So, the free market will again be used to deny access to information based on "economics".

If you're poor, middle class, divorced, kids in college, heavy debt...your fucked.

Sucks to be you say the elites.

This is very, VERY bad news!!! I'm surprised there are only two comments left so far. Is the number of comments representative of the number of people who know about this issue? Visit: http://www.freepress.net

No surprise here. The rich right will just become more and more powerful. Now we will have the foxification of the internet as well.

But our Democratic "leaders" will save us from this, right? Right?

I'm confused. Didn't we win a battle in congress over this? How was that irrelevant?

Make your voice heard? Please. There is not a damn thing any one of us could do that would make a difference. The country doesn't belong to us anymore.

Call or write your Congressional Rep and Senators NOW! They are systematically trying to stifle all access to any information not disseminated by News Corp. This is happening at the same time internet radio is crippled by "market forces" and Murdoch is buying the WSJ and Dow Jones. C'mon people. There's a reason you were asked to read Orwell's 1984 in high school!

Been nice knowing you all. Time to find a new hobby because I'm not paying for the "privilege" of reading nonstop ads on worthless sites owned and operated by the various media moguls. Thanks no.

And Neal is correct. You can 'raise your voice' as often and as loud as you like. Money is what wins these things. Not grassroots and not overwhelming strength in numbers. It makes no difference how many people disagree. I think the shrub government is an excellent example of that.

OK,

Let's put this ruling into perspective.

This "net neutrality" is making lots of people upset and worried that the last bastion of truly free speech, the internet, is going to be somehow finished as we know it. If not finished, then "compromised" much like the mainstream media is accused of being, even as there are still many news networks that are apparently NOT "compromised", for example Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are staunch "democrats" and are constantly telling their viewers all the bad things GWB et al does. Although lots of the news on TV for example is crap, there is still truth going around. Seymour Hersh from The New Yorker is the best example of printed truth. As always, it is incumbent upon the viewer to discern truth from fiction. Most of you have done it, there is no reason others can't. Laziness on the part of many people is no excuse for ignorance. Since all the cable television networks that YOU like, such as the Comedy Network, MSNBC, etc, are ALL owned by "vicious", "evil businessmen", there is no reason NOT to expect the same on the internet.

As such, net neutrality is not something to be afraid of. Most people are concerned that the "little guy" will not get as high a speed as the "big guy", and hence "net equality" will not exist
anymore. Thus they advocate for legislation preventing the telecoms from price differentiation. What they want in a sense is to have their cake and eat it too.

What I mean by this is that they believe the internet to be a RIGHT to the citizenry, rather than a PRIVILEGE. To ask anything by right opens up a whole can of worms that makes the original argument contradictory. For example, an equivalent argument can be found in print. Would it make sense to force by law for all the different newspapers into charging the same price for their ad space? Should NYT charge the same price as the Jerkwater Times in Nebraska? Of course not. But this is what the net neutrality advocates want. It makes no sense does it?

Hence, allowing the telecoms to discriminate is NOT something evil or conspiratorial. It is a natural thing of the market. The telecoms are the ones who provide us with internet service and so it is THEY who should control it.

Now the repercussions:

Some websites will be very slow. But, if the website is popular like Crooks and Liars, then there is nothing to worry about, because the telecoms would give priority to Crooks and Liars over say, Rightwingnews.com.

You may not trust these events, you may not think that the market will be efficient and we will all see the internet turn into nothing but another propaganda piece for the corporate controlled Congress. You may think that I am just being a talking head for them and do not know what I am really advocating for, because the actual result will be different than the desired result. But this is what I think:

The truth is ALWAYS out there. It has NEVER vanished, nor disappeared from us. Even before the war started, there were MANY people on TV, print, internet, word of mouth etc, who all said this is wrong, that something is just not right. Remember Michael Moore at the Academy Awards?

The truth is there for us everybody, it is up to us to find it. If there are too many lazy asses in this country who blindly follow Fox or CNN, then who's fault is that really? We need to start taking responsibility for ourselves. We need to be free.
NOT something that is threatening to free speech.

Bad enough that the American health system is only for those who can pay for insurance; everyone else just lives with their illnesses... or dies. Are we now going to start charging people at lending libraries depending on the number of pages in the books? How about the police responding more quickly to calls only from those who have signed up to a pre-paid protection service? Are grocery stores going to open up premium rate check-out lines, where you have to pay more for your fruit and veg if you want to get it home in time to cook for dinner? Are schools only going to allow certain students access to desks and books and teachers depending on a sliding scale of availability? Will we have to pay extra if we want to be able to fill a glass with water more quickly than someone who can afford a 'high-speed tap'? How about voters? Will we get to vote for certain candidates only if we've first paid a premium to receive a ballot in time?

Then again, maybe I shouldn't be giving anyone any ideas...

Hey number 17, if you believe this shit, "Some websites will be very slow. But, if the website is popular like Crooks and Liars, then there is nothing to worry about, because the telecoms would give priority to Crooks and Liars over say, Rightwingnews.com." you are crazy. The right wing shows with extrememly low ratings still hold the best time slots on TV. The people who own this shit will run how THEY want it done. I'm so sorry for you Number 17, you are so full of crap.....

I don't understand how the telcoms can justify charging more money. Companies already pay for thier bandwidth, so how can ATT or Verizon say they have to pay more to get into people's homes. What was it they paid for in the first place then?

Private Freedom @ 17:

OK,

Let's put this ruling into perspective... What they want in a sense is to have their cake and eat it too... What I mean by this is that they believe the internet to be a RIGHT to the citizenry, rather than a PRIVILEGE...

