and contacted their reps BEFORE this went to vote, it may have made more of an impact on the outcome how they voted.

        I would hope that the community of DKos really lives up to Kos' expectations as exerpted from his keynote speech:

        That's why people-power is taking the nation by storm.

        Because the media elite failed us. The political elite - from both parties - failed us. Republicans because they can't govern, and Democrats because they can't get elected. Our leaders failed us. Our issue groups failed us.

        So now it's our turn.

        It's our turn to inject some good ol' fashioned common sense into  Washington D.C. It's our responsibility to demand accountability and reform from the Democratic Party and allied organizations that claim to represent our interests.

        It's about getting organized and speaking out as ONE VOICE to get the message across, showing strength in unity and flexing the power of the people... all of us working together.

        by Hippichick45 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:27:00 AM PDT

        •  i would have to guess

            that my republican congress man hate the net, for organizing against them.  As well as fearing the people having any input, and rocking thier gravy boats, it is truly pathetic.  I met my congressman once and addressed the free press issue, he was in  total denial,  they lie.  Republican politicans are liars plain and simple. When the Iran story broke a few weeks ago a senator of ours was in europe, denouncing the source, can't remember for sure if it was a Sy Hersh story or Chomsky, our esteemed senator made them appear fringe.  It's all about perception, and power and dollars.  

          by Sophie Blue on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:33:52 AM PDT

        •  I would like to see

          diaries at least once a day that focused on some action.  Even if it is filling up the email at some media outlet.  We have had days like that and I do think it makes a difference.

          by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:51:00 AM PDT

          •  A daily call to action...

            It is so important and doesn't take a lot of time.  

            Flooding email inboxes seems relevant in light of the the old "use it or lose it" concept.

            Me, I got dragged into volunteering for our phone bank which takes 8 hours a week out of my life, but is beginning to show signs of actually working to get various messages out to non-netizens of the Democratic persuasion.

            by Hippichick45 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:03:39 AM PDT

          •  Yes...

            and there should be an EMERGENCY YearlyKos panel devoted to this.

            Like...NOW!

            by maxschell on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:59:07 AM PDT

      •  Yep

        There's a certain irony about reading all the startruck postings, and all the grandiose self-congratulatory stuff surrounding Yearly Kos....while the fundamental underlying basis of all of it being blown away.

        It's like Vegas partying away your seed corn, and the coming home to starve. Where were the whip lists? The folks who worked on them were too busy laying down cash on 38 Black, or chatting up a celeb.

        by ElitistJohn on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:46:20 AM PDT

        •  The $64,000 question is

          What are we going to do about it?

          If there is this much outrage among us for having let it get THIS FAR, what is the next logical step in defeating it or taking the "wind out of the sails," so to speak?

          by Hippichick45 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:21:33 AM PDT

          •  Well...

            The problem is that anyone who can take free time during the say to create whip lists is also someone with the time to go lay down cash on 38 black.

            The next step is the Senate, and hopefully people will be over their "I got to talk to Warner!!!" naval gazing by then.

            by ElitistJohn on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:14:03 AM PDT

          •  Encourage and educate

            since government has once again failed miserably the only other way is to vote with your pocketbook.
            Mass cancellations of internet service.
            Mass cancellations of internet service.
            Mass cancellations of internet service.
            Can't be emphasized enough.

            by Lasthorseman on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:06:39 AM PDT

        •  Couldn't have said it better

          Excuse me while I go "crash a gate."

          by NebraskaDem on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:04:01 AM PDT

    •  The paying attention baby

      Was just born and is taking baby steps.  Soon we will be walking and running.  It is my fervent hope that we are just beginning to shine the light of day on these issues.

      by mojavefog on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:01:47 PM PDT

  •  The Dark Side

    I just read that our very progressive Rep. in NM3, Tom Udall, voted for the odious COPE bill. He voted on the same side as our rightwingnut Rep. from NM2, Steve Pearce. Meanwhile, Republican Heather Wilson (NM1), voted against COPE and for net neutrality.

    I just don't understand these votes at all. How could Rep. Tom Udall, usually so progressive in his votes and his positions, vote for this monstrosity? Are he and other Dems who voted for the bill that ignorant about what it would really mean for ordinary internet users? Or are they just taking too much money from telecom and cable corps?

    by barbwire on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:24:34 AM PDT

    •  Write him and ask

      I want to hear the defenses.

