Internet Freedom: They Are Still Just Politicians

There's a scene in Deep Blue Sea, a stupid but fun movie about super smart sharks, in which one of the main characters sacrifices herself to prevent a shark from escaping to the ocean out of a penned-in area.  She cuts herself to leak blood into the water and says, "It may be the smartest animal in the world, but it's still just an animal."  The shark smells the blood, turns around and goes back into the pen, eats her, and is destroyed by explosives.  This reminds me of modern politicians; sure they seek money and are corrupt and out of touch, but they are still just politicians.  They do respond when millions of people engage.

Which brings me to net neutrality, of course, because now eBay has chimed in on internet freedom with a bang:

eBay this week unleashed a political machine that should make politicians envious: a national e-mail blast over Net neutrality.

Meg Whitman, chief executive of the Internet auctioneer, called on more than a million eBay members to get involved in the debate over telecommunications laws and "send a message to your representatives in Congress before it is too late."

"The telephone and cable companies in control of Internet access are trying to use their enormous political muscle to dramatically change the Internet," Whitman wrote. "It might be hard to believe, but lawmakers in Washington are seriously debating whether consumers should be free to use the Internet as they want in the future."

This is the first time that eBay has used e-mail to urge its members to weigh in on a national issue and the first time Whitman has sent an e-mail to members under her own name, the company said Thursday.

This is a big deal.  People like companies like eBay and Google.  You don't see them running stupid ads about how hard their employees work for you, because they aren't billing services attached to publicly subsidized infrastructure and their services actually deliver added value.  Now there are of course problems with each company, but broadly speaking people like their Google's and eBay's and are at best ambivalent about their Verizon's.  This is because Google and eBay emerged from communities - Google from the academic world of computer science/venture capital and eBay from the early message board culture of the internet.  Verizon is a regulatory creature, borne of and for lobbyists and insiders, as are the cable companies.  They have a grassroots component in the form of their employees.  It's a little understood element of right-wing lobbying and GOTV operations that corporate intranets are powerful tools for electoral work.  But their electoral muscle is nothing compared to that of companies that people actually like and rely on, such as Google and eBay.

Now that eBay is moving into this fight with a very public grassroots lobbying campaign, the stakes have changed.  Net neutrality is no longer a nice-to-have in a telco reform bill.  It has become an issue that millions of ordinarily apolitical individuals that have a commercial and cultural interest in the internet are engaging on.

I have a few other updates that I'll get to later.  The telcos are running TV ad campaigns all over the country, and there are more new bamboozlement flacking points to knock down.  The House vote on the net neutrality issue is quickly approaching, next week, and it looks like there will be some fireworks around the rules for the votes on the floor.  The House has always been rigged, and though we've managed to jiggle some pieces loose, it's still largely a done deal there.  The Senate though is paying attention very closely because of the work we've done.  And now that millions more are engaged anything's possible.

The telcos may have these politicians in their pocket, but they are still just politicians.



Display:


Lamont and Net Neutrality (1.00 / 2)

Matt, I noticed that in the interview with Jonathan Singer published yesterday, Ned Lamont said he was ok with internet tiers or additional costs being imposed for services that use a lot of bandwith.

"I can understand where if there's some services that use up a lot more bandwidth than others, there's a tier or cost that's associated with that."

Is this going to make you re-evaluate the idea of a tiered internet? Will it have any affect on your endorsement of Lamont's candidacy?


by 4 a better internet on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 01:02:40 PM EST

Re: Lamont and Net Neutrality (3.00 / 2)

Nice username.  

Lamont is clearly talking about paying more money for more bandwidth, which is not the same thing as the discriminatory access you are proposing.  And that's how pricing is set today, which is what we want to preserve.  Here's the full link to the interview:

It's very important that you don't allow the ISPs and the large operators out there to determine who gets access to what content. When it comes down to net neutrality, this is a pipe and we're providing equal access to all of the content providers out there. And the last thing you want is large conglomerates picking and choosing who gets access to what.

