dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
McCurry Still Waging War on Net Neutrality
Editorials in papers fail to disclose AT&T PR funding
by Karl Bode 06:28PM Monday Jul 31 2006
Former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry has been busy fighting network neutrality advocates Internet wide as a PR employee for AT&T. His latest piece making the rounds in papers (see Baltimore Sun) paints the issue as such: "A $117 billion company like Google wants legislation that would drive Internet prices higher and stifle innovation, all for a non-existent problem." The editorials simply identify McCurry as "co-chair of Hands Off the Internet, a Washington, D.C.-based coalition of technology, media and nonprofit organizations."

view:
topics flat nest 

furlonium
Shut up baby, I know it

join:2002-05-08
Allentown, PA

HOI?

How about "Brains For Former Press Secretaries"? BFFPS!
clickie8

join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI

Members of "Handsoff.org"

»handsoff.org/hoti_docs/aboutus/members.shtml

Let every one of them know what you think.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: Members of "Handsoff.org"

said by clickie8:

»handsoff.org/hoti_docs/aboutus/members.shtml

Let every one of them know what you think.
I will. I think they are doing a great job.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page

Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL

Re: Members of "Handsoff.org"

Yeah I seen how the no regulation business is. I am currently in Argentina where there is almost no regulation what so ever. There is Fibre Telecom who offer for 35 dollars per month (Dollars not pesos) 512K speeds.

Regulations exist for a reason but at the same time too much regulation is bad.
When it comes to regulation people only think what will benefit them, consider it like a one way business decision where you only have our way or the highway.

Companies should follow laws, there is a limit to how much profit they can actually take from consumers. Without it we would be paying 150 dollars for a spoon. Not saying that every business will do that but in a world where money talks that's what most likely will happen.

From what I have seen here, I simply will have to disagree with deregulation of the internet.

footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

1 recommendation

Re: Members of "Handsoff.org"

said by Michieru2:

Companies should follow laws, there is a limit to how much profit they can actually take from consumers. Without it we would be paying 150 dollars for a spoon. Not saying that every business will do that but in a world where money talks that's what most likely will happen.
When you hear people talk about 'free markets', this is what they're talking about. If spoons were 150 dollars, I would open a spoon making business and sell mine for 75 dollars. I'd kill the other businesses off. If they have deep enough pockets they'll weather the storm and lower their prices as well. I'll respond by lowering mine. Rinse and repeat until the price of spoons becomes whatever the market will bear. Three things can stop this from happening:
1) government interference
2) skullduggery from existing spoon manufacturers keeping others out of the business
3) price of entry into the spoon business prohibitive

Government can stop problems #2 and #3 but if they go too far they become problem #1. Unless your market is in near anarchy, calling for more government regulation is usually a really bad idea.
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter
bamabrad

join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL

Re: Members of "Handsoff.org"

You forgot conspiracy of incumbents.

footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

Re: Members of "Handsoff.org"

said by bamabrad:

You forgot conspiracy of incumbents.
That would fall under problem number 2.

Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
Yes but isn't there a hole in your free markets theory? You don't have to compete with the other business simply to gain profit, you introduce your set of spoons at the same price and sign a deal with the business partner and actually raise prices depending on each other to gain profits & market share.

So in general free market can go both way's good or bad. Even when the three problems you put that simply locks anyone else from entering the market. But that does not generally mean that prices will go lower simply because there is more competitors. That's basically taking a risk saying that the next competitor will offer lower rates than other's that when in real world experiences I have seen new competitors come and offer almost exactly the same rates and are only a few cents or exact duplicates as others.

The business makes it another option but it does not bring down prices of the actual product. There is once in a few year's you see things change. For example MetroPCS that's a highly competitive business and it's rapidly expanding because they allow users to talk as much as they want. Unlike other providers who go with minute plans.

Free market to me just means everyone is allowed to do as they wish, but at the same time things could skyrocket or could sink. There is no system of check and balances in that system. If there was then it would make a lot more sense to me.

footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

Re: Members of "Handsoff.org"

said by Michieru2:

Yes but isn't there a hole in your free markets theory? You don't have to compete with the other business simply to gain profit, you introduce your set of spoons at the same price and sign a deal with the business partner and actually raise prices depending on each other to gain profits & market share.
Eventually, someone will be greedy enough to try to expand their market share (or get into the business in the first place and undercut the competition). As long as the price of entry into the industry isn't too high, there will always be someone trying to steal your customers.
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter

EGeezer
zichrona livracha
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Callcentric
said by footballdude:

I would open a spoon making business and sell mine for 75 dollars. I'd kill the other businesses off.