The New York Times charging advertisers more for space than the Gillyup Idaho Tribune is one thing - charging readers for getting a paper in the morning instead of maybe three days late is quite another.

When I pay a service provider, I have a right to the product I've paid for. I shouldn't have to pay more on top of that to get it any sooner. I pay for an apple in a store; I shouldn't have to pay more to have a faster check-out line. I pay taxes for public services; I shouldn't have to pay more to have the police show up any faster on a 911 call. I pay for water; I shouldn't have to pay more to have it come out the tap any faster. As a customer, I do have and should expect statutory rights - I've paid for them already.

Your free market argument just doesn't hold water. Fast or slow.

Private Freedom @ 17:

OK,

Let's put this ruling into perspective.

This "net neutrality" is making lots of people upset and worried that the last bastion of truly free speech, the internet, is going to be somehow finished as we know it. If not finished, then "compromised" much like the mainstream media is accused of being, even as there are still many news networks that are apparently NOT "compromised", for example Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are staunch "democrats" and are constantly telling their viewers all the bad things GWB et al does. Although lots of the news on TV for example is crap, there is still truth going around ...

Hence, allowing the telecoms to discriminate is NOT something evil or conspiratorial. It is a natural thing of the market. The telecoms are the ones who provide us with internet service and so it is THEY who should control it.

I worked for a telecom in 2000 when WorldCom, Enron, and others happened. I no longer work for a telecom because the industry collapsed from the inside out.

I don't trust telecoms any further than I can throw them.

Liberal AND Proud @ 28:

Neal @ 26: blockquote>

The corporate zombies that own this country would love every one of those ideas. The Republic is dead. Capitalist Fascism hides under the facade of our Democracy.

The only thing that can save this country is revolution, but people are either stretched to their limits with everyday survival, or too mesmerized by their iPhones to do anything about it.

Get your Visa now, and avoid the Christmas rush.

You actually raise a good point. I wonder if it is in the interest of companies like Apple or Blackberry that the internet isn't equally accessible. Don't their gadgets become less attractive if they become less reliable with regard to speed and access?

PurplePatriot @ 29:

Liberal AND Proud @ 28:

Neal @ 26: blockquote>

The corporate zombies that own this country would love every one of those ideas. The Republic is dead. Capitalist Fascism hides under the facade of our Democracy.

The only thing that can save this country is revolution, but people are either stretched to their limits with everyday survival, or too mesmerized by their iPhones to do anything about it.

Get your Visa now, and avoid the Christmas rush.

You actually raise a good point. I wonder if it is in the interest of companies like Apple or Blackberry that the internet isn't equally accessible. Don't their gadgets become less attractive if they become less reliable with regard to speed and access?

To be fair, it wasn't my point. It was neal's.

My point is...leave. The argument about running out on America is moot. The country ran out on us, a long time ago.

If they make us so poor that we cannot buy their products, (Gasoline, Electricity, prescriptions, milk, whatever) then they are just hurting themselves and the supposed American way of life.

It is very fitting that our leader's name is George. So was the last one who lost this country...

nonny mouse @ 25:

Private Freedom @ 17:

OK,

Let's put this ruling into perspective... What they want in a sense is to have their cake and eat it too... What I mean by this is that they believe the internet to be a RIGHT to the citizenry, rather than a PRIVILEGE...

The New York Times charging advertisers more for space than the Gillyup Idaho Tribune is one thing - charging readers for getting a paper in the morning instead of maybe three days late is quite another.

When I pay a service provider, I have a right to the product I've paid for. I shouldn't have to pay more on top of that to get it any sooner. I pay for an apple in a store; I shouldn't have to pay more to have a faster check-out line. I pay taxes for public services; I shouldn't have to pay more to have the police show up any faster on a 911 call. I pay for water; I shouldn't have to pay more to have it come out the tap any faster. As a customer, I do have and should expect statutory rights - I've paid for them already.

Your free market argument just doesn't hold water. Fast or slow.

It DOES hold water, because your whole argument does not contradict anythign I said. The way the market works is that business charges their customers as high a price as is possible, at the same time not too high as to lose their solicitation to other companies. This is the way it has worked since the dawn of business. There is no such thing as a "fair price" (except in communist countries). In a free market, prices are determined by what people will pay, no more no less. It is therefore not a question of "allowing companies to charge way too high a price". Prices lower or rise based on demand. If they charge TOO high a price, they lose profits by losing customers.

My argument is not my own, it is like more than 250 years old.

At some point, US citizens are going to have to declare war on the corporations that are out to rob and silence us.

The Corporate CEO Watch database on the AFL-CIO website shows how much CEOs make each year. For 2006:

Comcast: Brian L. Roberts, CEO: $27,858,900 in total 2006 compensation

Verizon: Ivan G. Seidenberg, CEO: $21,309,218 in total 2006 compensation

AT&T: Edward E. Whitacre Jr., CEO: $36,026,876 in total 2006 compensation

These companies know that the internet is the very last pipeline of communication that the little people have access to. They're going to privatize something that WE built!

CEO greed, republican hatred for free speech, and the desire of corporations to own and run the world are now realities.

It is glaringly apparent to me that Americans in general don't care about anything except who's got television talent.

However, if you're a parent and you love your children, you better start focusing on their future welfare: it will only get worse if you do nothing.

Nicole Belle @ 36:

So what you are saying is that they would sacrifice profits over ideology? I thought they were "profit seeking" bastards? Which is it? If what you say is true, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the advertisers would pay those "popular stations", and hence leave the "right wing" stations in the dust? That wouldn't be like the right wing now would it?