      Jerks!

      by SarahLee on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:11:33 AM PDT

      •  I already know

        I already know what he will say. Udall will say we need to pass this to get broadband to the poor and rural parts of NM, many of which he represents.

        Udall voted for the Markey amendment but then caved on the bill itself. I read on MyDD that many Dems did so to cover their asses with their donors since they couldn't have won anyway. Lame. Lame. Lame.

        by barbwire on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:12:42 PM PDT

    •  Sheila Jackson Lee and Corrine Brown, too

      You have to figure those lobbyists were handing out SERIOUS payola.  SJL is the one who went to town in the House over the 2000 election.

      by Eleanor A on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:33:00 AM PDT

•  Recommended. This is among the biggest issues

  for us on two counts. First, it's obviously important to the progressive agenda. Second, and perhaps more importantly, this is something that our republican family, friends and neighbors would likely oppose, if they knew it was happening.

  by VetGrl on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 04:47:01 AM PDT

  •  The thing is that the interested corporations

    ran those VERY misleading ads and I don't know who could have countered them, but it seems no one did.  

    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:17:25 AM PDT

    •  This one's up to us, grassroots all the way

      I've gotten some people thinking about this issue. Ordinary folks care about this, if we talk about it right. Sounding the free speech alarm won't cut it with some people; they'll hear "conspiracy theory" and tune you out.

      Talk about Grandma's family tree web page or how the person will have to pay more to be in the fast lane. Mention to the web shopper that his/her choices will be limited. It's things like this that will get people who don't consider themselves to be political interested.

      by VetGrl on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:46:12 AM PDT

      •  I don't know if you are familiar with the ads

        but here is the big thing that they claim that makes the granny story for our side difficult:

        They say that the reason why people in rural areas only have one choice is that we do have net neurtrality - the reality is that the companies are holding rural areas hostage by claiming that they can't "afford" to go in.  It is total bull.  For about four years now I have avocated the Democrats taking up high speed internet access for all throughout this country they way Rural Home Free Delivery was championed in the late 1800's - that was the birth of the Sears catalogue by the way - and changed forever how rural areas could compete with the rest of the coutry.  Of course, at that time market forces were in agreement with that populist project.  It doesn't help that there is a bill going through Congress right now that is supported by UPS - DON"T USE UPS - which seeks to kill the Postal Service as we know it and have you start having to pay for your home delivery with private companies - presumably UPS sees itself as the primary benefactor of such a shift.  

        It is all fucked up and the fact that there are so many people in Congress who are willing to fuck Americans is really begining to overwhelm me frankly.  The internet - a free internet - offers people in podunk no where an opportunity to compete in a free market like never before, but there is no one in Congress who really sees that.  Even some of our champions of Net Neutrality don't fully understand that concept - I don't think at least because I would think they would have used that as part of their argument...  sorry - I am so cranky today about the state of our country and frankly our party's ability to communicate too.

        by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:57:17 AM PDT

        •  Not at all; I don't know how to do it, but it

          seems what we really need is a way to talk about the bigger concept of "privatization" and it's equally damaging sibling, "deregulation."

          And I share your frustration. I have plenty of days where I have to force myself to be optimistic. If I didn't, I think I would go insane.

          by VetGrl on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:34:38 AM PDT

          •  Privatization is about to get worse

            USA Today had a story yesterday about how states are considering leasing highways, etc..., to private companies for short-term finaiancial gains.

            An excerpt:

            By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
            States and local governments across the USA are preparing to cash in valuable public assets for one-time windfalls that could reap tens of billions of dollars.

            Illinois hopes to get at least $10 billion by selling its lottery and an additional $15 billion for leasing all or part of the 274-mile Illinois Tollway. Missouri plans to auction its student loan portfolio. Pennsylvania is considering leasing its highways, and Chicago is studying a plan to lease Midway Airport to private investors.

            The deals would let governments collect billions of extra dollars without raising taxes but would reduce their future revenue.

            Investment banker Carol Rein of UBS Securities says foreign investors like government assets in this country because similar investment opportunities in Europe and Australia have been successful. Assets such as toll roads and water systems are attractive to investors because they have little competition and generate steady revenue.

            I don't know when it happened but it seems that the marriage between religious conservatives and corporatisits has left us with representatives at every level of government who are not interested in working for the people anymore, but instead are only interested working for the highest bidder.