I can understand where if there's some services that use up a lot more bandwidth than others, there's a tier or cost that's associated with that. But when it comes to content, when it comes to what people can see, everybody has equal access to that, and again you can't have, again, conglomerates picking and choosing and making those choices on behalf of consumers. That would be wrong, like de facto censorship.


by Matt Stoller on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 01:16:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont and Net Neutrality (1.00 / 2)

Well, I'm not sure I agree.  Lamont specifically used the word "tier" to describe a solution for high-bandwith activities.  Frankly I think it's great that a netroots candidate like Lamont understands the benefits of internet tiers.

Everyone, including Hands Off the Internet, is opposed to content discrimination.  What this is really about is tiered service.  Save the Internet is opposed to tiered service, Hands Off the Internet is in favor of it.  With tiered service, everyone could still access every single website on the internet on a standard broadband line just like we do now.  The question is are certain companies or individuals willing to pay a little extra to send their content over a second tier "high-speed" line.  This kind of option would do wonders for the reliability of VoIP, as well as improve the speed and quality of video downloads.

Until I see a specific statement from Lamont saying he is opposed to any and all forms of tiered internet service, this quote clearly says to me that he recognizes the benefits of providing tiered internet service.  This should make for an interesting situation given that the liberal netroots is solidly behind Lamont, but also against a tiered internet.


by 4 a better internet on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 01:35:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

de facto vs de jure (none / 0)

A tiered system is content discrimination by definition.

Lets put it this way. You have a Wal-Mart Watch, with limited resources available. They get a video damaging to Wal-mart they encode and make available for streaming.

But they can't afford to pay for your "tier".

Meanwhile Wal-Mart, who can can easily afford the very top tier, where they stream out their propaganda in the super fast Mercedes tier.

Metric demonstrate that if people don't get some response on a click within seconds they move on. By definition, public advocacy groups don't have the big bucks, so they will always be relegated to the slum tier, while the money interests will drive the Lexus lanes.

You know this...so why not just scurry off to your well appointed office, and write up an overbill to your client for twice the actual hours you worked on this sorry little attempt at "gotcha".

Scurry on, paid shil...scurry on.


by ElitistJohn on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 01:52:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: de facto vs de jure (none / 0)

Point noted, but it seems Ned Lamont would disagree with you.  He spoke out against content discrimination, but also mentioned the necessity for internet tiers.  So it would seem that he thinks some sort of tiered system is quite possible without it being content discrimination.


by 4 a better internet on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 01:58:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: de facto vs de jure (none / 0)

1. That's a non-answer to the point.

2. If you kids have fallen to attempted "gotchas" about Lamont (based on a question reponse which very likely had nothing to do with your nomenclature), you've admitted loss on the merits of your argument.

Again, wny not wander over to Mikey's office and split a fine single malt. Your schtick doesn't fly among actual people...only where your connections and money matter.

Fly away paid shill.


by ElitistJohn on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 02:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: de facto vs de jure (none / 0)

Oh it's not a "gotcha" game at all.  Personally I'm a big, big fan of Ned Lamont, so as someone who favors a teired internet, I was glad to see him talking favorably about internet tiers.  I thought the interview was great, and was very pleased with ALL of Lamont's answers, including on the topic of a tiered internet.


by 4 a better internet on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 02:29:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: de facto vs de jure (none / 0)

That's great...now try and answer the point. Exactly how does a tiered structure not result in de-facto content discrimination in favor of moneyed interests, and the forced movement of the internet to the corporate broadcast model?

Let me help you with an example. The WashPo recently had to whack Ben Domenich from the staff. The only reason they did so was a groundswell from the various citizen's media, such as this site, where people were able to collaborate and share information.

In your tiered world, the WaPo would shove out Benny boy, and their self justifying spin in instantaneous mode, being in the Lexus Lane. The blogs out in the slum lanes would get slow sporadic responses. A recent study by Jacob Nielsen showed that users will abandon a site if the response takes longer than 1.3 seconds. So much of that audience would never have hung around to reach the critical mass that was required.