Um, yes it would. Have you looked at the ratings for Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson? Non-existent. And Beck keeps getting new gigs. The one cable news show with GROWING ratings is Olbermann. See a flood of more left-oriented slant news shows coming up?

Your free market sounds good in theory. Does not work (and never has) in practice.

I don't believe that Carlson or Beck have non-existent ratings. If they did, wouldn't it be logical to see their advertisers get the hell out and thus prevent them from getting the required funding and thus get cancelled?

If what you said is true, then of course your conspiracy theories would be valid. But I find it hard to believe you would know offhand the numbers of viewers for such shows. How much time do you have anyway? You would LIKE them to have no viewers, but they have enough to justify being on TV.

and here I thought the internet was America's saving grace. Back to the dark-ages people. Our masters want a stupid public and we are more than willing to obey.

I feel this malaise after so many years of passionately pushing back against this slow suffocation. Will another goddamn flurry of emails make any difference.

17 get off. It's like the dead telling the living being the perfect parasite to the perfect host ain't so bad. So unnatural, so perverse.

My argument is not my own, it is like more than 250 years old

Wow that's almost as old as the internet, then.

PSoul @ 41:

Goody! We are one step closer to the revolution. Every time the government comes out on the side of corporations over the people I just grin. One step closer..one step closer :)

What % of Americans would know who the following are:
a) Anna Nicole Smith
b) Britney Spears
c) Daniel Perl

What % of Americans would know what the following are:
a) Moussad
b) Starbucks
c) Sanjaya

What % of Americans are doing the following in response to high gas prices:
a) Driving more fuel effecient vehicles
b) Nothing
c) Starting a grass roots movement to boycott big oil

If you think a revolution is coming, you think a great deal more highly of the American populace than do I.

Private Freedom, I know you read "Atlas Shrugged" a year ago and you're still quivering with delight on the concept of free market, but please, don't challenge me on my business. This is what this site does--look at the media.

Here's a sample PDF of Cable News Ratings. As I said, Tucker and Beck are tiny, tiny fractions of their competitors, a ridiculously small marketshare. If you saw the ratings I was emailed just last month (unfortunately not available as a URL) this is what they showed as their marketshare: "---". That means that it's less than 1%.

AND Tucker's and Beck's ratings have dropped from this point last year.

AND Beck has gotten two new gigs (ABC Radio and GMA) while plummeting.

Seriously, you're way out of your league.

Anyone not enthralled with with the utopian but impractical concept of Objectivism can see that this is a bad thing for the consumers and will be yet another death knell to our democracy, because the deep pockets (of which, sadly, C&L is not) will be able to control the flow of information. You should be ashamed of your blinders.

MORE TUBES!!!!!

Oh, Private Freedom! You so make me laugh. A+ troll.
Magic 8 ball says: Try again later.

"Some websites will be very slow. But, if the website is popular like Crooks and Liars, then there is nothing to worry about, because the telecoms would give priority to Crooks and Liars over say, Rightwingnews.com."

In an altruistic society, yeah that would be correct. But, that's not how it will work.

"The way the market works is that business charges their customers as high a price as is possible, at the same time not too high as to lose their solicitation to other companies."

Except when they're a monopoly. Then they'll charge through the nose. Do you realize how monopolized they are in many areas? I have 2 choices in my area and I'm in one of the largest metro areas in my State (approx 180k pop). The choices are DSL or Broadband, one company has one and the other company the other.

Many of the telecom companies have promoted 'telecommuting' and then bought out their competition. Now, the person who telecommutes instead of moving cross country to the physical location is going to get screwed because they will a) have to fork over a huge amount of money to stay connected to work, b) move cross country, or c) lose their job.

"You actually raise a good point. I wonder if it is in the interest of companies like Apple or Blackberry that the internet isn’t equally accessible. Don’t their gadgets become less attractive if they become less reliable with regard to speed and access?"

Yes, it would be in their interest to have a tiered internet. The reason, money. Apple has a contract with ATT. ATT controls part of the internet backbone. MCI/Worldcom controls a huge amount of the backbone. ATT would be able to know how the 'net is be accessed. If accessed by a partner company (Apple), they would get preferential treatment over some other source.

This is about money and control of information. ATT and many other telecom companies didn't invest in proper hardware at the beginning, or as time has gone by thinking the internet would be of limited use, and now want us to pay for their upgrades, up front. Japan is downloading at a rate of something like 60mbs whereas here Mediacom is saying that a download rate of 10mbs is an outstanding deal. Cable companies and telephone companies are duking it out and we're expected to pay for it.

PurplePatriot @ 56:

Liberal AND Proud @ 52:

Did you not hear of yesterday's announcement that Haliburton now owns all wombs. This abandonment of the Womb Neutrality Act doesn't mean you can't have a baby together, only that if a wealthier man wants access to said womb, you'll have to get in line.

Damn. Does that mean I have to get permission from Cheney to practice conception with my husband? ;)

PurplePatriot @ 47:

PSoul @ 41:

Goody! We are one step closer to the revolution. Every time the government comes out on the side of corporations over the people I just grin. One step closer..one step closer :)

What % of Americans would know who the following are:
a) Anna Nicole Smith
b) Britney Spears
c) Daniel Perl

What % of Americans would know what the following are:
a) Moussad
b) Starbucks
c) Sanjaya

What % of Americans are doing the following in response to high gas prices:
a) Driving more fuel effecient vehicles
b) Nothing
c) Starting a grass roots movement to boycott big oil

If you think a revolution is coming, you think a great deal more highly of the American populace than do I.

