Skip to main content

Keith Olbermann wants to convince us that we need to put the Internet under the control of the FCC. He knows that the Tea Party is a popular target for the left so on Friday's Countdown, Keith Olbermann used a discussion of Tea Party opposition to the FCC takeover of the Internet to equate opposition to FCC control of the Internet with opposition to network neutrality.

Keith Olbermann knows that many people on the left will be for Net Neutrality just because they believe the Tea Party is against it, so he tells us at the beginning of the show

"Guess who‘s against net neutrality? The Tea Party, naturally."

Then before a commercial break he tells us again:

If you didn‘t have net neutrality, you might have to pay extra to see mindless anti-mosque protests on the Internet.  So naturally the Tea Party would defend net neutrality to the death, right.  Nuh-uh.  Turns out they‘re in the pocket of the corporations too.

When he finally does get to the segment, he tells us a third time that the Tea Party is opposed to net neutrality:

Net neutrality is so vital to a free and open Internet, it is, in practical applications, so popular to anyone who uses the Internet, that it would be hard to see why it would be opposed by anyone other than corporations or their minions.  But in our third story, it‘s happened. Corporate minions, Tea Party, reservation for 35.

Most of this segment is spent in a discussion with Amanda Terkel of ThinkProgress.com about just how stupid the Tea Party is to oppose net neutrality. And his proof that the Tea Party is opposed to net neutrality:

A coalition that includes 35 Tea Party groups writing a letter to the FCC.  Quoting, "we the undersigned, representing millions of American citizens, write in strong opposition to the Federal Communications Commission‘s effort to regulate the Internet."

Might as well pause right there, because if ever there were an instance in which so-called government regulation maximized access to information, net neutrality is it.

Yes let's pause right there, because I want to point out to you that Keith Olbermann has just equated "opposition to the Federal Communications Commission‘s effort to regulate the Internet" with opposition to net neutrality. That one sentence he quoted from the letter can't be his whole basis, thrice repeated, for his claim that the Tea Party is against net neutrality can it? That would be a real leap in logic wouldn't it?

So let's look at this Tea Party letter in a little more detail. Keith Olbermann has already given you the substance of the first and most important sentence, they are expressing strong opposition to FCC efforts to regulate the Internet. They specifically mention net neutrality only twice, so let's look at those references:

Earlier this year, a U.S. Court of Appeals found that the Commission was attempting to "shatter" the bounds of its legal authority by trying to enact Net Neutrality regulations without Congressional authority. We view this renewed effort by the FCC to reclassify the Internet under Title II as even more unfounded and onerous.

In the first sentence, I see a fair statement of what happened. In the second sentence I see strong opposition to the FCC reclassifying the Internet under Title II. How is that opposition to net neutrality unless you equate support for net neutrality with support for the regulation of the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934? 1934!. The other place where they mention net neutrality is when they say:

The Internet has never been a regulated utility and we urge you to keep it that way by rejecting so-called "Net Neutrality" regulations on the Internet and the proposed Title II reclassification.

Now here I think it is fair to say that they are equating 'so-called "Net Neutrality" regulations with FCC Title II reclassification and opposing both, but in my experience, when one uses the adjective 'so-called' and puts the thing in quotes, what one is really saying is that the thing is not real, that you think it is a fraud.

Some may opportunistically draw the conclusion from this letter that the Tea Party is opposed to real net neutrality but I think that is wrong. I think a fair reading of the letter is that they are opposed to an FCC takeover of the Internet and they think Net Neutrality is a bogus excuse for it.

MSNBC wants you laughing and joking about the Tea Party being stupid again, while they sow more confusion about the topic at hand. Terkel floats the notion that net neutrality will mean unlimited bandwidth for little or nothing:

Without net neutrality, what can happen is that a Tea Party—a small Tea Party group in some state in the country will decide to start a website, but it may be slower because they don‘t have the money to pay the Internet Service Providers to make their site go faster.  So you won‘t be able to go to their site as quickly, and you‘ll probably get frustrated and won‘t go.  And you will go to one of the large corporations that are able to pay to make their site go quicker.

 {{We have net neutrality NOW! You get the bandwidth you pay for NOW! Get the Net! }}

Countdown would have me believe that if we get their Net Neutrality my own little VietnamAmericanHolocaust.com will run as fast as the Fox News website. Not so.

Keith Olbermann goes further than saying the Tea Party is opposed to new FCC Net Neutrality regulations. He accuses them of wanting "to eliminate net neutrality" and the lesson he wants us to take way from his show is that we need the government to step in:

TERKEL:   But, honestly, government has always had to step in to protect Americans‘ rights.

You notice how no one selling this Net Neutrality Sausage talks about net privacy and how the government is going to protect us in that area. DHS is forcing ISPs to put in extra hard drives so the government can copy everything but we won't talk about that now.

TERKEL: I think this is very clear-cut that we need the government to step in and make sure that these corporations who want to line their pockets can‘t just step in and mess with what the Internet has been like for Americans so far.

End of Segment.

Keith Olbermann is tripping over himself so badly trying to convince us that we need an FCC takeover of the Internet to save Net Neutrality that he starts doing what he had so often teased George Bush for doing. He starts talking about the Internets! At the beginning of the segment Keith Olbermann recalls:

Net neutrality has become a major issue, you will recall, because Google and Verizon have proposed a framework whereby the FCC would not regulate the wireless Internet, which would allow big companies like Google and Verizon to play favorites as to who and what gets the fastest,  easiest pipeline.  

So now, according to Keith, we have two Internets, a wired Internet and a wireless Internet!

But the FCC could, under at least one reading of its authority, ensure that net neutrality extends to the wireless Internet, as well as to the wired Internet.

And what reading of FCC authority is that Keith? Might it be one that also gives the FCC the authority to regulated anything it damn well pleases on the Internet? I mean, they already let the NSA read our email.

Then there was that gratuitous comment that Marx was a lousy thinker. That was about as accurate as anything else in this segment but it did show that even Keith Olbermann has his points of agreement with the Tea Party. Or since that comment seemed to come out of nowhere, maybe it was an unconscious clue as which side he was on in this debate.

But back to this tale of two Internets. Why has Keith Olbermann stooped to a Bush level understanding of the technology? Keith Olbermann and others have created this fiction of the "wireless Internet" because they want to belittle the significant of the Google/Verizon proposal.

