dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Verizon Pretends Neutrality Support Was Political Kryptonite
In reality neutrality was already dead, thanks largely to Verizon
by Karl Bode 12:06PM Thursday Nov 04 2010
Back in September we argued that any serious chance at real network neutrality rules being passed was all but dead, crushed by typical partisan bickering among well-lobbied politicians, and Google and Skype (previously vociferous supporters of open platforms) deciding to bury their principles six feet under. This was before this week's election shift, which by most accounts changes virtually nothing in tech -- since neutrality laws (or privacy laws, or copyright reform laws, or tough consumer protections of any kind) weren't getting passed anyway under a Democrat-controlled House.

In a Tweet Verizon was quick to rejoice the fact that every politician that signed a recent pledge to network neutrality by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) lost their race. From The Hill's Sara Jerome:
quote:
Every House and Senate candidate who signed a pledge to support net-neutrality rules lost his or her election on Tuesday, according to an analysis by Scott Cleland, a net-neutrality opponent. Ninety-five Democrats signed the pledge, released last week. It was organized by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC). The pledge said signers would support strong net-neutrality rules on wireless and wired broadband networks.
Neither the Hill or Verizon note that the person making this observation (Scott Cleland) isn't just an "opponent" of network neutrality, he's a paid lobbying and public relations employee of AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. Still, Cleland's claim that neutrality support was political seppuku quickly began bouncing around mainstream media outlets as gospel truth. But what happens if you look at other neutrality "pledges?" Of the 73 Democratic signers of Rep. Green's anti-Net Neutrality letter, 37% (27) lost their races. Of the 32 Democrats who recently signed Rep. Inslee's pro-Net Neutrality letter, none lost House races (though one did retire).

In other words, assuming these politicians lost their jobs due to net neutrality support is a stretch Cleland was paid to make, but isn't necessarily true. In reality, Congress lacked the intestinal fortitude to pass neutrality rules before the election, in large part due to Verizon campaign contributions to both parties -- and network neutrality was probably the last thing on the minds of most voters. So with an FCC unwilling to tackle competition (with which neutrality rules might not be needed), and politicians paid to oppose consumer protections of any kind, Verizon has plenty to celebrate.

view:
topics flat nest 
Dampier
Phillip M Dampier

join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY

Net Neutrality Now on Back Burner

Cleland has been a paid shill for Big Telecom for several years now. He runs one of many astroturf front groups that proclaim an interest in "improving broadband," so long as improving is defined as whatever AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others want.

I think Net Neutrality has been a back burner issue since Genachowski began his Pondering Man routine, making lots of speeches with absolutely no action. The front groups are fearful something big could happen during the November meeting at the FCC later this month, but considering a year of inaction at the Commission, I sure am not holding my breath.

If Genachowski won't do it, it's a dead topic for two years under the GOP-controlled House (and the 80 dirty Dems who took AT&T money and ran).
--
Phillip M. Dampier
Editor, Stop the Cap!
»stopthecap.com
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: Net Neutrality Now on Back Burner

Besides stomping grounds such as DSLR, was net neutrality ever on a front burner? I don't believe most consumers care about, or even understand, net neutrality. There's even confusion on what net neutrality is across tech aficionados.
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

Re: Net Neutrality Now on Back Burner

said by openbox9:

Besides stomping grounds such as DSLR, was net neutrality ever on a front burner? I don't believe most consumers care about, or even understand, net neutrality. There's even confusion on what net neutrality is across tech aficionados.
Pretty much. The reason Net Neutrality isn't a major issue for the average consumer is that it's intended to stop a problem that doesn't really exist to an major extent- yet. Aside from largely innocuous practices like redirects to an ISP page on a 404 error, there's not much to complain about at the moment, so people don't.

If it bleeds, it leads. For the most part, the providers haven't drawn blood yet.
BubbaDude

join:2008-06-06
Livermore, CA

Astroturf?

It never ceases to astonish me that so many on the far left refer to Scott Cleland as an "astroturf front group."