            The next thing up for sale after the highways and lotteries will be the national parks, no doubt.  They are already trying to sell off forests and mining areas.  

            Meanwhile, people are too caught up ,in their own lives just trying to get by so they don't even notice what is happening.  But, when they do get a chance to watch the news, they get it from the same corporations that stand to benefit in some way from the sales.  

             

            by LionelEHutz on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:06:27 AM PDT

            •  It all scared the shit out of me

              but you can see where financially strapped states are going to be reaching for any and every proposal they can find to pay for things that they no longer have funds for.

              It is that wonderful trickle down deficit.

              We can thank that huge war machine at the top of the hill for consuming the resources everything down hill needs to survive.

              by SarahLee on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:18:22 AM PDT

              •  And

                we can thank Grover Norquist and the anti-tax idiots who have convinced all the non-thinkers that America just functions magically all by itself and there is no such thing as the common good.

                by papercut on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:52:42 AM PDT

        •  In NY State, Spitzer is making rural broadband

          part of his gurbernatorial platform.  

          An excerpt:

          That's why today I am proposing that New York launch a comprehensive statewide broadband initiative to ensure universal access to affordable, high-speed broadband service for every New Yorker. We must make New York State the most connected and technologically advanced place to live and do business in the world. The problem isn't a lack of resources, it's a lack of imagination and a lack of leadership.

          When the federal government drops the ball the state governors need to pick up the slack.  If Democratic governors across the country did this, as Gov. Warner already has in Virginia, they'd make a lot of friends in the "red" rural areas of their states.  (The Warner link is just one example.  A google search yields many more hits)  

          by LionelEHutz on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:58:00 AM PDT

          •  It will be difficult to sell at $5/minute though

            That is the thing...  Some things need federal rules to make them really work for everyone in the country - but I applaud loudly and cheer Spitzer for picking this up.  You know it is funny because in a state like NY - part of the reason he even understands is that so many people in Manhattan go away for August to the country and these days they need to stay connected.  But the reality is that it is so important and it is great that he is picking up the ball.

            by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:16:22 AM PDT

      •  Okay now that I have gotten my temper tantrum

        out of the way...

        Here is my suggestion:  The first grassroots attack - and I mean attack - needs to be aimed at our party leadership.  A letter to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid copying Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer needs to be penned regarding the importance of Net Neutrality to American People - we'll have to remind them that they exist probably - but let's try anyway.  The reality is that if Net Neutrality dies this blog and every other Liberal blog will die - yeah Rahm thinks that would be good for him - but in reality this echo chamber has made him some serious money and that is what is in it for him - money and power. Don't copy Dean or yell at him because there is nothing he can do to politically change this course.  Stay focused on our elected leadership and get them in line.  

        58 Dems voted against Net Neutrality yesterday.  That is VERY bad.  So we have to get this onto the docket as part of the deal if you want to be part of the party.  This is the kind of thing that frustrates me - we all think our party supports something and then our party doesn't actually support it as it turns out.  We have to get that sorted FIRST before we make claims to people about what our party will do.

        Then we have to start to communicate with Americans somehow and tell them that they want Net Neutrality.  But we have to be able to promise in ernest that our party will fight for this - a promise we can't make right now given yesterday's vote.

        Thanks for your consideration.

        by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:24:50 AM PDT

        •  those 58 Dems who voted against Net Neutrality...

          ...is there some way we can make them feel the pain of what they've done?  I checked the list.  My own Representative voted for the provision;  the one in the adjacent district voted against.

          by Big River Bandido on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:05:26 AM PDT

          •  Well they are up for re-election this very year..

            n/t

            by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:23:42 AM PDT

            •  For God's sake,Dan Burton

              of Indiana who is one of the most right wing Rethugs voted for net neutrality and 58 Dems. voted no.Its the power of money,money,money.

              by Litvak36 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:06:40 AM PDT

          •  no netroots for them

            i'd say our answer should be simple.

            reject any please to raise money for them on the net.  and any internet savvy campaigners should simply refuse to use their internet skills for these candidates.  or perhaps better, sign on and bollix the whole thing up.

            by zeke L on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:48:24 AM PDT

        •  inc with the link

          this is the correct link to use, for the markey amendment on net neutrality

          it's kind of hard to load, ironically enough.  or maybe that's not irony.

          anyway, the link above in the diary is the wrong one.  that's to COPE itself, not the net neutrality provision.

          by zeke L on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:46:04 AM PDT

      •  a silver lining in the dark cloud

        is that the lack of net neutrality may make it take a little longer for the NSA to call up grandma's family tree web page.

