mcgrew's Journal: No net neutrality for YOU!

From the AP (via Yahoo) (emphasis mine): "House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., abandoned the effort late Wednesday in the face of Republican opposition to his proposed "network neutrality" rules. Those rules were intended to prevent broadband providers from becoming online gatekeepers by playing favorites with traffic."

I'm going to piss some people off by saying this, but the Democrats are pussies. Goddamned balless wimps. For Christ's sake, they have a majority in both houses, yet they're so pussified that the minority Republicans can block them. WTF???

But the phone and cable companies insist they need flexibility to manage network traffic so that high-bandwidth applications don't hog capacity and slow down their systems. They say this is particularly true for wireless networks, which have more bandwidth constraints than wired systems. The communications companies also argue that after spending billions to upgrade their networks for broadband, they need to be able earn a healthy return by offering premium services. Burdensome net neutrality rules, they say, would discourage future investments.

First they say they don't have the bandwidth, then they say they need a "healthy" (read: windfall) profit from their investments in bandwidth. Which is it? Speak of talking out of both sides of your mouth! Is there anybody less honest than a corporate mouthpiece? I have more respect for a crackhead than these evil assholes. At least you know the crackhead is lying when he says he wants twenty bucks "for a prescription".

And the thing is, from the AP story, it's more about Net Neutrality for wireless customers than wired customers. This makes no sense whatever. I have a plethora of wireless choices; competetion makes Net Neutrality Regs completely unnecessary for wireless providers. On the other hand, I and most other people have only one "choice" for wired broadband -- in my case, Comcast. Others have other monopoly providers, but almost all of them are monopolies.

ALL MONOPOLIES NEED HEAVY REGULATION! Where there is a lot of competetion, the free market keeps things in check in most cases. But when there is little or no competetion, the government needs to step in.

Waxman's proposal, in part, fell victim to today's political climate, with Republicans hoping to rack up gains in the upcoming midterm elections apparently unwilling to help Democrats make progress on such a contentious issue. With an anti-government, anti-regulation sentiment sweeping the nation -- and boosting Tea Party candidates -- Republicans also were reluctant to support a proposal that opponents equate to regulating the Internet.

Contentious? Huh? The only contention is between giants like Google and Time Warner. Net neutrality is a boon for anyone wanting to USE the internet.

The anti-government sentiment comes from the fact that government (neither major party) has done Jack Schitt for the average working stiff while bending over backwards for sociopaths like Charles and David Koch, who are according to the Jim Hightower article linked, behind the tea party astroturfing movement.

"Opponents who equate" net neutrality "to regulating the Internet" are disingenuous at best. This doesn't "regulate the internet", it regulates the monopolies who deliver the unregulated internet to your computer.

If it comes between the goverment regulating the providers and the providers regulating the internet, I'll take government regulation any day.

Hmmm

[Captain Splendid]

While I won't disagree on Dem methodology, FDL seems to think [firedoglake.com] it's a good development.

Not that it really matters. The golden rule always wins eventually.

Left / Right is Over: Its You vs. Corporations

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

By Barry Ritholtz - September 27th, 2010, 9:30AM

Every generation or so, a major secular shift takes place that shakes up the existing paradigm. It happens in industry, finance, literature, sports, manufacturing, technology, entertainment, travel, communication, etc.

I would like to discuss the paradigm shift that is occurring in politics.

For a long time, American politics has been defined by a Left/Right dynamic. It was Liberals versus Conservatives on a variety of issues. Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, Tax Cuts vs. More Spending, Pro-War vs Peaceniks, Environmental Protections vs. Economic Growth, Pro-Union vs. Union-Free, Gay Marriage vs. Family Values, School Choice vs. Public Schools, Regulation vs. Free Markets.

The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two "interest groups" - I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase - have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power. The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights.

This may not be a brilliant insight, but it is surely an overlooked one. It is now an Individual vs. Corporate debate - and the Humans are losing.

Consider:

Many of the regulations that govern energy and banking sector were written by Corporations;

The biggest influence on legislative votes is often Corporate Lobbying;

Corporate ability to extend copyright far beyond what original protections amounts to a taking of public works for private corporate usage;

PAC and campaign finance by Corporations has supplanted individual donations to elections;

The individuals right to seek redress in court has been under attack for decades, limiting their options.

DRM and content protection undercuts the individual's ability to use purchased content as they see fit;

Patent protections are continually weakened. Deep pocketed corporations can usurp inventions almost at will;

The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations have Free Speech rights equivalent to people; (So much for original intent!)

None of these are Democrat/Republican [ritholtz.com] conflicts, but rather, are corporate vs. individual issues.

For those of you who are stuck in the old Left/Right debate, you are missing the bigger picture. Consider this about the Bailouts: It was a right-winger who bailed out all of the big banks, Fannie Mae, and AIG in the first place; then his left winger successor continued to pour more money into the fire pit.

What difference did the Left/Right dynamic make? Almost none whatsoever.

How about government spending? The past two presidents are regarded as representative of the Left Right paradigm - yet they each spent excessively, sponsored unfunded tax cuts, plowed money into military adventures and ran enormous deficits. Does Left Right really make a difference when it comes to deficits and fiscal responsibility? (Apparently not).

What does it mean when we can no longer distinguish between the actions of the left and the right? If that dynamic no longer accurately distinguishes what occurs, why are so many of our policy debates framed in Left/Right terms?

In many ways, American society is increasingly less married to this dynamic: Party Affiliation continues to fall, approval of Congress is at record lows, and voter participation hovers at very low rates.

There is some pushback already taking place against the concentration of corporate power: Mainstream corporate media has been increasingly replaced with u

Re:

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

And, I'd like to note: This was the very dystopia that was presupposed by William Gibson, as the cultural backstory for his books, almost 30 years ago.

It is so sad, that this man's extrapolations of the worst he observed around him in the 1980's, have made him one of the most eeriely prescient of prophets.

I'm sure he wishes he'd been wrong, too.