As I sit and let my thoughts on these rantings you provided percolate, I just wanted to highlight this particular passage from Hahn, and all its dangerous implications:
"This condition is extremely dangerous in a self-governing country, for the public cannot make informed decisions if it is not so much informed as manipulated by political partisans."
Ooooooohhhhhhhhh.....do you see what I see here? That sentence appalls me. It frightens me. That sentence is, at its core, a call for state control of the media. "...public cannot make informed decisions...political partisans."
Who, then (in the mind of Hahn), is capable of providing information to the public that is not manipulated by political partisans? Why, the only prudent choice is...the Government!
I'm sure there are lobbying dollars going the other way. Obviously, Google, Amazon and Microsoft are strongly in favor of net neutrality, and I recently read that a financial services lobbying group is pro-net neutrality. Which basically equates to Wall St being pro-net neutrality. It makes sense, the telcos are only a few companies that stand to benefit. Many more companies stand to lose.
The telcos were hoping to slip this through quietly, as a little rider on the end of a bill that opens up the market for cable services. The blogosphere's real contribution here is getting the word out, and getting the issue noticed.
Once the companies that could be adversely affected took notice (or take notice), well, killing net neutrality doesn't stand a chance. Appease AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast and piss off Google, Microsoft, CitiBank, Chase, Amazon, Yahoo, E-Trade, NASDAQ, and about 400 other Fortune 500 companies? That just doesn't make sense for any congressman.
Woo hoo for net neutrality, but is this the same Sensenbrenner bill that requires ISP's to record and maintain all your internet usage for 'law enforcement' purposes? Democracy Now was discussing a bill introduced by Sensenbrenner a few days ago that will require ISP's to maintain logs of what sites you visit, what emails you send, etc. The stated objective was to fight child porn, but with the illegal spying going on already, this worries me. Has anyone read the text of the bill?
Sensenbrenner is such scum that I have a hard time believing that this bill is just a blanket net neutrality bill...
The CBC has a point if she didn't ask Mollahan to resign his post, too. She needs to establish that corruption in the democratic caucus is unacceptable. Not only is it the right thing to do, its also the only way to ensure this remains a strong campaign issue for the democrats.
the kind of free market I was dissing, the kind that libertarians espouse, is not embodied in EBay. EBay doesn't have many rules, but it is, in fact, a micro-scale mostly free market. Macro scale is much, much bigger than EBay. EBay is large in the sense that its a huge company and a lot of product is sold through it, but its still micro (in economic terms). Its a limited marketplace. Macro scale is much larger. The entire United States is a macro scale marketplace.
How can you really call Sensenbrenner a libertarian though. A true libertarian would be all about open borders. Free markets and all that.
The net neutrality thing is exactly why the entire concept of free markets is a misnomer in the modern world. They could make one market free, but that would serve to erase an existing free market. Preserve the existing free market, and prevent a free market elsewhere.
Free market theory is bs anyway. A truly free market only works in theory or on a micro-scale, but not in practice (on a macro-scale). Just like communism is an idea that works in theory or on a micro-scale, but not in practice (macro- scale).