Free Press is an astroturf group because it claims to represent a broad movement but gets most of its support from businessmen such as George Soros and from foundations. Cleland gets his support from telecom companies, and he admits it, doesn't try to hide it, and doesn't claim to speak for a mass movement.

Cleland may be many things - a propagandist, a hothead, even a kook - but he's not "astroturf".

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

Of the 73 Democratic signers of Rep. Green's anti-Net Neutrality letter, 37% lost their races.
I can't find anything to back that # up on the net.

bedder33

@comcast.net

Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

Now would be a great time not to comment, of course to stir up controversy you comment for no reason. It's simple math, do the math and you'll figure out the numbers, it comes out to around 37 percentish, and try to look other places besides Faux News

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

said by bedder33 :

Now would be a great time not to comment, of course to stir up controversy you comment for no reason. It's simple math, do the math and you'll figure out the numbers, it comes out to around 37 percentish, and try to look other places besides Faux News
Where is the list of 95 names? You have to sign up at PCCC to even see the names and I'm not going to do that. Were the 95 all House & Senate or were state legislators on list too. And when did it go from 95 to 73 names on the list? Even PCCC replied to the Hill news item that it was 95 names and they didn't deny that all lost. Maybe the 27 quoted at BBR were just the House and Senate signers.
Expand your moderator at work
podstolom

join:2010-01-25
Wichita, KS
ROFL, yep, Faux News is...um...Right.

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

said by podstolom:

ROFL, yep, Faux News is...um...Right.
»Fox really is fair & balanced; MSNBC not at all
»www.philly.com/philly/news/20101···und.html

coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream

Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

Thinking that any of the 24 hour news organizations are fair and balanced is ridiculous. They work a story to death and do so in a way that will stir up controversy for whatever the current agenda or popular take on the subject happens to be (twitter anyone LOL). Thinking that there is any outlet without bias leads me to ask whether you would be interested in buying a bridge I "own"...

JMHO
Mike
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Well, veering wildly off topic, but that was an interesting find. I draw similar conclusions watching the cable news channels but it's nice to see someone actually make a study.

The thing I don't like about the progressive/liberal wing is that they not only have opinions, they think that if you don't agree, you're stupid and/or racist, and you simply need to educate yourself and get smarter and you'll see the light. I find this highly arrogant and insulting, and so do most people. This is why they end up in their own little circle jerk, because no one really wants to discuss the issues with them.

I see the same thing coming out of the White House, even after this crushing defeat on Tuesday. The people are scared and angry, so they're not thinking straight! If only they would listen to us, get educated on the facts, or maybe we need to communicate better! Then they'll understand and back us!

On the conservative side, you actually see a lot more tolerance and deference to the fact that people have different views. They will disagree, but they won't call you stupid, generally (except for the far right). Even Rush Limbaugh is at least polite to liberal callers, as O'Reilly (who's actually more a populist than a conservative) will have lots of liberal guests.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

Wait what? You think O'Reilly is polite to his liberal guests? He constantly cuts off their mics, shouts them down, insults them, calls progressives bums living in their parents' house, etc.

Conservatives are the loudest and most insulting group out there. Why don't you try posting some facts on conservapedia and see how that goes? Every site I've been on with a strong liberal presence shows ridiculous amounts of patience with conservative blood-hounds.

I can't bother spending so much time explaining basic facts to people who don't want to hear them, but progressives try anyways.

coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream

Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

quote:
...I can't bother spending so much time explaining basic facts to people who don't want to hear them, but progressives try anyways.
That is the problem. Too much explaining, arguing, and gnashing of teeth, but not enough doing where it counts...

JMHO
Mike
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by sonicmerlin:

Wait what? You think O'Reilly is polite to his liberal guests? He constantly cuts off their mics, shouts them down, insults them, calls progressives bums living in their parents' house, etc.
I really don't watch O'Reilly, or Olbermann for that matter, so I've never seen what you cite. Have a YouTube or something?

My question would be: is it better to have opposing guests, and at least have a discussion of some kind, or to simply not invite them, as apparently is Olbermann's practice?

