To relabel the bill as if its a fight about internet freedom is propaganda.
The key issue is quality of service, particularly as it relates to a multibillion dollar advertising market.
Right now, companies pay millions of dollars per minute to advertise on a scatter-broadcast medium. Sometime in the future, if Matt Stoller (who is tied into hollywood) and Chris Bowers (who runs the blog advertising network) have their way, there will be a network of advertisements that focus down on what people are really using. Google, for example, can get pretty big revenues off particular searches - one company paid 100.00 per click through. The same can be true of Blog advertising, or media over the net, particularly when one considers the flash - media type streaming that, if played over DSL , overs TV-Quality bandwidth delivery.
The broadcast lobby control over government is part of the problem, as well. The candidates, again believe that massive investment in television advertising is required to gain political office. And organizations are prepared to meet them, and armed with polls, convince them that this is in fact the case.
However, television has been losing share steadily to a number of other outlets - podcasting, video games, and , in all probability we should not ignore the fact that Americans are beginning to figure out that they've been set up by these people over the years, and if they change the lion into sheeps clothing, it will still eat them. As Dean said "its outrageous that 7 or 8 companies control 86% of what all americans see every day". Even radio is losing share to the new media. And although legal downloads are rising, market share of traditional broadcast mediums continues to fall - even with their downloads included, which indicates that people are exchanging media amongst themselves.
This is the key thing: the internet is a many to many communications medium.
Propaganda, either carefully or not-so-carefully crafted to say this is all about freedom, is ill placed.
Instead, what is at stake here is whether or not those who deliver content from point a, to point b, can be paid by those who would like to deliver it. The architecture of the net never guaranteed that the bandwidth can be paid by the end point, it was always a question of sharing.
That is what is at the heart of the matter to me: because so many americans just don't get how to be a society of equals, and to be fair. We have become an arrogant society, a society of people who think they have a better pot to piss in than everyone else. Telco that want to charge extra are doing so completely because they believe they can pay money into lobbying firms (which they did) to create legislation (which was) that could control a multi-national, mult-cultural, zero boundary network. In essence, the heart of the matter here is not whether or not the network is free.
The heart of the matter is whether or not America will let go of a now-almost-century old view that just because they won World War II, that they can take the entire resources of the planet. AT+T snarfing up bandwidth from a website in france that details how DSL customers are getting ripped off, and how to maximize your bandwidth, or Verizon burning up the bandwidth that a russian-mail-order bride site - is a decision that is made by American interests which occlude the chances of Laika Kusharska to be happily married, or young teenager in Biarritz to be able to help provide tech support to a kid in columbus ohio who is playing final fantasy with him as part of his team.
So lets look at the lines and where they are drawn - the effects of this legislation will act for the better interest of advertisers and hollywood, who have been parasitic at best for nearly 25 years. The effect of having it shut down will make us grow up, mature, and even possibly - once we get off the "Fun with Dick and Jane" ways we spend our saturday nights glued to the set - it might help us to get up to speed and vault into an era where one day, the primary means of entertainment might just be organic gardening ....
.... of a 24 hour life love doll with a genetically engineered memory of nothing but the Kama Sutra.
The way this game works, is that the telco changes the interface equipment.
Thats what they do to control the network. Thats what ATT did for so many years, and quashed competition and innovation in america until a federal court finally decided to force them to open the market (and where the internet was born).
This is the trick they will pull: read carefully.
In about two months they will add a new "service". It will be something that , instead of a router on your side - will be something like a switch.
So, they will say now that the interconnections from their network to yours are a very big cable that they will own.
Then, they will say to the feds, see - we own this, why can't we decided what to do with it?
Now, the difference would be, that if you have a DSL modem right now - you're going to have a device that can make route decisions about where to go on the net, so the net will be this wild new place and you've invested in the equipment.
But down the road, they will try to say - well , even if the customer has bought their own equipment you've still got this great big cable that we provide.
Note well: the cable companies already tried stupid stuff like this with their EULA. Read your end user license agreement and you'll see some ridiculous stuff like, they own the content of the internet, etc. Write a letter or email protesting it + state that unless they make a clarification you'll cut off service.