I respectfully disagree - a startup will not have the resources of the companies who have been retaining profits from the $150 spoon. Historically, market incumbents use the money to thwart entry through legal actions, delays, access to politicians through their lobbyists, or engage in temporary price cutting to drain the resources of the startup. We've seen lots of that from the telecom and cable industries as they delay implementation of local services by small companies or communities through lawsuits and legal appeals, lobby for protective legislation, then lobby for selective deregulation.


If they have deep enough pockets they'll weather the storm and lower their prices as well. I'll respond by lowering mine.
Conversely, you will need deeper pockets than the big guys to weather the storm. Again, startups don't have the resources of established companies.

Three things can stop this from happening:
1) government interference
2) skullduggery from existing spoon manufacturers keeping others out of the business
3) price of entry into the spoon business prohibitive

Government can stop problems #2 and #3 but if they go too far they become problem #1. Unless your market is in near anarchy, calling for more government regulation is usually a really bad idea.
The lobbyists who cry for less "government interference" also cry for regulations and subsidies that favor their companies and industries.

The consolidation strategy has become clear in this and other industries. The goal of the telecoms is not to foster a monopoly, but rather an oligopoly. An oligopoly provides the ability to limit competition and maximise profits by implicit cooperation while staying under the radar screen of regulators who look for monopolies. (also see The Wikipedia version.

At this point, the telecom industry is very near oligopoly, and is working to clean out, hog tie or buy up the remaining smaller companies who would threaten the planned oligopolistic structure and pricing model.

Whether it's big government, big business or big labor, domination by any of these diminishes the freedom of entry and competition in markets to favor whichever of these entities is in control.
--
This space for rent
pabster

join:2001-12-09
Waterloo, IA

Of course they don't identify the crook properly...

Why would the liberal mainstream media mention McCurry's connections to the Clinton White House?

This guy is a bought and paid industry shill.

canesfan2001

join:2003-02-04
Hialeah, FL

Re: Of course they don't identify the crook properly...

Liberal or Conservative, when you're wrong you're wrong. Just because liberals are wrong less, doesn't mean the media is biased.
--
OASAASLLS
Diceman2037

join:2005-09-24
Australia

Re: Of course they don't identify the crook properly...

wow.. notice how all those companies SUCK.

bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto

join:2001-02-10
USA
That would be a good statement if liberals were indeed wrong less. That not being the case shows, among other things, that the media is very biased. The liberal media refuses to deal with facts and chooses only to advance the leftist agenda. Period.

On the other hand, conservative media is engaged in a constant battle for market share to expose the facts that liberals choose to ignore because said facts do not serve to advance the leftist cause.

Conservatives and liberals make mistakes every day. Conservatives admit it more than do liberals. My guess here is you feel liberals are wrong less because they don't admit to their errors as much as conservatives.

Liberals also seem to feel that any conservative media is an intrusion on "their" exclusive space. That is not debatable.

Have a nice day...
--
Televideo ergo sum.....I watch TV, therefore I am.

canesfan2001

join:2003-02-04
Hialeah, FL

2 edits

Re: Of course they don't identify the crook properly...

What facts do these "liberal media" outlets ignore?
Let's face it, most media outlets are owned by the same large corporations that contribute billions to Conservative candidates.
How is it in the best interest of those companies to promote the liberal agenda?
EDIT- I was a bit ill-tempered a minute ago...and exaggerated a little. Millions...but still...
--
OASAASLLS

bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto

join:2001-02-10
USA

Re: Of course they don't identify the crook properly...

Have proof of the companies and their contributions? Also, smart money dictates that contributions are made to both sides. One needs to buy favor no matter who is in power. But while we're on the subject of facts, let's take one nice story in the liberal media that caused heads to roll. Remember the Dan Rather piece where he torpedoed Bush without facts on his side, and when the facts were known, he still refused to budge until he was backed into a corner? That is but one of myriad examples.

So tag, you're it.
--
Televideo ergo sum.....I watch TV, therefore I am.

canesfan2001

join:2003-02-04
Hialeah, FL

Re: Of course they don't identify the crook properly...