Google has good reasons for wanting matters settled around net neutrality and good reason for wanting to limit the FCC's power in that regard. Last September, AT&T protested to the FCC that Google was violating net neutrality. Google had released a software package, Google Voice, that AT&T feared was cutting into it's revenues. Because Google Voice couldn't connect to all the rural numbers the telecom are required to contact, AT&T asked the FCC to declare Google a common carrier and find them in violation of network neutrality. Net Neutrality, loosely defined, can be very useful to the corporations. This is the way at least one telecom wants to use FCC control of the Internet. It is also another reason why Google partnered with Verizon and not AT&T.

Before Google and Verizon came out with their proposal for legislation on net neutrality, Monday a week ago, the sky was falling. The NYT warned that the 'deal' for 'tiered web pricing' could "overthrow" net neutrality. After it came out and we saw that there was no deal, only a proposal, the pro-FCC forces had to belittle it. One narrative went like this:

"Okay, it's not bad on net neutrality for the traditional 'wired' Internet, but it doesn't impose net neutrality on wireless connections, and the wireless Internet is the future." They don't want to acknowledge the reality that wired verses wireless is only an issue of the 'last mile' connection to the user's device so the Google Verizon proposal on net neutrality on landlines, limited though it may be, protects data for most of it's journey even to wireless devices. Rather than acknowledge that, they have created this tale of two Internets! Thoughout this whole debate, there has been a skillful substitution of the end users perception of the technology for the reality of the technology to win points with the public.  

In almost every area, the Tea Party's views do not need to be distorted to be dis-proven and ridiculed. Who does it serve to misrepresent their views on net neutrality? It drives wedges between people when there are enough already, and it gives the Tea Party something they can point to and say that the left lies and distorts. The anti-government impulses of the Tea Party have led them to oppose what they see as an attempt to panic the nation into putting the World Wide Web under the control of the FCC in the name of protecting net neutrality. That is not the same as opposing net neutrality. I can quote one Tea Party website approvingly. On May 1st they wrote:

The organization Free Press has placed a haunting clock on their blog  claiming that for the past 23 or so days the Internet has been left unregulated Oh, the humanity! The problem is the clock is off by a little over 25 years. That’s when the first dot-com address was purchased and the Internet began its basically unregulated tenure. And I think it’s fair to say the Web has done quite well for itself since that time.

Free Press is referring to the day this month that a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the Federal Communication Commission has absolutely no authority under current law to regulate the Internet with seemingly benign "Net Neutrality" rules. But since this was the first time the FCC tried to lay down its heavy regulatory hand, it’s not like the Commission had any authority to do it before the court ruling. There is no change of precedent here. For the past 23 days, the law of the land is as it’s been for the past 25 years.

Nevertheless, Neutrality proponents continue to paint this as a sudden crisis.

I liked Keith Olbermann's stand on every other question addressed in Friday's Countdown, and I especially liked his Special Comment yesterday about the so-called Gnd Zero mosque, which is why I felt it was important to write this critique. In the past several weeks. there has been a concerted media campaign to panic people into supporting very broad powers for the FCC on the Internet in the name of protecting something we already have, network neutrality.

Keith Olbermann called the Tea Party people who wrote the letter 'corporate minions.' Since we know who's 'corporate minion' he is, perhaps he would be so kind as to assure us that there is no relationship between his support for the FCC position on regulating the Internet, and GE's hope for quick FCC approval of the proposed NBC-Comcast merger.

I don't trust the FCC or think the U.S. government should be more involved in running the Internet than they are now. Yes, each national government should be making sure that neither they nor the companies over which they have jurisdiction, break any well established Internet practices, like network neutrality, but that is all.

Here is a recap of my other DKos dairies on this subject:
Court rules -> Google Must Be Evil & Maximize Profits
EFF on the Google\Verizon Net Neutrality Proposal
Google-Verizon: What is the Free Press Agenda?
End of the Internet As We Know It!
Free Press would make this Illegal!
Google Verizon Announce Terms of Deal

Originally posted to Linux Beach on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:59 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    redlum jak
    •  The diary was against FCC takeover (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clay Claiborne, rfall, Eclectablog

      and KO using the Tea Party as a catylist to drum up progressive support.

      I watched the show last night and I thought the entire piece on Net Neutrality was convoluted.  After he finished - I was wondering what his bitch was about.

      The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

      by ctexrep on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:26:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "I was wondering what his bitch was about" (6+ / 0-)

        OK, so three theories for this confusion:

        1. KO was confusing in how he presented an otherwise critical but complex topic.
        2. KO was wrong, and had to be convoluted to make his point.
        3. You were a little slow last night, and missed what he was saying.

        I vote for number 3, since it happens to me all the time, too.

        ;-)

        "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

        by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:30:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or #4 (4+ / 0-)

          Lobbyist for Clear Channel or someone equally huge and all consuming.

        •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

          It's a fine line between regulating and taking over.  I want the FCC to ensure that it is free and open.  If given too much control though, what's to prevent the FCC, maybe not now but in future administrations from "cracking down" on things it deems inappropriate.  What if a Newt became President, would you be excited about the FCC having too much control over the internet?

          The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

          by ctexrep on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:39:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's why I understand Net Neutrality, and (4+ / 0-)

            ...the FCC enforcement process, as essentially a content-neutral process.

            Then, under any administration, content would not be regulated, just the methods by which any content is delivered over the pipes.

            "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

            by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:16:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Consider what the FCC considers 'indecent' on the (0+ / 0-)

            air waves, consider the diversity of political opinion on the TV system raised up under FCC regulations. Olbermann and Maddow are the best we have and frankly that is very sad. So just when the Feds are tightening up their surveillance and control in every other area of our society, they come up with a plan to protect the Internet from some speculated future threat by putting it under the same regime that has assured corporate control of our telephone and tv systems and the left is 'all aboard."

            What's more. I raise some careful considered questions, and it's "who's paying you?"

            Damn who's paying me, nobody is paying me. Answer the questions.
             

      •  It good to know somebody thinks (0+ / 0-)

        That's why I blog here, hoping that occasionally I'll have a chance to communicate with a critical thinker.

      •  So do YOU understand Net Neutrality? (0+ / 0-)

        Do you understand WHY it is important to have? And what it is going to take to get it?