        Pentagon sets its sights on social networking websites

        by waterdancer on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:22:34 AM PDT

        •  Pentagon sets its sights on social networking web

          from the above link-

          New Scientist has discovered that Pentagon's National Security Agency, which specialises in eavesdropping and code-breaking, is funding research into the mass harvesting of the information that people post about themselves on social networks. And it could harness advances in internet technology - specifically the forthcoming "semantic web" championed by the web standards organisation W3C - to combine data from social networking websites with details such as banking, retail and property records, allowing the NSA to build extensive, all-embracing personal profiles of individuals.

          by waterdancer on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:43:52 AM PDT

    •  Those ads were killers

      My sister in the DC area is fairly computer savvy, works online at the office but not net connected at home (go figure -- she's my sister, I love her anyway) and she was fed those ads for who knows how long and swallowed the telcos reasoning completely!  It was really alarming talking to her -- those were really effective ads...especially for folks who do not see the net-neutrality discussions on-line.  

      We have not seen the ads here in South TX.  Must have been designed to grind the msg into the heads of the decision makers (or are they "mini-deciders" now? ....like mini-me....)

      If they heard a lie repeated often enough, they came to believe...

      by blue armadillo on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:21:11 AM PDT

      •  They were out right lies actually and it was

        very disturbing to see absolutely NO response.  I don't know how to link pictures and video so I didn't diary it - I also am not one of the policy wonks around here that understands every line of the bill or even the mechanics of net Neutrality - EVERY diary written about it was so technorati that I tuned out completely and I am reasonably smart about the internet, communications and how laws are written...

        Our opponents on the other hand in 30 seconds basically said, "Net Neutrality is bad and it will make all of your bills go up and you won't have internet" - paraphrased - but they almost had me calling the number.  Kos and the others while well intentioned actually muddled my mind with too much information.  Sometimes it is enough just to tell people something is bad for them and not go into the dirty detail of how or why unless they ask.

        by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:29:42 AM PDT

        •  Are these the 'TV freedom' ads?

          I caught one with that line. But I confess that I don't watch much television (except Turner Classics, which is ad free) so I'm pretty clueless on this score.

          by VetGrl on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:36:51 AM PDT

          •  No different but I think they could

            all be traced back to the same sources.  However, they are a crock of bull -

            Here is a link to TV Freedom Ads

            Okay finally found one of the ads from Hands Off the Internet showing an empty dirt road and then road signs in a static video shot while they tell you that Net Neutrality is going to make YOU pay.

            It is one in a series from front organizations.  It was a serious and effective disinformation campaign - really I believed them.  I thought they were talking about what Kos was talking about for a while because they said things about big corporations stealing your internet and stuff.  No response from us.  Chirp.

            by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:08:16 AM PDT

          •  Sourcewatch has this about the

            "Hands off the Internet" group - Scroll down the page for the funders of the astroturf group

            by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:10:44 AM PDT

        •  Yes -- they made it simple

          That has been the beauty of the opposition's success -- they distill very complex issues into a simple message that gets to the heart of the "what's in it for me" side of human nature -- then repeat it endlessly until it is ingrained in people's brains and they think these are thoughts they had themselves.

          It is scary.  It makes it hard to argue against intelligently too.

          We need super-message-distillers on the progressive side.

          That is how we'll get more folks to listen -- you have to make an issue simple to understand and show folks how they benefit.

          by blue armadillo on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:50:32 AM PDT

          •  We cannot do that

            It is scary.  It makes it hard to argue against intelligently too

            That is how fascism won in Germany. One cannot argue intelligently against propaganda armed at a peanut-brained audience.

            Furthermore, the cost of those ads run in millions.

            We need super-message-distillers on the progressive side.

            "message distilling" is nothing more then creation of Goebels-like propaganda. The whole point of our position is that it is intelligent, ergo it requires some thought process on the part of the recipient. If we are to follow the other side's method, i.e. manipulation of morons via moronic messages appealing to emotion often repeated, then I fail to see the point of the whole thing other then gaining power over the brain-dead sheep to steer them away from the butcher's knife.

            In fact, I am having a really hard time seeing the point anymore. It is an undeniable fact that majority of people appear to be nothing more then cattle and trying to save them from their own stupidity is getting really tiring and depressing.