Conservatives are the loudest and most insulting group out there. Why don't you try posting some facts on conservapedia and see how that goes? Every site I've been on with a strong liberal presence shows ridiculous amounts of patience with conservative blood-hounds.
Yeah I know the type. But we're talking about these particular shows. I don't see O'Reilly as one of those rabid right wingers. He's more of a populist really.

I can't bother spending so much time explaining basic facts to people who don't want to hear them, but progressives try anyways.
Now that's the attitude that turns me off. I see this from John Kerry, Joe Biden, and in a more muted way from Obama. They essentially think anyone who doesn't agree with them is scared, angry, or stupid. They don't give any credence to their opinion.

From seeing Obama's post-election press conference, he still doesn't get it, that the public has turned against his policies and his government expansion. I think the bloodbath will continue in 2012, a la Jimmy Carter, unless he pulls a Clinton and does an about face. Remember Bill famous statement a month or so after the midterms... "The era of big government is over"? That won him a second term.

Mully

@verizon.com
I guess it's the tolerance of liberals that got Juan Williams fired from NPR. Oh and by the way where are the conservatives on NPR and public TV?
Olberman donated the maximum allowed to at least three Democrats in the past election cycle. Which violates NBC policy. We'll see if anything is done here.

At colleges and universities alike we have speech codes in place. No free speech there. If a conservative is invited to speak at a college or university, many many times they are protested only to be disinvited or shouted down if they do speak and have pies thrown at them. Can't tolerate differing points of view to young minds now can we.
Yeah the tolerant and diversity preaching liberals can't actually tolerate diversity that does not fit within their narrow definition of it.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
Please go away.

rawgerz
The hell was that?
Premium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA
Mr. Lucky charms only has them on his show to over talk and badger them for a ratings grab. While the guests, I'm sure, are only there to get yelled at for a paycheck. A rational mind will notice the similarities between the O'Reilly Factor and the Jerry Springer show.

Being objective goes out the window once a voice is raised, that becomes merely an argument.
Just because you like the network, won't actually make it "Fair & Balanced"®. Just as Mcdonald's I'm lovin' it® slogan doesn't make everyone love it.
Same goes for the shows with equally unappealing hosts such as Chelsea Handler and Bill Mayer.
--

You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
And in other news, Keith Olbermann has been suspended without pay because he donated $7200 to Democratic candidates in violation of NBC policy.

»politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20···-policy/

nonobob3

@comcast.net

2 edits

Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

Yeah when, more than a dozen FOX CORESPONDENTS made political contributions to conservatives. Fox just happens to have no rules against this, most other news corporations do but you just love to attack "dem libs" right? Get educated.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

NBC didn't have an issue with donating to political candidates, they just wanted it cleared with them first. That is where Olbermann tripped up. From what I read, if Olbermann had apologized right away, he would not have been suspended. Olbermann took a hard line and was unapologetic so they suspended him.

I don't know what Fox News' policy on this is.
33358088
Premium
join:2008-09-23
kudos:2
those lost there seats not because of anyhting they stood but because they are democrats. END OF STORY

coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream

1 edit

Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

said by 33358088:

those lost there seats not because of anyhting they stood but because they are democrats. END OF STORY
Survey says....XXXX

The reason the party in power lost so many seats in the house is in direct relation to the state of the economy, too many people being out of work, and no solutions coming from said party to resolve these issues fast enough. If the Republicans have as efficient a legislative session between now and 2012, they will get the boot and we will start all over again.

Washington is not going to change because the population got angry and swept a current lineup out of office. All that has really happened is another round of musical chairs in the hopes that someone, somewhere, will get the message. Unfortunately, no one ever does...

JMHO
Mike
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC


Edit: time traveling...
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

saw a good analogy from a GOP website commentator:

We took a stick and hit a snake with it. That does not mean our stick is a snake. We need to get our own snake, and it needs to be better than the one we hit.

Murdoc
Premium
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI

If the communication duopolies would....

play nice things like net neutrality wouldn't of had to be done. Why do these corporate maggots keep on looking for trouble?
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: If the communication duopolies would....

