Verizon Pretends Neutrality Support Was Political Kryptonite
In reality neutrality was already dead, thanks largely to Verizon
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:
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.
| |DampierPhillip M Dampier
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!
Re: Net Neutrality Now on Back Burner
said by openbox9: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.
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.
If it bleeds, it leads. For the most part, the providers haven't drawn blood yet.
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.
Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from
said by bedder33 :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.
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
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"...
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC
| || 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.
| |said by sonicmerlin: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?
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.
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.
| |rawgerzThe hell was that?Premium
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.
Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from
said by 33358088:Survey says....XXXX
those lost there seats not because of anyhting they stood but because they are democrats. END OF STORY
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...
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC
Edit: time traveling...
Re: If the communication duopolies would....
said by Murdoc: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.
so you have no problem with isps blocking legit traffic? I am not talking p2p here either.
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.