I knew everyone in the first question, but I had to Google Sanjaya, I'm absurdly pleased to say. Never heard of him before. As for high gas prices, can't afford a more fuel efficient vehicle just yet, so I'm walking more and driving less to compensate. I wonder how possible it would even be to boycott big oil - is there any such thing as small oil?

Nicky B - Ayn Rand! Of course! (Smacks self on forehead). I feel stupid not spotting that sooner myself. Y'know, I read Rand when I was about 12 or 13, thought it was pretty hot stuff then... although I do remember being vaguely disturbed by her 'the strong should prevail; the weak deserve to die' undercurrent; I had acute asthma and had several very close brushes with death before I was 12 - learned to read at three because there wasn't much else to do when you're hooked up to hospital IVs and an oxygen mask back in the 1950's. Medicine has improved since then and so have I, and I think I've turned out to be of some vague value to society in general despite my 'weakness'.

But to paraphrase another writer: If you've read Rand at 13 and don't think her stuff is interesting, there's something wrong with you. If you still think her stuff is interesting at 30, however, there's something wrong with you.

Of course they did!

Had to do it now or never, the elections are coming up.
Gotta shut down those sites that offend our betters. Or at least slow them down until they are unusable.
Can't have the little people getting all riled up and voting the wrong way now could we?

"Private Freedom, I know you read "Atlas Shrugged" a year ago and you're still quivering with delight on the concept of free market, but please, don't challenge me on my business. This is what this site does--look at the media."

Fair enough.

"As I said, Tucker and Beck are tiny, tiny fractions of their competitors, a ridiculously small marketshare."

Yes, you are right, they DO have miniscule ratings. But thankfully even the tiny and fractional aspects of market share ARE able to be in existence. This principle is the reason we are able to enjoy a wide range of services rather than ONLY the ones from big producers. You are always clamouring that big business is "taking over", but then when a tiny fractional market share sees the light of day you say that it SHOULD'T be allowed to go on BECAUSE it is so small. Don't you see the error in the logic here? You can't have it both ways. I agree wholeheartedly that Tucker and Beck are on to a large extent because their boss agrees with their views. But the boss always has final say anyways. It is they who are risking their financial interests by putting on people who don't gain viewership. Where I become agitated is when they receive either subsidies from government or get special treatment from government. In the case of Murdoch, he does get special treatment (he's buddy buddies with the government). It is for this reason that I abhor him and everything he represents. But my economic rational still holds. It is thus not a question of me sitting down because what I think is unrealistic. It is a question of me standing up and telling these people that what I say is realistic and what they are doing is both ruining the country AND hurting themselves in the long run. If I can convince them that they are hurting themselves, I stand a chance.

"Seriously, you're way out of your league."

I agree with you here, but only insofar as knowledge of data and statistics. It is good you are keeping up with them, I approach things from a slightly different angle, that is, from a principled perspective. I therefore am subject to ridicule and debate, because I am an apparently easy target due to the fact that I am saying what I am saying, and not REPORTING it, whereby nobody can mess with me because well, data is data. In the long run though, I win. I lose everyday arguments, but hopefully I can make people realize what the ultimate consequences of their thoughts and actions are.

"Anyone not enthralled with with the utopian but impractical concept of Objectivism can see that this is a bad thing for the consumers and will be yet another death knell to our democracy, because the deep pockets (of which, sadly, C&L is not) will be able to control the flow of information. You should be ashamed of your blinders."

I totally understand how your site may be hurt by this decision. But if you continue to do what you are doing, instead of trying to gain more readers, then the risk is yours. If you start to do what is in the best interests of ALL readers, that is, talking about truth in its objectivity, rather than particular political ideology a la John Amato's philosphy, then you have everything to lose. But I will tell you this, if you ONLY focus on propping up democrats, and democratic posters, then you run the risk of losing readership once the internet is completely privatized.

You have said VERY clearly over the years that this is YOUR website, whereby YOUR views are what is going to be spread. YOU will not tolerate dissent, namely conspiracies, right wing support, etc... It is YOUR ideology that is the ultimate determinant in what is covered on Crooks and Liars. YOU run the risk of operating this way when the internet becomes more privatized. In this way, i.e. one-sided political views, YOU are no different than Fox, CNN, or any other POLITICALLY motivated news media. If you play by their rules, then be prepared to die by their sword. What I mean by this is if you want to support only democrats, then you have every right to, but if yuo don't gain enough money because you focus too much on only democratic support, then you are ignoring a huge chunk of the population. You should see the average age of Ron Paul supporters. They are super young. Talk about freedom and liberty and maybe you can gain their attention as well.

If I have a suggestion for you, you should EXPAND your blog to include posts about ALL things political, rather than just democratic support. If a right-wing politician should happen to say something true and valid, post it and support it. If a businessman says something in public that is true and valid, post it and support it. If you ignore these things, then you are just as much a "suppresser" of information as the next group of people.

If you continue to run things the way you are running them, then you run the risk of not being able to get enough internet speed due to too small of a readership crowd (die hard democrat supporters). It is your choice. You must make your own destiny.

Private Freedom, it is YOU who wants things both ways. YOU said that I must be wrong about the ratings, otherwise Beck or Tucker wouldn't have a job.

I proved to you OBJECTIVELY that YOU were wrong. You then dismiss that out of hand.

The issue isn't to be OBJECTIVE. The issue is to be fair. The lone nut with every tin-foil hat theory on the planet has just as much right to be read on the internets as we do and as CNN.com does. If Net Neutrality is abolished, he won't. And it will be harder to find us. But I promise you, you'll find FoxNews.com VERY easily. How's that for objective coverage?