Also hold their feet to the fire. They are banking on stupid end users more than anything. Go ahead and upgrade your own connection, get a real address and run your own site.
That way, they can't hide behind this idea that there are some sites that they can take down, and the end users aren't real - they're just classless creatures
The internet is a many to many communications medium. The stuff they are doing is geard for one to many, and the more that idea is challenged the worse their case will end up for them.
it is: this is the most significant finding of all. this shows definitively that Americans want to be led into action
and it also shows how pathetic it is to get excited about polls. Bush is the most powerful man in america. probably the man we'd most like to stop, and he's being aided by the complicity of the media -
today in fact is an interesting day - remember how bush kept saying there's this big debate about global warming?
well today the final nail in the coffin of that argument was struck. two major papers have declared that the idea that there was any debate at all was specious. ie. they are saying that global warming is very, very real.
there never was any debate in the scientific community.
where is the reporting on that?
maybe they were busy with polls that support their advertising revenue...
that is to say - by his very nature he's giving away the fact that the bloc right now owns nearly 40 percent of the vote, more than any special interest group in the united states. more powerful than any previous union ever.
An acquaintance of mine once used to say he was "stuffed" when he was in real trouble. I think nobody believes the internet can be teased away from american society but the upshot of whats going on when men such as this write about why the net roots is not yet ready for prime time, is that they are showing that a massive section of the American population are beginning to move in unison.
The net roots are a huge force to be reckoned with. And those who ignore it will do so at their peril.
And then , you might have also made the final point that democrats and republicans both treat common americans as if they don't know what they're doing - and have continually ignored the fact that the internet has, in effect - created a labour union with over 200 million members. They both still seem to believe that they can eat mango puree with lobbyists on k street and forget about actually releasing some kind of new contract with America that actually means anything.
Its a dog and pony show, scott - thats the worst part of it. Cheney sits down with the oil company, writes the policy that gets a few guys rich and the rest of us reamed.
And finally it shows up every day, in front of you - what is really going on.
Tell them that every single day you see that huge price at the pump, you can just remember dick cheney's crooked smile at the energy meeting...
the bad guys have won, scott. Americans deserve to be called up as minutemen to throw them out.
its not just the midterms, its right now .
Americans will cheer someone who really champions these issues.
You make three excellent points - that the GOP was weak and high gas prices show exactly why the GOP couldn't lead (everyone knows the oil was running out and is running out!) , that a great solution to the problem was to reduce demand (soooo many bush republicans drive these fat ass 'ZERO RESALE VALUE' SUV's all over the place) , and that the money you spend on gas goes directly out of your pocket every day.
But you prove that you're only scott shields and not mark shields when you miss the important fact that the point of maximum extraction was passed last february.
The oil fields that we depend upon are now depleted. There is a center point to an oil field, called the point of maximum extraction. This is the point at which the most oil will be taken from the well, with the least amount of effort. Not unlike oil sands (in canada) which are an absolute bear to get the oil from, the rest of the oil is in the cracks and crevices of the well and won't come out unless the driller gives sixty percent more effort.
And, there is no turning back: once that oil is gone, all the oil is gone.
Professor Plott of Caltech did an excellent study on what happens next: extreme market volatility - despite the fact that the futures are going to be worth zero - the market starts trading wildly.
The reason, scott, forgetting about all of that in your post is such a serious error is that the first place the greasy GOP will run and hide to is the axiom that "market prices are something no one can control". They'll say its an international market and that the real reason why oil went up so high is because the market drove it up so high.
But an American professor finds in 1989 that this will be the behaviour of the markets in about 10 years or so. This is easy to discover - it was on a NOVA show (the one about chaos).
If you take the angle that this could have been predicted if we were a technological and scientific power (instead of being run by dumb ass texas oil men) we'd be able to make the point that not only are we still not solving the problem but we've also got global instability coming in less than 10 years as a result of it. In other words, that they effed up before, but worse still - they effed up things to come - the permanent ramification of ignoring the obvious fact that the point of maximum extraction passed in february. That was the chaos point. The point at which we could predict everything would go wild. We could not predict up or down - but we knew it would go wild.
THEN you could easily start in with the fact that the major oil companies are all launching multibillion dollar campaigns to show they're beneficiently pursuing energy research....
