I would have to assume it's attempt to make the issue as confusing as possible to quell the public outcry. The new Astroturf blogads all over add more to the confusion. I don't want any company choosing what sites/media types I can and can't see and how fast I can see it. That's where I stand.

actually continue to "set aside" - in fact, pretend that I'm sleep deprvied and don't know if I follow what you're sayng here Matt.

Is it just that the COPE Act is regulation and they claim to be opposed to all internet regulation?

Once more for those of us that are in need of coffee...

Elana

These are the same odious companies that handed over all of our Ph. records and probably all of our IPs etc. It's pretty easy too see where this is going but I got news for Bu$hCo and his Corp./and religious fascists backers take a moment and look at what happened to societies in the 20th century that tried to suppress dissent through these kinds of means. Unless, these klowns are willing to do what the Red Chinese, Soviets or the Nazis did they will FAIL miserably.Plus, even if they do they will fail. Freedom will leak around their barriers. Don't they see that they've already failed? They've had all the power and all the $$ and yet they still cannot get the majority of the public to buy their BS. Now the scapegoat are bloggers ( left bloggers) and they have to be attacked and suppressed. Land of the Free? NOT!!

page uh.?

Good catch, Matt. Was it Fu Manchu or the Shadow that would exert their power by "clouding the mind?"  I guess the tactic is still used and, unfortunately, is still too often effective.

Speaking of clouding and unclouding the mind, I tried to respond to the "post office" analogy often used by net neutrality opponents in this diary post:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/5/16/1528 7/4780

Finally, COPE is now on THOMAS as HR 5252.

And the list of sponsors is revealing: of the 49 listed, no fewer than 10 are CBC members:

Rep Butterfield, G. K. [NC-1] - 5/2/2006
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 5/9/2006
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 5/11/2006
Rep Jefferson, William J. [LA-2] - 5/9/2006
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] - 5/11/2006
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] - 5/2/2006
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 5/1/2006
Rep Scott, David [GA-13] - 5/3/2006
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] - 5/2/2006
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 5/2/2006

That's a quarter of the House CBC membership. And, according to the piece Matt cited, Rush is Barton's go-to guy on the Dem side, after Markey turned down the gig.

How many of the rest are non-CBC Dems, I can't tell without more work than I fancy doing. I suspect that the difference is statistically significant, though.

What's also interesting is that the ad they have going on the right side of the page tells me to make up my own mind but also tells me to oppose regulation of the internet.  But when I make up my own mind, I support net neutrality and universal wireless access.  So how does that square with opposing regulation of the internet?  

Jeez, now my trust in telecom companies is fading, and if you can't trust altruists like telecom companies, who can you trust?  

Yes Matt, you are confused.  And if you had listened yesterday rather than rant, you would have heard Chris Wolf say that he doesn't support ADDITIONAL government regulation in the form of the "Net Neutrality" you are pushing.  Get your facts straight before you start trying to scare people.

And yes, I am with the Hands Off the Internet coalition.

Does it bother anyone that the telecom astroturf group can inundate so-called liberal blogs with their cutesy doublespeak ad-imations? Will these blogs accept ads from anyone? Running Wal-mart ads would probably bring in more revenue.

When Barton says that he supports net neutrality, he   is being manipulative. The 'net neutrality' provisions in the COPE Act, which hand over disputes to the FCC, are virtually unenforcable.

No one in this debate really opposes government regulation - "Hands off the Internet" supports massive government regulation as long as it benefits the large telecom and cable companies. They love to cozy up with big government, as should now be clear to everyone.

Check this bad boy out.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/16/N SA.suit/index.html

An interesting twist on Net Neutrality may be this:

The telcos make their money on phone service.
Assuming technology continues to improve, internet phone service (Voice over IP, VOIP), could at least theoretically replace traditional land lines everywhere.
Also broadband internet could fully replace hi-end telephony and video services long offered by telcos.

At that point, all that revenue would disappear.
Or, to prevent a transition to pure-internet for everything, non-internet phone rates would have to fall and internet connection fees have to rise until some market balance point was reached.
Assuming telcos figure they can't raise internet fees sufficiently, they don't see how they can preserve their revenue streams as they have known them.
Unless they can section off internet phone traffic (along with other specialty internet traffic), and jack up rates on that.

If this theory holds, then when they say 'We made a big investment and need to recoup the costs' they are referring to their total infrastructure investment, including non-internet phone infrastructure, which they are fearing cannot sustain itself given a potential transition to internet phone.

So, if this is true, the answer for the Net Neutrality forces is to come up with a viable business response for the telcos to this looming crisis.  If they can't get more revenue from specialized internet traffic, and if they do lose traditional revenue, how should they sustain themselves and ALL of their infrastructure?

What would be a sane way to have this conversation?

Right now we could be just talking past each other, one side wanting Net Neutrality on principle, to protect free and equal speech online, and the other side figuring out how they will survive and prosper in a rapidly shifting technological landscape.

It might be hard to have the conversation without access to real financial numbers.
Clearly high-end telephony and video services have been, even pre-internet or during low-tech-internet days, an important revenue stream to them.

What would you do if you were a telco CEO and addressing the next 10 years of your company's existence and needing to position yourself for long-term survival?

This looks like astroturf to me:

My question is:

What is it an advertisement on this web page for?