        --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

        by chipoliwog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:52:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We have NN Now. (0+ / 0-)

          What do you think net neutrality is anyway? You seem to expect something we don't already have with your statement "And what it is going to take to get it?" That makes me think you don't know what net neutrality is. Nobody is violating net neutrality now. Get the Net!

          YOU ARE BEING PLAYED!!!
          •  FCC vs. Madison River Telecom (0+ / 0-)

            In response to a complaint by broadband communications company Vonage Holdings Corp., the U.S. Federal Communications Commission announced on Thursday (March 2005) its ruling that "Madison River shall not block ports used for VOIP applications or otherwise prevent customers from using VOIP applications."   http://bit.ly/...

            They were "fined" $15,000 for this incident.  This follows on similar complaints against Comcast.  Comcast avoided sanction by entering into a traffic agreement with Vonage. But, the principle and authority still holds that the FCC can and will sanction ISP's who block services.

            Still think all of these "volunteer" organizations have any teeth to do that?

            --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

            by chipoliwog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 05:00:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes - if they are blacklisted, they can't operate (0+ / 0-)

              on the Internet. Have you ever seen what happens when a company's servers get blacklisted. What do you think will happen if the 'volunteer organization' that runs the root DNS doesn't allow them to play? As it stands now, in which country and in which courts can Verizon sue to get a domain name taken away from somebody, even verizon.com if someone else registered it first? How exactly would the FCC enforce their will on a domain name issue other than by a complete seizure or complete disruption of the 'all-volunteer' domain name system.

              But also FCC vs. Madison River Telecom just indicates to me that the FCC already has the power it needs. Why does it need new powers? How come nobody seems to come up with a violation on NN where the FCC didn't prevail because it lacked the authority? That's what you need to argue for more authority.

              •  Have you seen whats happening in DNS lately? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rfall

                Already compromised in a number of ways.  

                And what about that IPV6?  Will we ever see it? If not for certain very large monopolies refusing to standardize it in their OS offerings?  e.g. the code is in there but they won't do anything with it. (net neutrality would not solve this either)

                And as for blacklisting, it's pretty rare that that happens on a top level.  It's usually disputes between backbone carriers like Cogent vs. Sprint or some such thing.  Private squabbles that have huge impacts on people.  But net neutrality doesn't speak to those private squabbles. They would continue to occur.

                What would happen is if carrier b refuses or filters carrier a's traffic in such a way that it deliberately degrades the delivery of packets destined for carrier b's network, then that would be a NN violation for which carrier a could file a grievance.

                --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

                by chipoliwog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 06:31:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, and you're brigther than you sound (0+ / 0-)
  •  hmmm, you seem to be very focused (20+ / 0-)

    on this issue.  hope it's paying well.

    republicians believe government can't work, when they're in power, they're right

    by askyron on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:07:34 PM PDT

  •  Although I still think Keith is an..... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, alba, henlesloop, whaddaya

    egotistical douche I agree with him on this.  I am also against ANYTHING and everything Teabaggers are for.

    So if they are against more FCC regulation I am for it.  I don't care if Keith tried to frame it as teabaggers against net neutrality.  I know where he is coming from.  The end!  

  •  your linked Teabagger letter states (24+ / 0-)

    Despite universal acknowledgement that Americans enjoy a free, open, and vibrant Internet, the FCC is
    relentlessly pursuing a massive regulatory regime that would stifle broadband expansion, create
    congestion, slow Internet speeds, jeopardize job retention and growth, and lead to higher prices for
    consumers.

    That is why they are considered stupid beyond repair.

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:10:45 PM PDT

    •  Because, of course, it would do none of (10+ / 0-)

      ...those things.

      stifle broadband expansion, create congestion, slow Internet speeds, jeopardize job retention and growth, and lead to higher prices for consumers.

      Let's look at each one in turn:

      stifle broadband expansion--coded speech for "if we ISPs and carriers can't get uncontrolled and monopolistic access to the means of communication, we will take our fiber and go home".  I call BS.

      create congestion--no, poor management of available bandwidth and oversubscription to networks by carriers hellbent on maximizing profits (you listening AT&T?) are what create congestion.  Any regulation by the FCC wouldn't create such a problem--it already exists.

      slow Internet speeds--WTF?  Oh, you mean if your belief that Network Neutrality means "no bandwidth management allowed" is true--which it isn't.  Fail.

      jeopardize job retention and growth--How?  Oh, wait, this is the usual Teaparty boogeyman about losing jobs if the Free Market is interfered with.  Ayn Rand, you have a call on line 1!

      lead to higher prices for consumers--as if the current state of the Internet hasn't shown the prices in an uncontrolled market go up anyway?  Comcast is a big ISP, and has raised its prices far in excess of inflation for years.

      That enough for you?  You want to go another round, fool?

      "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

      by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:28:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Are you really this stupid? (15+ / 0-)

    {{We have net neutrality NOW! You get the bandwidth you pay for NOW! Get the Net! }}

    OK, deep thinker, what would you say about Comcast's attempts to secretly interfere with legitimate peer-to-peer communications?  Something which the FCC finally stepped in and put a stop to?

    You really don't know anything about the Internet and its operation do you?

    Please, find another subject to expound upon--this one is eluding you.

    "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

    by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:12:32 PM PDT

  •  You got a better definiation? (11+ / 0-)

    Keith Olbermann has just equated "opposition to the Federal Communications Commission‘s effort to regulate the Internet" with opposition to net neutrality.

    If the FCC doesn't provide Net regulation, who will?  The "invisible guiding hand" of the techno-Adam Smith?

    Who?

    "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

    by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:13:40 PM PDT

    •  How is has it been protected for the past 25 yrs? (0+ / 0-)

      Do you think the Internet has just happened? That there has been no 'regulation' till now. What do you think ICANN, W3C, IETF, InterNIC, and the Internet Society are for?

      •  there hasn't been market consolidation before (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rfall

        In "the olden days" the Internet was indeed literally a massive collection of interconnected networks.  You had LOTS of mom and pop ISP's that sold modem connections to their T-1 pipes which were then connected to "Network Access Points" and then "private Peering".  

        Governing all this were the original policies of the National Science Foundation (NSF) that managed the original research networks that became the Internet.  One of those tenants was that there could not be discrimination in the handling of traffic.  You take one packet from a provider, you take them all. (slight oversimplification but you get the gist)

        The economics of the Internet have been based on the concept of "the Long-tail" or a lack of scarcity.  