That they are NOT doing anything of the kind....
That Dependence and absurd consumption came from George W. Bush's treating LIGHT TRUCKS as UTILITY VEHICLES and making them exempt from Gas Mileage requirements...
and Then, point out that Bush is trying to do this again, to solve the problem.
That the oil companies shut down refineries so that the prices would be even more volatile, to th e point that here in Atlanta, prices at one point shot up to 5.00 a gallon, making a trip around town cost 100.000
And then posting record profits after they did.
Finally the global scope of the problem, a clear view: Bush and the GOP had an opportunity to lead the entire world. Instead, SUVs get sold in China of all places, and the pollution mounts -
One final point: global weather was found, only about 10 years ago - to be able to turn around on a dime. Literally the entire weather pattern of the world can change in less than 15 years - this is a major discovery, and one that was found in the arctic ice record and not just theoretically proven on paper in some meteorologists lab.
So, we have this sword of damocles over our head now, each and every one of us - and we see it clearly here, and now.
its a massive, pervasive failure of leadership. Not just something that hurts the GOP but every american everywhere, children, man and wife.
And it doesn't just stop at the GOP - because we still have the power to do something about it. Russ feingold had the right idea.
You see, politics it seems, in america, is too orderly and perfect to be effective.
Everyone who is involved in politics seems to be gloating about, oh gee, here come the midterms - here come the democrats.
But the Democrats still don't stand for anything. No real reform. Just blocking the GOP. Hurting the GOP.
In this case, what hurts the GOP hurts us all. Suppose the Democrats stand up and instead of treating us like whores, really go for the new manhattan project - and whats more - actually propose paying for it by shutting down the war in iraq -
I mean, it would be great to win, but what would America really win over there?
What if we said - geez. You know. the middle east is all aobut oil. We threw out Saddam. You do the rest, even if it means lots and lots of terrorism over there.. ?
There are two major errors here that void this entire post
1. The statement and restatement that "they hold all the cards" - this is a common myth. They don't.
2. George Lakoff's view of nurture vs. discipline: this is nowhere near correct. Lakoff's view regarding conservatives vs. liberal is much more simple - a liberal can be counted on to give their all in a fight - a conservative is a bully, someone who picks fights and can't finish them - a weak, cowardly creature who continually gets into things that he or she can't finish and is only interested in the shallow, visceral face of the problem but can't go deep.
A personal point: raising children is an art form - not a science. Politics, on the other hand, is the maximum utilization of available resources. Its the way massive numbers of interests can combine, and the vocal, and frankly stupid - special interests get reigned in for the good of everyone - its the magna carta, the constitution, the battle of good vs. evil.
There are children living at home with their mother and father, children who still don't have jobs. Yesterday was a great example - to see the flood of immigrants just stop, and America continue on as normal. The gaps would have been filled by teenagers in a normal world. Their work would have been done by 17 year olds.
Instead, it simply wasn't done. A massive protest organized completely without union management - millions wide. The work simply stopped.
So, what would the government do? Be stern, and punish them for illegally entering the country - or be nurturing, and grant them citizenship.
Well, first thing: raising a kid, the question becomes much more difficult and much easier to solve if you go back to the fact that people have been successfully raising children for over 20,000 years.
But modern politics, complicated by media strategy, special interests, lobbies, corruption, greed, international pressure - now thats a different row to hoe. So back to the question - what do you do?
The answer is, you compromise: you give them a chance to qualify, as citizens - but you make them go back if they entered in less than two years. Give the people who are established the chance to make it, but clip the wings of the guys who come over to take the job, send the money away - and disappear.
So, the work stops. They get replaced. America goes on. Like a teenager throwing a tantrum, the best thing a parent can do is just smile - because you're holding more than the teenager thinks you've got, two aces in your sleeve - and they know it. You give them no traction. You let them complain, you say "yes, I would too."
And in the end, the love you give. Is equal to . the love. You take.
oh in case I forgot to mention: if you make the mistake of not defending your base, you can be completely blown away : the base camp is where you get your ammo, and resources. you count on those resources to win, and if you have to stay there defending them, you will lose territory no matter what.