You're framing this issue from a completely tangential and irrelevant point of view.

And for what it's worth, this is not MY site. Look at the name on the top of the page. Just like the editor of Time Magazine, Mother Jones, WaPo, etc. etc., he has the right to dictate the content of his blog. How very non-Randian of you to want to control that.

Once again the Liberal Chicken Little’s are running around claiming the sky is falling. Relax, smoke some more reefer, and stop over reacting to every little thing. It’s annoying.

Nichole, it's like having a conversation in a hurricane. Too much energy which is better saved for no more than the time of day. Certain 'types' have a different sort of thickened soul that can't be penetrated.

don't let him eat you.

Private Freedom, do I need to reduce my language to monosyllables?

Less than 1% marketshare IS non-existent ratings. Or are you such a literalist that you thought that I meant ZERO viewers? I'm sorry, my little free market fiend, that just shows how outgunned you are in this discussion.

And Free Speech is a right, not a privilege. Again, for you to base your discussion on that shows how patently absurd it is. The telecoms have no right to dictate tiers of speech. None whatsoever. Go back to NonnyMouse's analogy of paying for faster water after paying your utilities. Your argument falls apart.

"Private Freedom, do I need to reduce my language to monosyllables?

Less than 1% marketshare IS non-existent ratings."

Then I cannot hold a proper conversation with anyone who thinks a non-zero is a zero.

"Or are you such a literalist that you thought that I meant ZERO viewers?"

I did. I'm sorry.

"...that just shows how outgunned you are in this discussion."

I don't want to "outgun" you, nor "win". I just want to talk about ideas (and how to keep C&L around once privatization comes).

"And Free Speech is a right, not a privilege."

I agree with you here in principle, but you have to be careful how you apply it. Free speech is NOT saying whatever one wants wherever one wants. For example, I cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater, and then when I get arrested I claim free speech is violated. I was not respecting the private property rights of the owner of the movie theater, which nullifies my "right" to say anything I want. I DO have every right to say whatever I want on public roads, and in my home. If I swear in my friend's in front of his kids, then I am not being prevented of having free speech.

Thus, the internet is NOT a right. Do you really think it is a right? It is not. You MUST realize this.

"Again, for you to base your discussion on that shows how patently absurd it is."

OK, it is absurd then.

"The telecoms have no right to dictate tiers of speech."

If they are the owners of the medium by which the speech is conducted, then yes they do have the right to dictate the content. They are of course guided by what the viewers want, so they are not free to show ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they want. They have the choice though, but the telecoms won't practice it all the way.

Ms. Belle,

Yesterday evening C&L posted this:

"fourth-string spokesperson Scott Stanzel:

Q: Scott, is Scooter Libby getting more than equal justice under the law? Is he getting special treatment?

STANZEL: Well, I guess I don’t know what you mean by “equal justice under the law.”
"

From what I've been reading, Private Freedom operates under the same mindset, albeit P.F. is far more verbose. Your effort to reach P.F. is honourable, but obtuse is opaque; therefore, enlightenment must come from within. At the moment P.F. seems enamoured of Ms. Rand. With opportunity, perhaps that will change. What is disturbing is that P.F. is calling for limitation on his own options, and limitations on access to free thought and open discourse, such as you are now undertaking with him. That is the tragedy of this philosophy de jour he currently pursues. But, P.F. seems bright enough that he will eventually realize intellectual limits benefit no one. You've done admirable, yoewomans service. Maybe it is time to allow some of your valid, cogent points to be digest.

It will be interesting watching this from the outside of the US.
The US is going to rapidly drop behind technically - everyone snagged in the Microsoft imaginary patent net and unable to read anything their ISP doesnt want them to!
Or perhaps the technos will take the free software/RFCS that the internet is built on - and a few pringles aerials and build an alternative web.

"If they are the owners of the medium by which the speech is conducted, then yes they do have the right to dictate the content. They are of course guided by what the viewers want, so they are not free to show ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they want. They have the choice though, but the telecoms won’t practice it all the way."

Technically your first sentence is correct. On the second sentence, yeah, if they actually want a wider usage base, that would be true.

The thing is, the telecoms will allow just about anything, but for a price. If the corporate heads do not like what C&L is offering, they will charge a huge amount of money for 'adequate' transmission of their content. But, if they like what Ann Coulter's site offers more, they will charge less for superior transmission. They will price out those that they don't like and call it 'free market', which it isn't.

The other point is that we are all already paying for service. C&L has to pay a fee base upon bandwidth usage (the more bandwidth, the higher the fee) and I the reader has to pay for access to the net. The telecoms want both sides to pay more for certain levels of service that has never been defined before. Right now I pay $50 for broadband service that transfers at a pretty decent clip (up to 10mbs) , for what I want anyway. But, they want me to pay one price for xfer at, say, between 1 and 2 mbs, another rate for serivce of 2-4mbs, etc. The same for those providing the service I'm looking for.

Private Freedom @ 74:

"But I do love that tagline, ‘You must make your own destiny.’ Wow. Profound. Did you get that with the Jedi Star Wars Action Figure in your McDonald’s Happy Meal? Cool."

It was from a book on how to succeed in life. I can't remember the name of it, because there are so many of them. But it is true.

{sniff, sniff} Pardon me while I wipe a tear away ... that was beautiful. "You make your own destiny." So simple, but so true--but then aren't the truest things in life simple?

This uplifting cliche slogan reminds me of a story. Back in the 1920's there was a boy named Charlie. He was 12 years old and full of spunk--he was a rascal. His father had died in a coal mining collapse two years earlier.