In effect, you are handing those with an existing huge megaphone a full broadcasting network, while handing the common person a Radio Shack crystal radio kit while blithely saying "but we won't regulate what you say!". Again, de facto content discrimination masked by de jure assertions.

Now given how Mikey discovered the shill technique doesn't work here, and got publically embarassed by it...I can see how he would prefer a world pushed back into broadcast mode, where he can go back to talking points, gladhanding, and using connections. But here among the commoners we want facts and solid argumentation.

As a help...

1. Simply saying "that's an interesting point", and then repeating your talking points doesn't work here. you have to address the point and respond.

2. Talking points in general don't work here. You're a shill...I'm a ten year professional (the kind that actually knows how to program and network) in the tech industry with graduate school training in econ and policy. You can repeeat your talking points until you're blue in the face...it means nothing. Its actually annoying.

3. Pointing at a politician and saying he supports you because of one offhand remark means nothing to anyone. Smarmy attempts to be ingratiating on the subject are just annoying,  especially when it goes with violating point #1.

Hope that helps.


by ElitistJohn on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 03:37:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

confusion about what "tiering" means (none / 0)

This exchange makes me think that maybe we should stop using the word "tier" in NN discussions, since it can mean that a service provider has to pay to access a "high-speed" tier (NOT OK) OR that end-users have to pay to get a "high-speed" tier of service (OK and exists today and is a reasonable way to pay for investment in more capacity).  

The question is who decides what end users can receive with the service "tier" they pay for--the end user or the pipe-owners?  Its about "freedom of choice," not about "tiers."

The more the issue gets muddied with unclear terms, the easier it gets for those who want to exploit confusion about what the real issue is. Let's try not to give 'em that opportunity.


by mitchipd on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 04:13:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: de facto vs de jure (none / 0)

Then the solution is simple: lo-res the video or cut it up into segments or put it up on a rotating basis. Heavy bandwith sites like Red vs. Blue do this all the time already. If you want to get the 120MB hi-res episodes and access to the 70 episode archive all at once instead of on a rotating basis, you need to pay and become a sponsor.

Bandwidth WILL get cheaper it already is, if Wal-Marth watch or something has that video they can ask for cheap donations. I'm sure most people who have an ideological stake in something like that would be willing to pay 1-2 dollars.


by MNPundit on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 04:29:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: de facto vs de jure (none / 0)

You miss the point. You are correct in saying people already pay for bandwidth use. That's not the issue.

The issue is that now the telecoms want to be able to prioritize packets of information for an additional fee. Look at it as a toll road.

So you already have a toll road. Everyone pays up for usage. If you have a truck you pay a higher toll, and the farther you go the more you pay. So far so good...that's a close approximation of the present structure. It pays for the road, and over time even allow for expansion of it.

What shill boy and his master want to do is different. In effect, they are saying "Hey, if you let us regulate the speeds on the road by how much someohne is willing to pay us, we'll build expansions even sooner!" (without actually committing to any tangible expansion or improvement goals, of course).

So now rich people can drive at 100mph in their Lexus and Porches, while Gramdma on her fixed income can go at 10mph, the default speed for the original toll. Also, in time of high traffic, Grandma can be forced off the road entirely, for as long as deemed necessary by shill boy's masters. Doesn't matter if the Lexus is joy riding and Grandma is off for emergency surgery.

That's what shill boy is advocating.


by ElitistJohn on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 04:48:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: de facto vs de jure (none / 0)

My side in this debate is not resorting to name calling, so calling me "shill boy" or whatever else you want to throw at me is petty and unecessary.  Lets stick to the issues.  I'm happy to address your question, and your analogy.

I LOVE your rich guy with a lexus driving 100 MPH, Grandma on fixed income driving 10 MPH analogy.  This is exactly why Hands Off the Internet is advocating a tiered internet.  