            Perhaps I should start stealing, cheating, lying and ripping them off instead.

            And join the "conservatives".

            Get fat, rich and fuck it all.  Help to speed the destruction along.

            Face it, the bad guys are winning all over and the sheep are not likely to wake up, even when lined up on the ramp to the slaughterhouse. Why should I suffer for these morons, spending my time trying to help them? I could be living rich of the chickanery and lagrasse and position myself as a master, rather then a slave, laughing at these "common folks" all the way to the bank. It is pretty much obvious now that they will get slaughtered one way or another. Perheaps some future generations will be better. I no longer hold any hope for this one.

            I am really starting to wonder if having a conscience is an evolutionary loser trait.

            by IgnoramusMaximus on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:00:40 AM PDT

        •  What response could there have been?

          Can you run a countering ad on tv? Probably not, telcos wouldn't allow that. A press conference? Blah blah blah, public doesn't care. And the news isn't going to pick it up. They're partnered with the telcos.
          
          Frankly, I'd like to see someone take the ads, redub them pointing out the bullshit and then post them to YouTube.

          by abnormalbrain on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:53:59 AM PDT

          •  Well that is a good response...

            But we could have run ads too.  

            by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:22:45 AM PDT

          •  Banner Ads on Google, Amazon, EBay etc.

            I wish the stakeholders on the Net Neutrality side had done more to inform their customers, members and visitors on this issue. When I go through my satellite channel listing, I inevitably find a channel that says something like "call to oppose State X's broadcasting laws" - why couldn't Amazon, Google, EBay and other big players with an interest in preserving Net Neutrality adopt a similar strategy on their sites? It sure would have helped raise awareness with the 'average internet user.'

            by gblase on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:36:25 AM PDT

  •  Mass cancellations of internet service.

    Vote with your pocketbook.

    by Lasthorseman on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:08:00 AM PDT

•  this is incredibly bad news

  wtf can we do and how fast can we do it????

  by peterbernard209 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:03:30 AM PDT

  •  FreePress.net

    FreePress.net is among the best sites on this.

    http://freepress.net/

    by VetGrl on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:36:46 AM PDT

  •  I emailed my rep and said shame on you.

    I will never feel the same about this Dem Congressman since supporting this terrible bill.

    by phild1976 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:47:31 AM PDT

    •  Which Dem did it?

      Which dem did it? Big business likes to split the left and the right by making us afraid of each other just like the did with different ethnic strikers.  It's time for us to join up on this one.  

      by medleysoul on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 04:03:40 PM PDT

•  4.95 per hour

  do you want your ISP to charge you 4.95 per hour that you visit Daily Kos?

  by Tamifah on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:09:04 AM PDT

  •  or how about 99 cents

    per page view?

    by Tamifah on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:12:14 AM PDT

  •  another model

    A more likely model is that the ISP will try to charge any "content" provider to allow its content over its internet access lines. That provider would them have to pass the cost to the users via subscription, or eat the costs or pass it to advertisers. For example, Comcast could charge Ebay to allow its users to access Ebay through Comcast access lines because Comcast may also own shopping services, though the excuse would be that Ebay "eats up" too much bandwidth. This is the wet dream of the internet service providers. If it's left up to the present FCC to intervene under present rules, don't expect much as the GOP majority of the FCC strongly favors the major phone companies and follow whatever the White House policy is (see my other comment about the White House).

    by drsmith131 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:24:16 AM PDT

    •  That's likely how it'll pan out

      As a webmaster I already pay for the bandwidth I "eat" - I pay those bandwidth fees to my host. There are hundreds of thousands of small website operators and small businesses whose livelihood could be impacted by having to pay additional fees for users to be able to access their websites.

      There's already some evidence that ISP's may be blocking competing content - http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/...

      by TheSourcesAss on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:08:14 AM PDT

    •  Exactly

      Passing direct usage charges on to the end user would draw too much attention to what they're doing. If all of a sudden an ISP bill were 40 pages long, people would be flipping out and demanding action.

      This is what we'll see the telcos do if this becomes law, in approximately this order:

      1. Demand large payments/surcharges from the biggest providers (google, myspace, etc).

      2. Increase end user bills 10-20%, just for the fuck of it.

      3. Slowdown or even total blockage of politically damaging (to the telcos) sites.

      4. Emergence of telco owned services which compete directly with the extortion victims in step 1 above (google too slow? Use verizon's new search engine!)

