They say money talks and bull$h!t walks.... so consider today's Washington Post. You won't find it in any article on their web site. I'm talking about the full page 4-color ad taken out on page A20 by a cable lobbying group.
Those ads aren't cheap. I believe we are looking at something like 60,000 bucks .... depending on the circulation it could be as high as 100,000 bucks, especially if this ad runs a few more times.
The disturbing part of the ad isn't what it says, but who says it. To get a sense of the seismic impact here consider what it would mean if someone could quote Rosa Parks as suggesting we didn't need to re-authorize the Voting Rights Act. Well, the opponents of net neutrality have succeeded in doing something almost that outrageous. The eye-popping quote is below the fold...
"If the legislators...insist on neutrality, we will be happy.
If they do not put it in, we will be less happy but
then we will have to wait and see whether or not
there actually is any abuse."
- Vint Cerf, Google VP (Reuters, July 5, 2006)
Wait and see... We couldn't agree more.
For the two or three people reading this who don't recognize the name Vint Cerf, suffice to say he was one of the pioneers who helped create the foundations of what became the Internet. Vint helped create TCP (which became TCP/IP). There were other pioneers who I will ignore for now. After all, there was more to the Civil Rights Movement than Rosa Parks.
Let's consider that jaw-dropping quote in context. Here's a link to the Reuters report of the recent conference in Bulgaria. The lobbying group is accurately citing the article. However two things are notable. First the ellipses (the "..." part of the quote). We don't know what qualifiers are in there. They might be important. We also have additional commentary by Cerf in the article. For example the article also quotes him as saying:
"If we are not successful in our arguments ... then we will simply have to wait until something bad happens and then we will make known our case to the Department of Justice's anti-trust division."
That is quite a different tone than the first quote. It is also more in line with the headline of the article:
Google says bill could spark anti-trust complaints. Furthermore, the article goes on to quote Vint very clearly coming out in support of net neutrality:
"My company, along with many others believes that the Internet should stay open and accessible to everyone equally. We are worried that some of the broadband service providers will interfere with that principle and will attempt to use their control over broadband transport facilities to interfere with services of competitors."
So the deceit of this ad is now revealed. What we have is a clear example of cable lobbyists spending serious coin to quote Vint Cerf out of context in a cynical effort to deceive the public. If this is how they act before they gain control of the network, imagine how they will act once they have control.
It's clear to me that net neutrality is on life support. If Ted Stevens is any indication of how well these issues are understood by the people allegedly paid to represent us, expect to hear him and his cronies echoing this ad's message when they vote to do to net neutrality something they would never have done to Terri Schiavo.
The problem is that in addition to net neutrality, the communications bill is also dealing with the issue of "red lining" and broad band access to disadvantaged communities. The lobbyists for the cable and telco interests have focused on splitting the digitial "haves" from the digital "have nots" in their effort to kill net neutrality. So far they have succeeded. That is why the Markey amendment didn't pass in the House. The people hoping to get high-speed access are looking at the bill as a way to protect their right to access, while we are arguing about access to content.
It is easy to see how arguing about content is a luxury to someone who is still trying to get access. We have to make it clear that the arguments are related and reinforcing. After all, what is the point in getting access to water you don't want to drink?
The time to act is now, before they pull the plug. We simply can't wait for a class-action suit to fix the abuses we are legitimately concerned will occur. The likely consequence of that outcome is that places like this may become historic anachronisms. Once the damage is done, we will not be able to unscramble that egg. If you care, then check out Save The Internet, make the call and spread the word.
In this age of "one percent solultions", do you really want to wait and see if this calamity is survivable? If I'm right and it's not survivable, who is going to fight for those of us who didn't make it...the cable news channels? I don't think so.