But their little town relied heavily on that coal mine. The coal company said it was a tragic event in the newspaper. One of the local widows had complained that she thought the mine was unsafe. Obviously she was not looking at the coal company's profits when she said such a ridiculous thing. If that mine wasn't safe, how would the company be making so much money? If the mine wasn't safe, then workers would die at a rate that would render coal production unprofitable. I feel sorry for the widow. But maybe she should have moved to the USSR if she didn't trust the free market.

Anyway, back to little 12 year old Charlie. That young whippersnapper showed true American grit one day. One of his friends, Jimmy, said something to Charlie as the foreman locked the gate behind them as they walked into the coal mine for their 14 hour shift. "Charlie," Jimmy said, "why is it you think the bosses lock us inside every day?" Charlie held his head up high and said, "Jimmy, you're not going to get anywhere in life questioning the actions of others. You see, I come here six days a week, 14 hours a day, and I work hard. Someday I'm going to be the owner of this coal company. Because, you see Jimmy, you must make your own destiny."

Jimmy told that story three years later at Charlie's funeral. Charlie died of black lung disease. The coal company sent flowers.

Once again, C&L saves the day! 10 bucks says the MSM says absolutely NOTHING about this. It will be too busy covering Paris Hilton and some guy in Arkansas who cuts his foot off with his lawnmower. Just went to savetheinternet and let my reps have it. Thank you, C&L!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - this is not the the country my grandfathers fought for.

They screwed up tv and print journalism and I quit watching and reading. If they screw up the internet I will quit paying so damn much for broadband and live in happy ignorant bliss $90 richer each month. FTW nothing we can do about it anyway.

Ok, did the 'save the internet' thing... We'll see.. At this point though, its looking like set, match, game.... (sigh)....If this isn't nipped in the bud right now, I don't think it will take long before the effect is felt even here.......... It might already be happening the way this site is behaiving today... I'd say we're sooo fucked now, but in a world of sooo fucked beyond belief it all just starts sounding like so many cliches.... JD

I saw in someone's post yesterday, that we are useless "food eaters". That is entirely worng. Without consumers America shuts down, and GOOD. The only way to hit back is to stop consuming. If everyone bought only what they absolutely needed, for one week, corporations would be on their knees.

I had fantasized about starting a capmiagn of "don't buy American" (war and empire protest for those of us that can't vote, but can stop buying) through the internet. Sorry guys (my American friends), but... If the world stops buying your stuff, what happens? If Americans curtail spending, what happens? Stop supporting corporations: put it back on the shelf and walk away. You have the power.

Fuck it, we'll go back to doing things the way most did in suppressed societies, we will go back to print!

Number 17, Private Freedom, you are a FUCKING IDIOT. And most certainly an asshole, as well.

Every major blog needs to run this story every day, every other post, until this gets addressed properly. I see one post, then the usual stories.

THIS CANNOT BE LOST IN THE NOISE.

It's the net and word of mouth or nothing. The traditional media WILL NOT BE COVERING THIS in any fashion that matters. Why? Because they stand to gain though favored status. Think about it, then act on it.

John, please run this every few hours. I think it will matter.

I'm a little confused-

Now, the FTC thing happened a week ago. As far as I've read, the FCC and congress are still out on this. The FCC was asking for comments, but that ended a month ago. So why is Save The Internet advertising 8 more days! to send in comments? Are they just behind on the counter? Or is there another deadline?

Umm, And...
FCC is also auctioning off TeeVee Broadcast Spectrum and making all channels go digital. Lots and lots of Po Folk get their minimal Tee Vee this way -- rather than through Cable and Satellite. And they vote Democratic by and large. So they'll be out of the Media Mix by 2010.

Digital Only will drive Plasma sales as well -- and Plasma uses 3x energy of Cathode Ray. UK says if everyone had Plasma screens and wanted to watch the World Cup at the same time, that they would have to build 2 more Nuke Plants to accommodate just that one day event. Not to mention 2 way observation and tracking viewing habits and all that. And same exposure to radio waves but no practical benefit.

Dems should be all over this because they will lose access to a good part of their base. Wall of Silence prevails.

Barrett D @ 92:

i'm in shock...

so ludicrous. free market? thats what net neutrality is! a completely free and open market on the internet. holy fuck i hope this doesn't get picked up in Canada.

and haveyou seen any of the advertising campaigns against net neutrality? they sure make it look good and evil- "a bunch of clever mumbo jumbo." i totally fucking feel like i'm living in the outer limits, some episode featuring george orwell or something.

I can't say that I am the least bit surprised that the FTC ruled with the hand that feeds them.

For the people by the people has little meaning, but then again did it ever?

there is only one way to stop or slow corporation is take money away from them but this usa we should be able to control this. But we let old people make are chocies for us like little kids, Our internet was and always be ulimited it was born that way. the net needs be that was but. even if this is stated one voice can't do anything b/c every body else is screaming and every single polotition in this world is about there wallet, so essentially it starts at the wallet. we as people should all look at the top and stop voting in these simple minded people. nobody in this new breed is even close. they all have simlar intrest so in sense vote for none of the above or some one unknown and if your are hasrassed by your boss to vote for someone you don't know do your reasearch, better to got with the little man not to many things in his and maybe these will help.

Liberals_are_crazy @ 67:

Once again the Liberal Chicken Little’s are running around claiming the sky is falling. Relax, smoke some more reefer, and stop over reacting to every little thing. It’s annoying.