      5. Slowdown or even total blockage of politically damaging (to the Rethugs) sites as payback for getting this legislation done.

      We gotta get after the Senate, big time, to kill this bill.

      by Strat on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:20:58 AM PDT

      •  ...and then content providers

        ...will end up having to charge subscription fees for content. Etailers will pass their costs onto the consumer in the form of higher prices or "membership fees".

        by TheSourcesAss on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:30:44 AM PDT

      •  I may have to start reading books again.

        by naltikriti on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:36:55 AM PDT

•  Interesting Timing

  With this being the weekend of YKos.  Maybe Kossacks there can use the media to let people know what has happened.

  by d3n4l1 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:09:59 AM PDT

  •  we desperately

    need a full-out media blitz on this.. i don't know why kos isn't pushing this on the FP as big news.

    say goodbye to a beautiful and amazing medium.

    by periphrastik on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:14:09 AM PDT

    •  welcome to the information super

      bridge to nowhere

      by Tamifah on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:15:08 AM PDT

      •  See what its like

        when someone considers your free speech to be unacceptable?

        by d3n4l1 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:26:46 AM PDT

        •  ill take your bait

          at a later date

          by Tamifah on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:37:10 AM PDT

        •  your comment yesterday

          which received over 20 troll ratings, deserved to be hidden.

          by BlueInARedState on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:42:01 AM PDT

          •  I don't even know what I wrote

            that was so offensive.  Could you refresh my memory?

            by d3n4l1 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:50:14 AM PDT

    •  Kos and people at YK

      are still asleep I'm sure.  These things were passed at 9 and 10pm eastern last night.  

      Hopefully this will get some attention at YK today and tomorrow.  After all we have the leader of both the House and the Senate attending.

      Nancy Pelosi voted the right way, but too many dems voted the wrong way.  Now it's up to Harry Reid to stop this thing or get it changed.  I have no idea how likely that is.  

      by joanneleon on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:55:38 AM PDT

      •  I think there's a better chance in the Senate

        I think more Senators "get it" and it appears to have bi-partisan support - Snowe co-sponsored the legislation with Dorgan on the Dem side. IMO Dorgan is one of the most articulate debators we have. I saw  Wyden address this on the Floor on CSPAN a few weeks ago and he's passionate about this.

        by TheSourcesAss on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:17:50 AM PDT

        •  Ted Stevens

          is willing to compromise, i heard.

          by periphrastik on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:22:25 AM PDT

          •  is that

            Good or bad? I wasn't able to figure out his position on this from the information I could find.

            by TheSourcesAss on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:39:46 AM PDT

            •  If he got his bridge to nowhere maybe he would

              be less cranky

              by LionelEHutz on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:09:30 AM PDT

            •  I'm posting a diary in a minute explaining

              the Ted Stevens deal.

              by periphrastik on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:26:54 AM PDT

            •  link

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              by periphrastik on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:54:52 AM PDT

        •  check this out

          the government is apparently announcing its decisions directly to the telecom lobbyists now.

          by periphrastik on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:36:01 AM PDT

    •  Viral Video

      IMO a viral video showing what the Net will be like without Net Neutrality could be extremely effective if done right. The videos I've seen up to this point were like watching a bowl of oatmeal and didn't even explain what Net Neutrality IS.

      by TheSourcesAss on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:45:18 AM PDT

      •  'Moby' must have been reading my mind

        This is on the front page of Save the Internet -

        http://www.youtube.com/...

        This definitely does the trick.

        by TheSourcesAss on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:25:27 AM PDT

      •  A backed up toll road perhaps?

        by Saturnalia on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:32:56 AM PDT

•  I thought today was a second day

  of debate on it.  They really want to silence the blogosphere.

  by d3n4l1 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:10:51 AM PDT

  •  So did everyone

    But in typical House Republican fashion they snuck it through late last night.

    by TheSourcesAss on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:52:30 AM PDT

•  The White House came against net neutrality

  From a Dow Jones article, here.

  The White House also came out against giving federal regulators new powers to enforce a policy statement issued last August that said that consumers should be able to access lawful content, run any application they choose, connect their own lawful devices and have the benefit of competition.

  The Bush administration said that the Federal Communications Commission "has sufficient authority to address potential abuses in the marketplace," and that any legislation was "premature."