        Since then, most of those mom and pop ISP's were bought up by bigger ISP's and regional telcos or the telco's got in the business when DSL became prevalent. Then in 1996 with the Telecom act there was a real effort by the government to spur price and service competition between telcos and cable companies.  You see how that has ended up.  There are just 2 major telco's left and the internet connection choices have been either cable or these 2 major telcos.  

        That is until recently.  Now there are a number of wireless broadband services popping up either putting up their own infrastructure or piggybacking on the existing wireless communications infrastructure.

        So, the writing is on the wall, our use of the internet is rapidly migrating to a mobile world even in our homes.  

        Because wireless frequencies are finite, there is a concept that wireless infrastructure is naturally scarce and its use should not be regulated in the same manner as landline infrastructure.  There may be some validity to this model but my position is, I do NOT want the carriers to be the content providers. I want them to ONLY deliver me a dumb pipe.  I am  willing to accept network management only to the extent that applications that call for real time data (voice, video) are given management preference.  And carriers can and do use network caching, and mirroring to bring content within their networks.  But they should not be giving any content provider preferential treatment or charging a premium for it.  I pay for the bandwidth I use and each content provider pays for the bandwidth they consume. The carriers don't get to charge more than twice for bandwidth.  

        Failing to enact network neutrality dooms our internet to looking like facebook or AOL or 1000 channel TV (with nothing to watch).  

        --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

        by chipoliwog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:28:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well said, sir, well said: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chipoliwog

          I want them to ONLY deliver me a dumb pipe.  I am  willing to accept network management only to the extent that applications that call for real time data (voice, video) are given management preference.  And carriers can and do use network caching, and mirroring to bring content within their networks.  But they should not be giving any content provider preferential treatment or charging a premium for it.

          And that is what Net Neutrality is about, in a nutshell.

          It's not about enforcing specific forms of legitimate traffic management.

          It's not about taking away a carrier's right to innovate.

          It's certainly not about "taking over the Internet".

          But it is about seeing to it that a few large corporate interests do not get to decide what does and doesn't go over the pipes, based on either content or the payment of additional monies.

          "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

          by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 06:01:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And none of this requires the Internet (0+ / 0-)

            to be reclassified as under the Comm act of'34. That is about taking over the Internet. Would the power you want to give the FCC also given them the power to declare Google Voice, a piece of software, a violation of NN as AT&T wanted them to do? There goes your innovation.

            •  You really are getting tiresome with this. (0+ / 0-)

              That [the Comm act of'34] is about taking over the Internet.

              Bullshit.  Putting the Internet as a regulatable medium under the Communications Act of 1934 is no more about "taking it over" than was it about "taking over the airwares".

              Which, in any case, would be a strange (and ironical) argument to make since that Act actually brought into existence a vibrant commercial radio industry.

              Would the power you want to give the FCC also given them the power to declare Google Voice, a piece of software, a violation of NN as AT&T wanted them to do? There goes your innovation.

              Jesus Christ, you are grasping for straws.

              No, I would not want the FCC to do AT&T's bidding--and why would Google Voice be a violation of FCC regs under any possible scenario?  If you answer "Well, because as voice data it would get 'preferred' routing", you are dead wrong.

              The example you give, which was a blatantly aggressive move by AT&T to stifle competition in the marketplace, is exactly what would be prevented by Internet regulation.

              Please, for your own sake, come up with better arguments, or you'll continue to be taken as an industry shill.

              "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

              by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:50:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I would have to look at the AT&T filing to the (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bigjacbigjacbigjac

                FCC on this matter tell you what their logic was. I'm sure they had some lawyers make some pretty convoluted arguments, but that has worked before.

                •  My dear Clay, there is a diary up, on the (0+ / 0-)

                  rec list, that you should post comments in, if you feel up to it.

                  I am convinced you have a more nearly correct understanding of the current situation with regards to the Google and Verizon partnership or deal or agreement that is pending, and that has so many upset.

                  I am convinced that you understand Google better than most of the Kosmopolitans here at Daily Kos.

                  I am not a computer geek, but I was born the same year as Bill Gates, I just turned 55, and I worked at OfficeMax for fifteen years, and I saw the Linux Red Hat software boxes, and I remember when WordPerfect was the dominant word processing software, and Bill Gates and his Microsoft, just wished they could somehow catch up with their Word, which I suppose they did.....

                  Anyway, I did not know about the free, or open source debate or struggle, but I get the general idea from your diaries and comments.

                  Above all, whether you are correct or not about what is best for humanity in general when it comes to the internet, I am convinced you are in the category of a sincere Dity Fucking Hippie.

                  By the way, the term, Dirty Fucking Hippie is considered a very positive term here at Daily Kos, as best I understand, so I am using the term to show respect for you.

                  I looked you up, and you are older than I am, and you were in the middle of the counterculture revolution, when I was just a kid, hearing about it in the news.

                  That is why I call you a true Dirty Fucking Hippie.

                  Anyway, whether you are correct or not, you are sincere, you truly feel that you are promoting what will be the best for the greater good.

                  Just as I keep writing diaries about philosophy and contraception, to reduce the overpopulation, before humankind suffers the death of billions from disease, fighting, and famine.

                  So, if you are up to it, comment on this diary:

                  Link.  

                  Peace.

            •  Adding: now that I think about it, your use of (0+ / 0-)

              ...catchphrase like "taking over the Internet" and "stifling innovation" makes me think you are a shill for the industry, or at least buying their arguments hook, line and sinker.

              You say you run servers and work on networks, but do you actually have any knowledge about regulatory history, the history of the radio industry or anything approaching a detailed knowledge of the operation and history of the Internet, or are you just channeling Wikipedia?

              "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

              by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:53:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  And if "none of this requires CA34 imposition", (0+ / 0-)

              ...what would work?

              Industry self-regulation?  Yeah, that worked real well in the Comcast peer-to-peer case and other times.

              "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

              by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:54:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  before (0+ / 0-)

    I'm gonna buy into any of this--and I'm willing to at least give it a shot, because nobody in Teh Mediaz gets a pass from me, not even Keith--please clarify that anyone ever actually asked him directly about this:

    Keith Olbermann called the Tea Party people who wrote the letter 'corporate minions.' Since we know who's 'corporate minion' he is, perhaps he would be so kind as to assure us that there is no relationship between his support for the FCC position on regulating the Internet, and GE's hope for quick FCC approval of the proposed NBC-Comcast merger.