Search google yourself if you want proof. "campaign contributions"
If you want to start lumping all media in with one man.

Bill O'Rielly. Bigot.
--
OASAASLLS

bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto

join:2001-02-10
USA

Re: Of course they don't identify the crook properly...

Ahh yes. Typical liberal response. Don't bother addressing the facts, but resort to name calling. You are so predictable. This is my point. You degenerate the conversation to name calling and muddying the waters whenever facts are presented. Pitiful. Have a nice life.
--
Televideo ergo sum.....I watch TV, therefore I am.

canesfan2001

join:2003-02-04
Hialeah, FL

Re: Of course they don't identify the crook properly...

At this point not only was I simply playing your game. But your response contradicts itself.
"typical liberal response"?

I call it like I see it.

On that note, I'm not liberal. I'm actually fairly conservative. But I'll be damned if I go along with this Conservative zealot crap.
--
OASAASLLS

bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto

join:2001-02-10
USA

Re: Of course they don't identify the crook properly...

Interesting how you appear to change sides. I say appear because I too call it as I see it. Now, having seen you say you are conservative, I might be inclined to change my opinion of you.

I do not like what Bush is doing to our country, and I voted for him, thinking him to be the lesser of two evils. I still think that, but the margin is getting way too close to call. This country is going to hell in a handbasket and the wrong people have way too much power.

Our governor Arnold said a couple of things lately and I called his office and blasted a hole through him. Bottom line...we live in a representative republic, where we elect to office those who are supposed to vote their constituencies (sp?). I let Arnold know in no uncertain terms that he is to vote as we say, period, or he is out just like Davis got the boot.

I would blast Bush in exactly the same way. He is to vote and act as we say. He works for us, not the other way around. All politicians do. Those who disobey their marching orders must go.

O'Reilly a bigot? I think not. Just another guy who calls it as he sees it. Yeah, he riles some people, but so what? People are strong, they can take it. Those that can't should learn how. This nation is full of panty-waist weaklings who do nothing more than cry "poor me" when something doesn't go their way. I, for one, am sick of it. I will attack anyone who pulls these weak-manipulator games at the time and place of my choosing. Not physical, mind you, but written, verifiable, and provable.

Wow...did I really write all that?
--
Televideo ergo sum.....I watch TV, therefore I am.

ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save

join:2005-10-17

reminds me of spam

...

brooklynman4

join:2004-09-07
Brewster, NY

Re: reminds me of spam

Hey if i has stocks on baby bells i would ssplat my mouth all over lol

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

Nonprofit

quote:
McCurry as "co-chair of Hands Off the Internet, a Washington, D.C.-based coalition of technology, media and nonprofit organizations."
Teletruth could not be in that coalition as Teletruth is a FOR PROFIT lobbing company.
molsen

join:2002-04-12
Huntington, NY

Re: Nonprofit

I am sure you have strong views on this... But what exactly are "net neutrality" advocates asking for?

Can you be clearer? I don't get it -- and I do have a dog in the fight, for purposes of full disclosure.

Mike

canesfan2001

join:2003-02-04
Hialeah, FL

Re: Nonprofit

Hopeully avoiding the ISP carriers altering our ability to access content online.
Simply put: I already pay the DSL carrier 50 bucks a month to have access to the internet and any content available, and so do the content providers (considerably more, I'm sure).
These companies would like to charge the content providers twice. Once for access, and once to allow me to access thier information.
I don't see how that's fair to me or the content provider.
--
OASAASLLS

asdfdfdf

@xtraport.net

Karl...

Have you considered contacting some of the papers, like the baltimore sun and trying to get a rebuttal op-ed of your own published?

richardpor
Fur it up

join:2003-04-19
Portland, OR

1 recommendation

So what the news

I do not recall a means test for ones First amendment freedom of speech nor do I call freedom of speech is limited to left wing activists. Enough with the Astroturfing bs. Deal with the message not the messenger.
Expand your moderator at work

asdfdfdf

@xtraport.net

Re: So what the news

It is about the deception of hiding corporate lobbying money behind front organizations designed to look like a spontaneously developing grass roots group. If the messenger wasn't important these companies would simply advocate their position without resorting to such deception.
It is perverse to argue that willfully practicing such deception is of no importance.

tsu9

join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL

Ridiculous

"A $117 billion company like Google wants legislation that would drive Internet prices higher and stifle innovation, all for a non-existent problem."