  The opposition marks a blow to companies such as Google Inc. (GOOG), Yahoo Inc. (YHOO) and other Web sites that have been lobbying for what is known as " network neutrality." The concept is that phone and cable companies should be banned from charging extra fees to Web sites for priority delivery of their content.

  by drsmith131 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:14:50 AM PDT

  •  They are going to pretend that this is about porn

    when we all know it isn't.  It is about money and  silencing opposition.

    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:18:54 AM PDT

•  Ugh!

  My Congressman Bobby Jindal voted for it. Yeah, he's going to get a stern talking to from me (I would say tongue lashing, but I prefer not to have "tongue lashing" and "Bobby Jinday" so close together).

  All I can say is crap. crap. crap. What's our next move?

  by SundayHighway on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:23:51 AM PDT

•  Gary Ackerman is getting a call from me

  My Congressman's office will know my displeasure today at his obvious pandering to the CWA. I support unions but not when that support puts money in their pockets and screws me totally. At that point they can go fuck themselves. You know what, Gary Ackerman can go fuck himself too. I'll vote for a brick before I vote for him again.

  by Splicer on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:31:44 AM PDT

•  Rob Andrews NJ-01 voted for it

  My Congressman is one of the dems who voted for this bill.  He will get reelected easily too.  He also voted for the bankruptcy bill and other things that I have strongly disagreed with.  He's so popular that there isn't a chance of replacing him.  Hopefully this will change.  People don't pay enough attention to the key issues that he votes the wrong way on.  

  I'm sure there was a lot of pressure from Verizon in NJ.  

  He has his eyes set on the Senate.  NJ voters, keep this in mind when this man tries for Sen. Lautenberg's seat in the future - do not vote for him in a primary.

  by joanneleon on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:33:17 AM PDT

•  NEO-CON's want to take away the Soap Boxes

  If the media ia all owned and controlled by NEO-CON's..if the Internet is controlled and not accessable to the poor and middle class. If we can no longer do it the easy way then we'll have to take to the streets.
  Some of us are not kidding....we know that eventually the only way to be victorious is to have a progressive revolution. I don't want war or people getting hurt. What we need is to cut them off at the knee's......

  We will probably be forced to take to the streets...and not for an hour or a day...but to win at all cost.

  by JellyPuddin on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:34:07 AM PDT

  •  Absolutely

    This is a huge deal.  

    Q: we will be able to show our future generations the power of the internet for free speech, or will we only be able to tell them about how it was?

    This is an attack by the highest powers that be.  The want the internet to look like basic cable; expensive, boring, controlled news.

    by Deadicated Marxist on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:40:06 AM PDT

    •  History is written by the victors.

      If the telcos win, this will eventually be a nonstory. It took less than fifteen years to re-write the story of the Vietnam War, and the true meaning of Watergate, which allowed Chimpoleon to do the nasty all over again.

      The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the story of the American Revolution, have become soporific fairy tales, arranged currently to put us to sleep. Caveat lector.

      by sravaka on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:11:54 AM PDT

  •  We may need to take a page from the book these

    students in Chili are writing:

    A national strike called by the Coordinating Assembly of Grade School Students paralysed the Chilean education system on Monday. Teenagers occupied schools, barricading the entrances with desks, while riots raged for 10 hours in Santiago as police used tear gas and water cannon on marching students. Around 370 people were arrested.

    [...]

    Monday's strike was the largest in Chilean history. Authorities were stunned by the organisation of the protest, now widely known as "the march of the penguins" - in reference to the protesters' school uniforms.

    Using the internet and cell phones, the students have rewritten the rules of dissent with their ability instantly to organise marches and make collective decisions. The organisers are very young, with an average age of 16, and their support goes all the way down to 11-year-olds, who organise forums and debate the right to a free education, turning their break into a civics lesson.

    Hundreds of colleges are occupied and classes have been cancelled for the past 10 days. Alliances between poor students at state schools and pupils in the private education system have erased the usual class lines that mark Chilean social protests.

    http://education.guardian.co.uk/...

    by SarahLee on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:45:04 AM PDT

•  This is terrible news.

  They would sell their own children's future down the river to hold onto power.

  Question: I think I have a handle on how this affects you in the US.  Will it affect those of us outside who are using sites inside?

  by lmd71 on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 05:36:16 AM PDT

  •  I'm 99.999% certain...