    Mind you, I'd assume his answer would have to be "off the record", lest the corporate guy who pays his salary gets his ass fired.

    Which goes back to my age-old point about Akre/Wilson vs. New World Communications being a giant club wielded by the corporate employers of reporters of KO's caliber. Maybe KO HAS to take this "unclear position", out of a sense of self-preservation.

    Is it right to do that? Hell NO, but now it becomes about "does the guy work in television anywhere?" In other words, yes, this Net Neutrality fight is a big deal and it's a bigger problem if guys on "our side" are really deceiving us on any level. But it also speaks of an even bigger problem--that our press reflects only its owners POV, by compelling their reporters to support that POV, even against their own better judgement (and even with weasel words). Otherwise, they get fired.

    Within the current administration wishy-wash cycles, I've given up on "bully pulpitry".

    by o the umanity on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:17:24 PM PDT

    •  Olbermann & Maddow do what they're told (0+ / 0-)

      We know this because there are too many stories that should be reported and aren't reported and they don't report them either. When it comes to certain areas, they don't break the Matrix. The civilian casualties of our wars, for example, get very little attention from them and a little attention would do a long way. Or the stories about the contents of the WikiLeaks docs. Why doesn't somebody show the video that has been leaked? That would do a lot to end these wars. That's what I would do if I had a TV show and could do anything I wanted.

      No I do not know if anyone has asked Olbermann about the NBC-Comcast deal, but I don't remember him reporting on it either. A lot of people think that deal is a real threat to Internet freedom, a huge content provider and a huge network provider merging. Free Press opposes that deal too, so why doesn't he get somebody from Free Press on his show to discuss that deal?

      •  Oh come on! (0+ / 0-)

        They may not be Pacifica radio or Democracy Now!  or Workers world daily, but they report the good stuff in FAR more detail than ANY of their competitors.  

        Remember, they're the "Professional Left".  :-p

        --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

        by chipoliwog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:51:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Another foolish statement: (8+ / 0-)

    Nevertheless, Neutrality proponents continue to paint this as a sudden crisis.

    I don't know about "sudden", but it is becoming a crisis.

    Companies have now acquired the technology and, in this unregulated marketplace, have decided it's the time to maximize profits at the expense of the general public.

    Sorry, but your arguments about how this entire issue is a construct of some liberals bent on imposing governmental control over the Internet are hollow, self-serving and ultimately, I can hope, futile.

    A purely unregulated Internet, like a purely unregulated market, works only as an academic exercise.  Here in the real world, most of us understand that, given the tendency of groups of humans to get greedy and controlling, some oversight is needed for both.

    "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

    by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:19:21 PM PDT

    •  Do you have a problem with how the Internet (0+ / 0-)

      has been run so far and those international organizations that have been running it?

      Why is it a crisis now? What has changed? What has some company done to the Internet lately that requires action now?

      What technology have they "now acquired" that changes things. This is a serious question I need answered to understand what you mean. Thinks like package inspection and port blocking have been around for a long time.

      •  What has changed--as you've been told here (0+ / 0-)

        ...already many times--is that companies are beginning to behave in ways they didn't before.

        Why is that so hard to understand?

        And this:

        Why is it a crisis now?

        Why does it have to be a crisis to believe it's reached the point that it's time to take action?

        "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

        by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:03:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  We disagree somewhat. (25+ / 0-)

    You say "I don't trust the FCC or think the U.S. government should be more involved in running the Internet than they are now" and I say nobody is asking anybody to trust anybody. When the FCC or the government is involved, WE are involved. When WE are involved, we can ensure that checks and balances are put in place and we have a say in what goes on. When we say "the government", guess who we're talking about? I'll give you a hint: We're not talking about an entity put together by Al Qaeda or by the Russians.

    When the control of the flow of information is handed over to private corporations, we have no say in what private corporations do. When Rupert Murdoch finally buys control of the internet from Google and Verizon, he does not have to make access to Daily Kos easier than access to RW sites.

    What it boils down to is this: Do you want to continue to have a say in this matter, or do you think Rupert Murdoch will be Fair & Balanced once he has the control? If you want to talk trust, should we place our trust in ourselves, or should we place our trust in Fox News?

    •  Beautifully said, A99! (6+ / 0-)

      When the FCC or the government is involved, WE are involved. When WE are involved, we can ensure that checks and balances are put in place and we have a say in what goes on. When we say "the government", guess who we're talking about? I'll give you a hint: We're not talking about an entity put together by Al Qaeda or by the Russians.

      "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

      by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:31:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why don't you join the IETF? (0+ / 0-)

        If you want to be involved in regulating the Internet. Anybody can.

        The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

        •  about that... (0+ / 0-)

          The Corporations have blown past them and this Google/Verizon proposal certainly isn't an RFC to be considered by the IETF.  

          Microsoft won't even implement simple  protocols according to convention forcing others to put exceptions in their code to maintain compatibility.  That's happened in things like their implementation of an MTA, DNS, and HTML.  

          To the degree that the FCC can enforce net neutrality and prevent the Corporate takeover of the Internet I'm all for it.  

          --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

          by chipoliwog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:36:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You do know that Google has submitted many a (0+ / 0-)

            RFC to the IETF? I suspect Verizon has also, This here we are discussing is a legislative proposal so I would expect them to submit it to ICANN maybe? or Congress maybe? I don't know, what do you think?

            Microsoft sucks.

            •  I think you don't know what you are talking (0+ / 0-)

              ...about, and attempt to change the subject when cornered.

              You do know that Google has submitted many a RFC to the IETF?

              What does that have to do with NN or the price of rice in China?

              "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

              by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:05:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  If you think joining the IETF is about (0+ / 0-)

          ...regulating the Internet, you have a Teabagger's understanding of what "regulation" is.

          The IETF is about proposing standards--which may or may not be accepted by the companies (e.g., Cisco) who produce the products that run the Internet.

          Fail, again.

          "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

          by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:04:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  This ^^^^^^^!! n/t (4+ / 0-)
    •  Reminds me of W's campaign nonsense (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chipoliwog, marina, Alpha99

      In the 2000 campaign, W was all about "He [Gore] trusts Big Government. I trust The People."