What did they ever do that wasn't "playing nice"? Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem. The only thing anyone ever cites is one statement by one AT&T exec years ago. Other arguments boil down to "please don't look at my pirated BitTorrent streams, and don't ever try to manage your network to limit bandwidth hogs."

Murdoc
Premium
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI

Re: If the communication duopolies would....

so you have no problem with isps blocking legit traffic? I am not talking p2p here either.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: If the communication duopolies would....

said by Murdoc:

so you have no problem with isps blocking legit traffic? I am not talking p2p here either.
I never said that. Again: when did they ever not "play nice"? The whole net neutrality argument is "there's no LAW stopping the ISPs from blocking/prioritizing traffic for EVIL REASONS!" My point is: it's a solution looking for a problem.

What you are asking like me saying I'm against warrantless wiretapping and you replying: "So you have no problem with terrorists planning their next attack?" I never said that.

Murdoc
Premium
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI

Re: If the communication duopolies would....

The terrorist thing was a bad example, as in the Big G would have to monitor itself, because they are the ones doing the terrorising......I get the point though buddy. Apologize ahead of time for going off topic slightly.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
Comcast throttling is the most obvious example. There are other anecdotal stories among smaller ISPs.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: If the communication duopolies would....

The Comcast throttling (via Sandvine) incident was a badly executed secretive attempt to manage network bandwidth usage and stop pirated P2P sharing. Exactly what I listed as "other arguments". This is not a Net Neutrality issue. The core Net Neutrality premise is that ISPs are going to discriminate among packets based on business arrangements or the lack thereof.

ISPs have learned to be transparent about their network management and pirating management practices, so the market and the courts handled this just fine, without any Net Neutrality law in place.

zalternate

join:2007-02-22
freedom land

Damn it! Net-neutrality is history

With the new bunch(GOP) in somewhat control(the party of NO,NO,NO), people can consider the many consumer protections that were implemented in the past couple of years to be destroyed over the next few years. And the 'potential' Net Neutrality is one of those.

There has been so much propaganda on things, that people were not properly informed of what was what. Even with the Internet, people still did not search out proper information. And as the proper news reports say, people are indeed getting more stupid, due to the Internet(and Faux news).

Sure would be nice to make Lobbying a crime. As well as making a crime of 'confidential'(secret donor) political donations. But unfortunately thats up to the law makers isn't it. Unless some people our there, want to file a lawsuit against the politicians who take Lobbying bribes or do money laundering.
--
Consumer Rights is more than just a suggestion.

••••••
OwlSaver
OwlSaver
Premium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA

I think that Net Neutrality is too abstract and idea

To me the solution to the problem is not some concept of neutrality. I would prefer to put a separation between infrastructure and content into the law. That is, create one company that can deliver a pipe to each home. But, the actual content is delivered by one or more separate companies. The content companies can compete on price and packages. There should not be competition on infrastructure - it is a waste of resources. This seems to be a logical separation that has been used in many industries. Of course, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and such will fight this tooth and nail.

••••
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Here's a more balanced report, including facts you missed

»news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20021···=nl.e703

the facts missed: (a) the Tea Party candidates who won (e.g. Rand Paul) may end up being strong supporters of increased privacy regulation. (b) Net Neutrality was not the reason candidates lost, or won. It's essentially a non-issue in these times, way way down the list of things voters considered.

BTW I've seen nothing refuting Scott Cleland's claim that all 95 signers of the www.NetNeutralityProtectors.com pledge lost. I'm not in the mood for fact-checking but I tend to believe it, why would he fudge something so easily verifiable?

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

How?

How can it be political kryptonite when practically no one (in the grand scheme of things) knows about it?
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: How?

Exactly.
OwlSaver
OwlSaver
Premium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA

Re: How?

I think it is funny (in a sad sort of way) that people focus on things that have little to do with them (e.g., Gays in the military really only directly impacts the 3 million or so people in the military but can sway how 50 million people vote) and completely ignore tricky issues that have day to day impact on them (e.g., net neutrality could impact the cost and quality of how everyone can use the Internet).