Liberals_are_crazy @ 67:

Once again the Liberal Chicken Little’s are running around claiming the sky is falling. Relax, smoke some more reefer, and stop over reacting to every little thing. It’s annoying.

GUN TOTING REPUGS need Some REEFER to Open THEIR GREEDY Power Filed Minds

Barret D and all fellow Canadians please visit http://www.neutrality.ca/ and http://www.michaelgeist.ca/, sign the petition, lets get on this early and often to stop'em in their tracks with a uniquely Canadian approach (to paraphrase our PM) we have a chance with our three party system with the Liberals and NDP just chomping at the bit to take down the Conservatives who have fallen in the polls now before the next election, contact your MPs, support people like

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Minister of Industry is siding with telecommunications giants against consumers and is refusing to apply the principle of net neutrality, which guarantees identical upload or download speeds for anonymous blogs and big business websites alike. Real competition for sure.

Can the minister make a commitment, here in this House, not to make any decisions that would favour big businesses at the expense of consumers, thus ensuring that the Internet remains a democratic tool?

- Paul Crête, MP

Over the next few weeks a guerrilla campaign will start here in Toronto, posters on the bus shelters, streetcar stops, in the subway etc will be distributed showing the true intent of the corps on this issue. People must be made aware, fwd the neutrality link around, talk to people, write your reps in gov....our situation up here on this issue is nowhere near as hopeless as south of the border, if only b/c of the cons weak position and our left leaning oppo parties (Liberals and NDP). DO NOT let laziness and/or lack of an informed public be the reasons why this one slips through.

TTFD

I did not read all the comments, allot of them, but do Telco companies charge for Internet access already? They are the internet providers, and they already charge us (the users) for internet access, if not directly, then via smaller internet providers. The access is already limited by how much you pay for access, if you are poor, you pay $5-$10 per month for dial up, if you are better off, you get DSL for $20 or more. Then all Internet companies are paying for bandwidth and Internet access, the bigger they are the more they pay. All those fees should already cover for their profits. Thats my 2 cents. Thank you.

I believe we were born to serve the rich. Being a Midwestern boy, I prefer to serve them with barbecue sauce.

As a wannabe Objectivist, I think I should point out that Ayn Rand would be the first person to object to the govt having the ability to enforce what could and could not be seen on the internet. More than just being an advocate for the power of the market, she believed strongly in the power of individuals. If you do not support the heinous idea of a company not supporting net neutrality, then you have a moral obligation to not do any business with them. However it is amusing to read persons asking their government to intervene when the lobbying system in America is geared towards the protection of corporate interests through force, which is something Ms. Rand spoke out against quite often. The power truly rests in your hands, your spending habits will determine the future of the net.

[...] the open nature that is the foundation of the entire internet. On that front, the FTC quietly abandoned net neutrality today, saying that it preferred to “let the market sort out the issue” which is, of [...]

stumblingjoe @ 115:

As a wannabe Objectivist, I think I should point out that Ayn Rand would be the first person to object to the govt having the ability to enforce what could and could not be seen on the internet. More than just being an advocate for the power of the market, she believed strongly in the power of individuals. If you do not support the heinous idea of a company not supporting net neutrality, then you have a moral obligation to not do any business with them. However it is amusing to read persons asking their government to intervene when the lobbying system in America is geared towards the protection of corporate interests through force, which is something Ms. Rand spoke out against quite often. The power truly rests in your hands, your spending habits will determine the future of the net.

That only works if we have spending choices. We don't have a true free market in the telecom world; the infrastructure is controlled by a very small group of large companies. If they all choose to use a tiered pricing structure, I have no options to choose one that doesn't. In this case, government (which is to say, the consumers working in concert through their elected representatives) needs to set up the market conditions we require. After all, the technology that these companies are using was developed and paid for by the government, and then given to them for free. I see no problem in the government putting controls on their use of it. After all, the FCC sees no problem in dictacting what is appropriate to broadcast on the public airwaves!

Yep.

I'll buy the content discrimination bit, but only if every American has their choice of service providers. Real choice, not some bullshit choice a or choice b that really just present two pools of preferred Internet access.

Right now there is a free market --in many of the best senses of the term. Guess what? Traditional media is getting it's ass kicked because people to people communication is far more valuable than one to many broadcasting is. That is exactly why this is happening.

This is being done for MINDSHARE period. Before the net we had network television. Guess what that did?

That's right, it focused the national debate and empowered the twisted framing issues we have going right now. Prior to network television, we had people actually thinking about things, talking and making choices that were in their interests. Television consumed a ton of that mindshare and we live in a news cycle today that largely frames the discussion. Result = we slowly are led to not vote our interests and we are here today because of that.

Internet communications have changed that dynamic. Witness the sharp disconnect between traditional media and what has been happening on blogs, mailing lists, discussion forums, etc... The framing no longer is quite so effective now. That's a problem for the elite powers that be.

A greater focus on traditional media properties will grab back some of that mind share. The idea being to use dollars to nudge people toward preferred content, not their own content and communication. This will restore the status quo and continue the problem.

FYI, Lawerence Lessig has groked this and is ahead of the game. Go give lessig.org a read and consider his views on corruption. Pay some attention to how he defines it and put that in the context of the Equality battle going on right now. It's spooky stuff.

Truth is the average joe will move toward the faster elements presented. Asking for slow sites, ones that feature irregular connections, etc... will marginalize them compared to established interests. As it stands right now, anyone can build a site that presents as well as Disney can. That will change, and with it will the mindshare. With that goes our potential to empower change and get some stuff done that we need more than large interests need to continue to hold power and collect dollars. The only reason they collect dollars is to empower their control. It's a bad cycle that leaves us out of the loop.