      How I wish Gore had had the gumption to point out exactly what you just did:  People without money or power have only the government to intercede for them and protect their interests.  The only People W ever trusted were the ones who gave him jobs and campaign contributions

    •  Why don't WE stop reading our citizens (0+ / 0-)

      email without a warrant. Why did WE invade Iraq even though a majority of Americans opposed it, why are WE still in Afghanistan when a majority want our troops home. You have a somewhat naive understanding of our control of our government.

      Can I ask you? What do you know about how the Internet is regulated now? What is your critique of the international organization that regulate the Internet now? What relationship do you want to see between these various organizations and the various 'FCC's of the different countries involved in the Internet.

      •  I get your point... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chipoliwog, evangeline135

        ...about the existing corporate-control of our government via "our" corrupt representatives, and about how much control the MIC already has over our war machine, but your proposal, "they control most of it away, so why not just give it all to them" - is insane and un-American. The aim should be more government control and less corporate influence, more socialism and less corporatism, not surrender.

        When we have so little control over what our government does in our name, the idea should be to reverse the trend, not to hasten the end.

        •  The Internet has always been under international (0+ / 0-)

          non-government control for 25 years. So far it has done very well at stopping government control and all kind of attempts at violation like NN. Why has no carrier violated NN so far? Do you know what happened when China tried to block Google?

          But now I'm un-American because I oppose U.S. government control of the Internet. Well here's a revelation for you. I oppose U.S. world domination period. That's how un-American I am.

          •  You're confusing the two. (0+ / 0-)

            US government control of domestic issues is essential - non-negotiable. Everything, including every private business, must operate under strict government rules, regulations and oversight and must be seen to be doing exactly that. US domestic issues are American people issues and US government is the American people.

            US world domination was a corporate/MIC project that got it's dick chopped off as soon as Bush pulled pulled pants down. We've been doing this forever but we never had a Doofus like Bush as President before and we did not have the internet before. See why the internet is important? Of course you do. That's why you want the MIC to control the internet, don't you?

            We're not fighting armies or countries anymore, we're fighting the civilians of resources-rich countries and there's only so many civilians you can kill at a time - and you'd have to keep on killing them continuously for as long as you remain there. We have sucked them dry already. They have nothing to lose anymore and fighting us to the death is all that they can do at this point. World domination project is OVER. Don't forget to thank Bush/Cheney for that.

            Government control of domestic issues and our MIC are two different things and we should treat them separately. And, in the absence of a free press, we need the internet exactly the way it is today. We don't want it "improved". Thanks, but no thanks.

      •  Clay, meet mirror: (0+ / 0-)

        What do you know about how the Internet is regulated now?

        Answer: very little, other than what's he been told by those who want NN to go away, so they can do what they want.

        "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

        by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:06:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  "FCC takeover of the Internet" (11+ / 0-)

    -10 points for lack of originality.  

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:20:57 PM PDT

  •  I'm with KO on this one - the Tea Party is a (13+ / 0-)

    large astroturf group (Freedomworks blatantly works for the telecom industry). On the question of NN, the TP likely is speaking on behalf of its corporate masters . .

    •  yeah (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lady Libertine

      but doesn't it also stand to reason that Olbermann may in fact be doing the same?

      speaking on behalf of its corporate masters

      Mind you, I can't tell if that's what the diarist is actually saying here--it's just something I regularly wonder about KO and the other MSNBC flacks...

      Within the current administration wishy-wash cycles, I've given up on "bully pulpitry".

      by o the umanity on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:25:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Comcast CEO Brian Roberts is no Murdoch (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        allergywoman

        he actually donates to Democrats mostly.

        And the takeover is far from finished.

        "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

        by shrike on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:28:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  what about GE? (0+ / 0-)

          Come on, it's in their fiduciary interest to keep America divided, so they pay no attention to the endless wars feeding its coffers.  

          The merger deal would benefit GE as well if it buys them some "Internet Control".

          Within the current administration wishy-wash cycles, I've given up on "bully pulpitry".

          by o the umanity on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:32:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I thought NBC was no longer owned (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            o the umanity

            by GE?

            Struggling to find my relevance in a world gone amok

            by billlaurelMD on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:56:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They co-own with MSNBC/Universal (0+ / 0-)

              (unless that's changed again--I admit, I have a hard time keeping up)

              Regardless of the owner, corporate ownership is the bottom line here. And these corporations want--very, very badly--to remove this tool of equalization between The People and The Government. Any way they can.

              Within the current administration wishy-wash cycles, I've given up on "bully pulpitry".

              by o the umanity on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:12:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  And it is also in their interest to shove (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            o the umanity

            the Internet into that ole familiar regulatory framework of the Communications Act of 1934 that they have spent a lifetime learning how to play.

            What I can't figure out is why some many people here have blinders on to the world. What is being attempted here is nothing less than a coup. The U.S. government takeover of the World Wide Web and they need your support.

            YOU ARE BEING PLAYED!!!
            •  Rand Paulies that way -------> (0+ / 0-)

              To the degree that the FCC can implement net neutrality and prevent the Corporate Takeover of the Internet I'm all for it.

              --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

              by chipoliwog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:41:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Who is implementing net neutrality now? (0+ / 0-)

                Can you tell me that? Why do you want to take it away from them and given to the FCC? Why do you just believe as you are told?

                •  It's not being implemented now (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rfall

                  There is a current "tacit" agreement among ISP's and one agreement made under pressure from the FCC by At&t that said it would abide by this standard... for now but reserved the right to change it's behavior in the future.

                  And now we have Google and Verizon.  

                  The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance.  Consider yourself and your corporate masters on notice.

                  --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

                  by chipoliwog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 05:53:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wrong, NN has been part of the Internet standard (0+ / 0-)

                    from the beginning. We don't need to try to put the World Wide Web under the FCC to stop our companies from changing their behavior. This attempted U.S. coup of the Internet that you are backing is what will destroy it. Google and Verizon mean something iconic to you now, not because you understand the technology or have studied their proposal but because they have shouted enough times in your ear that Google is evil.

                    •  What are you smoking? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rfall

                      The original design of the Internet bears little resemblence to what it looks like today.  The committees that managed it in the past along with the original "non-profit" companies (now gone) are quaint and have no real enforcement mechanisms.  Even the proper management of domain space can no longer happen because it has been usurped by Corporate power.  