How incredibly ironic, as that's precisely what lack of neutrality will cause.
backness

join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2

1 recommendation

Re: Ridiculous

hehe and he says google is not an innovative company... The company that revolutionized the net and they are less innovative then a cable company or a telco...

give me a break!

lewis128

@glwb.net

garbage

dont they realize how much google has done for the internet? This is all BS if you use the net for email only get dial up.

fferddd

@glwb.net

well

we need neutrality otherwise they will take advantage of us

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

You have no hand

The telcos and cablecos have the upper hand and it is full of money; you have no hand.

Everyday

@verizon.net

Let's get the story straight...

The issue that no one is bringing up is that the telco's and bandwidth providers are getting paid more than just twice. Let's remember that no matter how big google is, they do not HOST the content you are searching (gmail and a few of their other services not withstanding).

Remember that every piece of information on the internet is hosted on a server somewhere. Most of the time this is in a data center where the hosting company has to pay for their bandwidth connection. This can range from $8 per Mbps all the way up to $100's per Mbps depending on your commitment and company you are purchasing from. So in reality this is how the current system works...

Consumer pays ISP to access content. Google pays ISP to show search results of content. Hosting company pays ISP to deliver content. They're already getting paid by three entities to simply access content on a web server. Now as far as I know the hosting company and google only get paid once for their service. Why should the ISP or telco get paid three times to simply make one connection?

On top of that, most hosting companies and companies such as google must have multiple connections from multiple carriers just to be able to deliver an acceptable level of service to the consumer. This is due to outdated and oversold infrastructure on the part of the ISP, telco's or whatever you want to call them. An easy example of this is when a company like ATT has a router fail in a place like NYC. Suddenly there is no connectivity to many parts of the country. (There are many other issues related to the needing multiple carriers but that is for another discussion)

For the ISP's and telco's to say they need this bill so they can continue their "innovative" ways is complete bull. If they want to really make some money then stop spending it all on lobbyists and worry about building your own business.

cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27

Re: Let's get the story straight...

Um, add this: Google does cache, the ENTIRE Internet, for a day or more, into memory. So in theory, they do host it. They craw and cache every (permitted) server, site, image and page into memory. Do they do it efficiently? Do they use as little bandwidth in the process as possible? I doubt it.
They have to craw everyday, for page changes, updates, links, clicks, clickthrough, ... and also provide their advertisers with monthly information of traffic.

That word...traffic...is what the ISPs get. But when someone like Verizon, AT&T and other duopolies got wind of the profit Google was taking away from them, well what better way than to ruffle feathers about "reliability of them thar tubes!" "Yuck yuck, got a duck in mah sen-uh-tore's pocket". Tk Tk Tk. (I don't take anyone from Virginia, nor DC as credible)
They just sit and wait and when someone else comes up with a great service, they have to interfere and use the Gov't button.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

My VOIP got stuck in the tubes.

Then when VOIP gets delayed and choppy stuck in a tube behind porn and spider-bots when the kiddies get home from school you people will have something else to complain about. The Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency gives priority to VOIP, will this be illegal under Net-neutrality.

Fershlugg

join:2000-10-11
Torrington, CT

Re: My VOIP got stuck in the tubes.

I cannot wait for the day when I have a specific list of URLs I can visit without paying over my monthly fee. I think these assfaced backbone providers think they can change the internet into the same payferplay deal that cellphone providers have.

I'll just go thru a proxy and pay my $20/month to go wherever I really want to go....

net neutrality can be stopped, but then they'll be like the RIAA and MPAA, trying to find suckers who will pay up without even knowing why they are paying.

packets == packets no matter the origin or destination!
--
A7N8X rev.2, 2500+ Barton, 2x512 Corsair XMS PC3200, XFX GF6800GT, WinXP Pro SP1...etc...

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

Re: My VOIP got stuck in the tubes.

said by Fershlugg:

I cannot wait for the day when I have a specific list of URLs I can visit without paying over my monthly fee.
With a two teared internet you will not be charged extra and you will be able to go to any page. What may happen is a Microsoft or Google will pay extra to get on the fast lane. Is the consumer going to have a voice in this NO, it will be decided by lobbyists and politicians, politicians that don't have a clue.