In the current system, Grandma who checks her e-mail once a day and the kid down the street who downloads 5 full-length movies a day most likely pay the exact same amount of money for broadband access, regardless of bandwith used.  But if we can set up a second high-speed tier for the hardcore bandwith users like the kid downloading movies, then everyone wins.  

The kid downloading movies and the companies supplying the movies each pay a little extra to use the high-performance internet line.  Both sides are satisfied...the kid can download movies faster and the company supplying the movies thrives because their customers are even more satisfied with the product they pay for.

Meanwhile, Grandma stays on the regular tier, and keeps checking her e-mail just as smoothly as she always had.  Also, since the hard-core bandwith users are paying a little extra for their service, Grandma is no longer forced to subsidize the internet use of more hardcore users, so her basic tier access can be priced cheaper.  In the end, Grandma can do exactly what she was doing before, for the same price or less.

Tiered service is about consumer and corporate choice.  Consumers and companies who want to pay a little extra for faster, high-speed delivery of content can do so.  Consumers and companies are also free to continue offering their product through the basic tier, and can continue delivering their content at the exact same speeds they always have.

The government mandated net neutrality you are proposing would prevent the development of tiered service, and therefore rob consumers and companies of the opportunity to make a choice of their own.

I also highly suggest reading this blog posting by Mark Cuban, owner of the Mavericks and founder of broadcast.com.  He makes some great points about the benefits of tiered service, including the fact that more and more medical and home diagnostic applications require bandwith, and without a tiered internet could be unreliable and thus could jeopordize the health of patients.
http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/123400 0267073488/


by 4 a better internet on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 03:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Aww look... (3.00 / 2)

A paid shill.

How does it feel to have one of the few jobs that makes prostitutes respectable by comparison?


by ElitistJohn on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 01:36:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aww look... (none / 0)

Well, Matt works with Save the Internet, I work with Hands Off the Internet.  We're not opposed to debating this issue.  Our spokesman, Mike McCurry has taken the time to post about this issue on Huffington Post, as well as here at MyDD.  I only think it's fair that both sides of a debate get to be heard.  You can insult me if you want, it might make you feel better, but I don't think it advances the debate.  I'm not here to insult people or call them names, merely to raise points that I think should be considered.

As for Lamont and net neutrality(and this is coming from someone who is a BIG fan of Lamont, if I lived in Conn. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat), I think it's an issue you guys should get a more detailed answer on, since in Singers interview Lamont spoke favorably about internet tiers.  At the very least it's a question worth asking.


by 4 a better internet on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 01:54:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aww look... (3.00 / 1)

If you're not opposed to debating the issue, then why not add comments to Hands Off's "blog"? Save the Internet's blog has them.


by grg on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 04:53:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aww look... (none / 0)

Ned Lamont has publicly endorsed net neutrality.


by Matt Stoller on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 06:16:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh... (none / 0)

Matt, you do note that once I hit him with substative points, he vanished.

I love paid shills.


by ElitistJohn on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 06:22:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh... (none / 0)

Of course, now that I think of it, it was approaching early happy hour time here in DC (I'm going myself in a minute), so the paid shill was likely already gone from the office and drunkenly hitting on some hottie at the Big Hunt by the time that was posted.

I bet he vanishes until 8:30 am Mon, when he's back on the clock.


by ElitistJohn on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 07:06:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What the Hell is McCurry thinking?! (none / 0)

I just looked at their web site. They are a bunch of telecoms (which I expected), telecom affiliated organizations, conservative groups, and two minority orgs for cover.

1. I've heard of selling out...but this is nuts.

2. He has to really, really think everyone is stupid with a capital "S". It isn't too hard to find this out.


by ElitistJohn on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 06:28:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the Hell is McCurry thinking?! (none / 0)

Our coalition includes not just the telecom companies, but a wide range of minority groups, technology groups, personal freedom groups, business groups and better government groups.