                      What you're saying is paranoid and perhaps delusional.  If you hate your government then consider moving elsewhere.

                      And for your information, I HAD a very high degree of trust in Google because they pretty consistently acted in non malevolent ways.  But this compact with Verizon is the devil's bargain and they are losing my trust.  The very fact that they would even enter into negotiations with Verizon about such a thing and the fact that they LIED about it is serious cause for concern.  

                      Because the CURRENT mechanism of Net Neutrality is based on 100% cooperation of all the parties.  The minute a party like Comcast or Microsoft decide to no longer cooperate (or bend the rules) is the day the Internet is screwed.  As a citizen, I want my liberty assured and if that takes the government, so be it.

                      --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

                      by chipoliwog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 06:20:33 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Better than what you're smoking (0+ / 0-)

                        Those quaint committees still maintain the net that allows his conversation. the DNS system is working quite fine.

                        •  The DNS system is a creaking mess, rife for (0+ / 0-)

                          ...the kinds of attacks that are made possible--and have happened--due to its inherent lack of security.

                          God, man, you really know so little.

                          You need to go back and ask your corporate masters for a lesson plan update.

                          BTW, care to tell us who you work for?

                          "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

                          by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:12:07 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  No, NN has not been a "part of the Internet (0+ / 0-)

                      ...standard", since no "Internet standard" has anything to say about high-level protocol controls or content-based filtering--that is up to the individual implementers and companies.  And it is what must be regulated by an entity, like the government, that can enforce restrictions in the face of the free markets rampant need to run roughshod over our rights in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

                      This attempted U.S. coup of the Internet that you are backing is what will destroy it.

                      And, with that statement, and earlier ones, you make it clear that you do not understand, in the least, what the Internet is about, and that you appear to be arguing nothing more than the case that your corporate masters would like you to argue.

                      Begone.

                      "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

                      by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:10:42 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  And the takeover is far from finished. (0+ / 0-)

          If it was already a done deal, if the FCC had already made it's decision, that wouldn't be a reason to suspect KO of shilling for the FCC.

          And I left comcast for verizon because comcast was messing my bittorrent by packet spoofing and port blocking. Packet spoofing, which is a form of identity thief. The FCC had to put a stop to that gross violation of net neutrality, and did, with its existing powers. That's your Comcast!

      •  No, that's complete bullshit. (0+ / 0-)

        "but doesn't it also stand to reason that Olbermann may in fact be doing the same?"
        --Keith has his own mind, and I have no doubt that he gives his own damned opinions. Why do you? He has an audience, and he's making money for his corporate "masters" by doing so.

        On Sara Palin: "That woman...is an Idiot." -- Keith Olbermann

        by allergywoman on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:58:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please go read up (0+ / 0-)

          on Akre/Wilson vs New World Communications and get back to me on that.

          I have no doubt Mr. Olbermann "has his own mind"--that is clearly not what I said. When it comes to his way of life, that's another story altogether. You cannot discount the idea that he could also be playing a particular song out of self-preservation.

          Within the current administration wishy-wash cycles, I've given up on "bully pulpitry".

          by o the umanity on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 05:16:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You would think his Corporate Masters (0+ / 0-)

        would want exactly the same thing that Verizon/Google want.  

        I'm sure GE/NBC-Universal wants the ability to get it's content and messages preferred over DailyKos or Fox News.

        --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

        by chipoliwog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:38:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You would think (0+ / 0-)

          but you know how corporate ownership likes to contradict itself, too, right? ;)

          Within the current administration wishy-wash cycles, I've given up on "bully pulpitry".

          by o the umanity on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 05:18:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Google wants net neutrality (0+ / 0-)

          the proposal they made with Verizon was for NN and better than any protection we have now. If GE/NBC-Universal can't get preferred treatment on landlines, they can't get much. Their servers are on landlines. KO works for MSNBC not GoogleNBC.

          •  Wrong, again and again, aren't you? (0+ / 0-)

            Google wants net neutrality the proposal they made with Verizon was for NN

            Most assuredly it was not.

            It was about keeping the doors open to non-content-neutral filtering.  It was about making it even more impossible for the FCC to police the Internet in any fashion.  It was about a corporate land grab.

            "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

            by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:14:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  On the network neutrality issue, KO (0+ / 0-)

        is probably not speaking on behalf of his corporate-master-to-be, Comcast. Comcast is the main party to the case that knocked down the existing NN rules. I don't dispute your larger point -- that the MSNBC talking heads (KO included) may ver well be pushing a corporate agenda - the unending Obama bashing with rarely a peep about the good things that have been accomplished by the Obama administration and, perhaps even more telling, rarely a peep about the rotten things the Rs do on a daily basis to block progressive legislation (which the MSNBC talking heads purport to care about). They are very comfortable about sowing conflict within the progressive movement but are way too quiet when it comes to the real villains . .  

    •  So can the other one: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      billlaurelMD, ColoTim

      So no to gov't yes to corps? You seem unaware that one can be voted on...

      At least, if you're a pure Free Marketer, and an Ayn Rand follower.  It's just that, in the latter case, you vote with your dollars.

      If you have any.

      "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

      by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:33:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Please reveal who you are lobbying for (9+ / 0-)

    It's the only honest thing to do.

    One need only examine your past diaries to see that there is a conflict of interest here.  You are obviously being paid to sew the seeds of confusion by someone.

    So lets just have it out, shall we?

  •  I'll take FCC regulation over private (10+ / 0-)

    corporate decisions any/every day.  I don't think you could name a single private entity these days that operates with the public well-being as its guiding directive.  At least with the FCC, it's going to be responsible to the public and to government, of which I am a member, rather than Google, Verizon, or any other company who has a stake in maximizing extracting money from me.

    •  Private entities that have operated with the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim

      public well-being as its guiding directive:

      bodies that play important roles in making the Internet work and so far have done a very good job of keeping it free and innovative include the World Wide Web Consortium [W3C] "an international community that develops standards to ensure the long-term growth of the Web,"  The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [ICANN] is a technical coordination body for the Internet. InterNIC oversees the domain name registration system. The Internet Society is the home of groups responsible for Internet infrastructure standards and provides leadership in chartering the future of the Internet. The Internet Architecture Board is responsible for oversight and some Internet standards. The Internet Engineering Task Force [IETF] is a large international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet. It is open to anyone who wants to join. There is also People for Internet Responsibility [PFIR] a group concerned about many present and future aspects of the Internet, including regulation.

      •  Thanks for the list. I might have a couple (0+ / 0-)

        quibbles with ICANN and InterNIC, but they were more back in the day as they were getting spun up.  I haven't known of issues over the last decade.

        Still, where there's money to be made, I'd rather stick with the governmental agency to preserve my interests than those who could benefit by stacking the deck in certain ways.

  •  Sorry, We're Still Cleaning Up After Gov't Non- (9+ / 0-)

    regulation. Leaving regulation to industry is not proving to be a very helpful approach to anything.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:36:57 PM PDT

  •  The only corporation in (6+ / 0-)

    the UK to keep Murdoch from spreading the kind of mass hysteria that Fox does is the BBC, a government subsidised entity.

  •  ... (7+ / 0-)

    A crying shame

    Proud member of the unpaid "professional left" since 8/10/2010 / Viva Canadian healthcare! Death to the Pentagon! Free Mumia!

    by Big Tex on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:58:33 PM PDT

  •  you are so wrong (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chipoliwog, marina, dskoe, rfall, evangeline135

    This is just like the bigots who yelled "states rights" to stop civil rights legislation. Maybe you are too young to recall such things.

    Rights do not exist without mechanisms to enforce them. If you oppose enforcement, you don't give a damn about the rights.

    Is it not written "There's a lot goes on we don't get told."? (Lu Tze)

    by MakeChessNotWar on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:04:10 PM PDT

    •  But, no, No, NO! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MakeChessNotWar, marina

      They would argue that enforcement of rights is automatic in a fully free market, unencumbered by regulations.

      The "invisible hand" would take care of it all.

      See how easy that is?  Doesn't even require thinking.

      /snark

      "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

      by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:18:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What do you know about the mechanisms that (0+ / 0-)

      have successfully run the Internet, and defended those rights, like NN for the past 25 years. Why do they suddenly need to be replaced with an American government institution?

      •  again read my comments above. (0+ / 0-)

        When there were lots of mom and pop ISP's, that scheme sorta worked.  But once AT&T and Comcast cornered the market, that bet is off.

        Hell, what did CATV use to stand for?  Community Antenna Television.  Now it's corporate controlled 1000 channels of nothing for $100/month.

        Let's not have a repeat of that one.

        There is no such thing as a Free Market because it can only exist for a microsecond before someone cheats and steals.  Therefore, a regulated market economy is the best solution for our society.  

        --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

        by chipoliwog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:49:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Since when did mom & pop take my data across the (0+ / 0-)

          world. Again ISP's are about the last mile, They may be the Internet you see but ma and the baby bells have always been the backbone of the Internet in the U.S., that is not new.

          Therefore, a regulated market economy is the best solution for our society.  

          When you said our society, were you thinking of the U.S. or the world?
          The Internet is worldwide for one thing so we should not even be chauvinistically discussing FCC control of the Internet. At best we should be discussing FCC control of the U.S. portion of the Internet, for why should our government have anymore control over the Internet than any other government, but that discussion would reveal that what we are really about is the Balkanization of the Internet.

  •  There have been several (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, rfall, evangeline135

    diaries just like this one lately. Looks like Google and Verizon have their minions out working the various blogs.  

  •  If not the FCC, what? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greengemini, rfall, BrowniesAreGood

    I liked Clay's other diaries on this issue, but this diary reads more like a diatribe, and it left me not knowing what his proposed solution is. We need to stop certain providers (Comcast comes to mind) from blocking or slowing packets from certain sites. We want to keep the internet free to innovate.

    I don't mind if someone is against FCC regulation, but I want to know what the alternatives are. If the only alternatives are worse, then I prefer the FCC, imperfect though it may be.

  •  I supported you before but you lost me now.. (4+ / 0-)

    It's one thing to argue that Google/Verizon proposal was not "evil" and instead a pragmatic proposal (even if you felt it was misguided).

    But ultimately, if you are against regulation that enforces Net Neutrality than you ARE against Net Neutrality.  The Google/Verizon proposal was to the FCC to enforce.  And there are countless other "versions" of NN.  But make no mistake, without enforcement, NN IS going to go the way of the dodo.

    •  Not only that, but Clay was wrong about (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chipoliwog, marina

      ...that, too.

      It's one thing to argue that Google/Verizon proposal was not "evil" and instead a pragmatic proposal (even if you felt it was misguided).

      Clay based his argument on the difference between wireless and wired, confounded by an argument about the "last mile".  All his argument were bogus, though I have only now started to look at them in detail.  Clay clearly is not working with a good knowledge of the Internet architecture and implementation, or the protocols used on it, or its history or...

      Perhaps it's time for me to consider writing a primer on this while topic--I hate to see this kind of misinformation put out there without a full rebuttal.

      "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

      by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:25:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  All we need is regulations that stop (0+ / 0-)

      our companies from violating well established Internet practices like NN. We don't need the Internet under title II, just some narrowly crafted prohibitions that deferred to the appropriate international Internet organizations for standards and practises.

      •  Regulations. (0+ / 0-)

        Yes. Regulations.  

        The only reason anyone is even talking about the FCC reclassifying is because Congress has pretty explicitly stated they are not willing to pass NN regulations.  Reclassifying is the alternative way of achieving regulation (the backup plan).  

        Regulation is required.  If Congress won't do it, then the FCC should.

  •  The Tea Party is a front for Koch Industries (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chipoliwog, marina, rfall

    and other private corporations and closely held family enterprise.  Their interest is in autonomy.  They do not want to be beholden to the public interest as represented in our public agencies.  They are not content to have minimal supervision.  They want autonomy.  That's their bottom line.

    In a sense, private corporations are like teenagers who want to be free of parental supervision and have dad pay for the note, the insurance and the gas for the car.

    The Constitution is not a menu for an exclusive diner.

    by hannah on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:45:18 PM PDT

    •  Rec'd for the great metaphor. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hannah

      In a sense, private corporations are like teenagers who want to be free of parental supervision and have dad pay for the note, the insurance and the gas for the car.

      And, bail them out of jail when they get nabbed for drunk driving.

      "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

      by rfall on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:20:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gotta go watch Countdown (0+ / 0-)

    Latter for you'll.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site