You should also take note that the 700,000+ union men and women of the Communications Workers of America have come out against net neutrality:
http://handsoff.org/news/now-this-is-int eresting/

These workers include engineers, field technicians, and others who are experts about our telecom systems and the future of the internet.

The President of the CWA had this to say about net neutrality legislation:

"The proposed net neutrality bill will result in the unintended consequence of delayed deployment of high-speed networks, with particularly negative impact on underserved communities."

It is the poor and rural communities that are currently underserved that will be harmed the most if net neutrality is mandated by government law.

You may think those opposing net neutrality are selling out, but I think the union men and women of the CWA would disagree.


by 4 a better internet on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 03:22:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aww look... (none / 0)

Almost everyone endorses the PRINCIPLE of net neutrality.  However, from this statement it appears that Lamont is ok with the idea of internet tiers, which would be prohibited by things like the Markey Amendment.  The burden of proof in this case is on Lamont and yourself to show MyDD a statement from Lamont opposing the development of internet tiers.  Until we see that, I think MyDD should assume that Lamont is IN FAVOR of allowing the development of some sort of tiered system and therefore may not endorse as strict a version of net neutrality as the rest of the MyDD community does.  


by 4 a better internet on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 03:29:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Internet Freedom (none / 0)

What great news.  You are right, the squeaky wheel gets the oil in politics.  When someone with a voice speaks (ebay and big blogs), their customers will support them.  We appreciate the local leadership since we have so little coming out of DC.  


by oakland on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 01:27:21 PM EST

internet (none / 0)

What great news.  You are right, the squeaky wheel gets the oil in politics.  When someone with a voice speaks (ebay and big blogs), their customers will support them.  We appreciate the local leadership since we have so little coming out of DC.  


by oakland on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 01:28:26 PM EST

Re: Internet Freedom: They Are Still Just Politici (none / 0)

One reason that the ebay message can have impact is that it is unusual.

I hope the ebay folks keep that it mind.

Nevertheless, I approve of them using their muscle.

It's kind of like shooting a silver bullet. When you only have one, you want to make sure you've got the right target. I think their aim is true. (Yeah, that made me flash on Elvis Costello, and I'm not even much of a fan.)


Karl in Drexel Hill, PA
by KB on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 01:33:03 PM EST

Snakes on a plane (none / 0)

"I've had it with these mother fucking snakes on this mother fucking plane!"

Sorry, I know it's off topic, but you brought up the absolute worst Samuel L. Jackson film, so I thought I'd contribute to the SOAP buzz.

Glad to see EBay get into the mix.  A lot of these fights will be definitely eventually won, but it would certainly be preferable not to have to roll back crappy laws.  (And "eventually" could be a very long time.)


by RickD on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 01:35:01 PM EST

Re: Internet Freedom: They Are Still Just Politici (none / 0)

Anyone got a plan to keep some of these people who may not ordinarily be politically engaged, but who are involved in the net neutrality battle, through until November and beyond?

It would be especially nice to bring them into the netroots fold as those most interested in this debate are those that make a lot of use of internet anyway.


by Quinton on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 01:56:26 PM EST

Re: Internet Freedom: They Are Still Just Politici (none / 0)

I don't trust anything McCurry says - he's a paid shill for Verizon and anyone else trying to monopolize and control what's said on the internet and how it's used.


by Political Junkie on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 03:22:40 PM EST

Re: Internet Freedom: They Are Still Just Politici (none / 0)

Just wanted to make a couple factual corrections to your statement.

1. Mike McCurry has made quite clear in postings both here on MyDD, as well as on Huffington Post, that he was, and is, opposed to government mandated net neutrality because he believes that is what is best for the internet.  He works for Hands Off the Internet BECAUSE he feels this way, not the other way around.  If you have strong beliefs on an issue regardless of whether or not you are getting paid to promote that view, then by definition you are not a shill.

2. It is not even possible for Mike McCurry to be a shill for Verizon, because Verizon is not paying him a dime.  McCurry represents the Hands Off the Internet coalition, and Verizon is not part of this coalition.  


by 4 a better internet on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 02:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When will the vote be? (none / 0)

You say the House vote will likely be next week? Do you know when, exactly?

Is someone keeping track of likely votes on this? Do we have a sense of them numbers?

We should all call our Reps and see how they'll vote.

It'd be good to know the timing of the vote so we can all co-ordinate our efforts.


by grg on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 05:47:59 PM EST

Re: Internet Freedom: They Are Still Just Politici (none / 0)

Hmmmm.  Net Neutrality may be the issue at hand, but it might be interesting to consider whether there might be more to the issue than meets the eye.  I came across this quote on http://arts.internet2.edu/

"The discussion will be netcast on both Internet2 advanced networks and the commodity Internet."

How many have heard the Internet we all love and use, referred to as the commodity Internet?

If I'm a lobbyist for AT&T, I'd jump all over that characterization, making sure our country's elected reps understand that the "Big Picture" includes two Internets.  One will be used for information and creativity and innovation (think Internet2) by the privileged, and the other Internet will be commoditized and used for maximizing profits, controlling communications among the masses, and shutting down "them radicals" that want to send the lobbyists packing . . . er, uh, whatever.  Maybe we should be asking our elected reps how they feel about net neutrality for the commodity Internet?????

As you know, Internet2 is the darling of universities and large corporations.


by tompoe on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 11:33:57 PM EST

Re: Internet Freedom: They Are Still Just Politici (none / 0)

I agree that the term 'tier' has become obfuscated by overuse. If I am correct, this is what I believe both sides mean. There are 2 definitions of tier being passed through this thread. I'd like to debunk or demystify them.

1) "tier"- a level of service that a Content Provider MUST pay extra for in order to have common folk, end-sers, or citizens access their media.

2) "tier"- a level of service that an end-user, common folk, or citizen must pay for increased accessibility to the net and information from content providers. Content Providers are charged for their bandwidth, not for the speed of being able to have their information accessed.

From what I understand...
Those for Net-Neutrality are in favor of definition #2. Those against net-neutrality are in favor of definition #1. TO be a little more specific, I will call definition #1 the 'Content Provider Taxation Tier.' Where the second definition will be called 'End User Taxation tier.'

A few points to consider...
1) Creating a monetary block, or toll, on content providers to have the same degree of service as someone else creates more work for the telcoms. More work means more problems are added into a system that isn't broken. More problems leads to greater disenchantment from people. Telcoms are in no long-term position to afford this. Short term.. sure. The money is to large to care about anything else.

2) Limiting the abilty of a person to access the information of a content provider immediately changes the nature of the internet. It becomes as close-minded as those that would levy taxes for such purposes.

3) To limit someone's access, for the sole purpose of increased revenues where increased revenue is not needed to fulfill a goal (other than the accumulation of more money), is near-sighted and does not support the greater good.

4) Aren't all broadcasting companies required, by law, to act in the best interest of the people? This is an oath that all tv stations, and radio stations must swear to and adhere by or suffer forfeiture of license. Does this apply to media providers as well?

5) If the telcoms 'need' this money, than I'd recommend firing the current accountants and hiring new ones... because as a consumer they appear to be doing very well and why they would 'need' this is being me? Aren't they already getting paid, in triplicate?

6) The internet, as it stands, is one of the most powerful social constructions the world has ever seen. It is turning princes to paupers and vice versa. In the current scenario, a single person has a chance and a voice. It is the most democratic social construct I have ever seen. It will revolutionize (if left unfettered) employment, commerce (as it already is, which I think is upsetting people used to an older regime), human connectivity and interaction. It is here that ideas really matter and can make the difference we've all been told they can. The internet, as it is right now, is the purest democracy many have ever seen or been a part of. In it and with it we are more able to Live the Life we want to.


by BenCrobbery on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 06:19:30 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.