Mark (116). You are abosuletly right. The pipes run through and utilize the commons. We pay for the commons. They belong to us. The internet pipes were not created by the telcoms. They just run the switches in their areas. They want to charge more to use the switches. But they should be taxed heavily for using the commons.

As to private freedom. He seems so concerned about saving this site and other sites. Have you ever considered the fact that none of these sites with many visitors would ever have gotten off the ground in the first place if they weren't born in a net neutral environment? In other words, once the pipes come with a price, the small start-ups won't stand a chance. How can you harvest your crops if you can't get any of your seedlings to sprout? With a lot of cash and luck, sites like C&L may be able to survive the change for the short haul, but new sites will be squashed. The effect will be felt almost immediately.

However, the telcoms will do everything they can to feed the public that the idea is great for them. You now have more choice! You too can gain higher speeds than every before, just use your visa or mastercard or automatic withdrawl from your checking account! They will make the entire shift to a fascist state completely invisible. Just like the shift from free tv to pay tv seemed invisible to most people.

nonny mouse @ 48:

In a free market, prices are determined by what people will pay, no more no less...

That's true of extortion as well. And kidnapping. And blackmail. And in certain respects anarchy. The free market is not a good thing. Because it doesn't take into account (a) what people can pay, and (b) that not everything should come with a price tag attached. Social responsibility (not to be confused with - or deliberately smeared as - communism) is something that isn't factored into your free market philosophy - and social responsibility is something that's been all too sadly lacking from far too many of your business decision makers. 250 years of robber baron greed, corruption and inequity are proof of that.

Just had to read that again and quote it. Very eloquent.

Well, now that the FTC has proven itself to be a worthless guardian of the peoples' bandwidth, I say it's time to take back that particular public good from government control. After all they're asking the free market to solve this problem, right? They want no part of regulating a monopoly? Fine... let's start out in our own homes with packet-switched internet radio relays right in the middle of the currently "regulated" TV and radio frequencies.

If the Internet dies in America, its going to be because misinformation like this caused excessive and unnecessary regulation.

Telcomms have always been able to do stuff like this. The FTC has never been for net neutrality legislation. If they tried to charge websites for access, no one would pay it, and they'd loose tons of business. The only oligopolies are on the last-mile level, and even then ISPs have not even tried to do anything like this, or even talked about it. Just like they say in the actual FTC report: "In the absence of significant market failure, or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area." Does that not seem reasonable to anyone?

Even if it was a problem, the most logical course of action would be to remove the laws which allow the oligopolies to exist in the first place. You don't have limited numbers of ISP options for no reason, those things are created by government regulation (the ISP market is not "free" in any sense of the word). Failing that, regulation might be necessary, since the market is already distorted. However, it is currently NOT necessary. Regulation has ways of causing large problems and costs down the road in unforeseeable ways (in this case, some proposed NN legislation can prevent defenses against hackers and DoS attacks, and stop some file-sharing protocols), it would not be prudent to regulate something without reason.

Jeff @ 126:

nonny mouse @ 48:

In a free market, prices are determined by what people will pay, no more no less...

That's true of extortion as well. And kidnapping. And blackmail. And in certain respects anarchy. The free market is not a good thing. Because it doesn't take into account (a) what people can pay, and (b) that not everything should come with a price tag attached. Social responsibility (not to be confused with - or deliberately smeared as - communism) is something that isn't factored into your free market philosophy - and social responsibility is something that's been all too sadly lacking from far too many of your business decision makers. 250 years of robber baron greed, corruption and inequity are proof of that.

Just had to read that again and quote it. Very eloquent.

And very misleading.

It does take into account what people can pay; there would be no point in trying to sell something for a price no one is able to pay. There is, in fact, no known way to arrive on a "proper" price for any good or service without using market processes. And by "proper" I mean one where the demand is balanced by the supply, so there is neither an excess nor a shortage of goods or services available. Wiki the economic calculation problem for more details.

You believe not everything should have a monetary price. Thats nice, thats your opinion, and one I agree with. However, the free market does not demand prices, or even currency. Goods and services in a truly free market can be exchanged for any reason as long as no force or fraud is used. That is the one primary difference between socialistic systems and the free market; in the ideal free market all exchanges are voluntary. In socialism, exchanges (at some level) are forced by the government. So if you want to do something socially responsible in a free market you can do so, for whatever sort of payment you wish. Naturally, money was created as a universal exchange because it makes everything a lot easier. People who despise material wealth are of course free to donate their money to a charity of their choice, where it would hopefully be used in social responsible ways. The free market has no bias towards people who wish to live in ways they deem selfless; indeed, its built on the very principle that all value and wealth is subjective in nature.

Inequality did not start or end with markets; its a human problem, not an economic one. People are simply not born equal. By any measure, free markets have contributed greatly to human equality. Instead of kings and clergy wielding nearly all the power, it is now spread more thinly over businessmen as well as government and religious officials.

A "free market" is not an thing, its a process. A free market is simply groups of individuals (and even computers, in some cases) buying and selling goods, services, and other less categorizable things. The market process is the process in which prices are formed. In large populations, the result is enormously complex. If you believe politicians can actually understand the market well enough to be able to know how to make people better off with any sort of accuracy, I've got some ocean-front property in Nevada to sell you.

The only way to get business out of government is to get government out of business. A separation of church and state worked, and a separation of business and state can work too. Amusingly, there was little notion of a separation between civil rights and economic rights in the US constitution until some of FDR's justices invented it to get the New Deal working. Once you realize this, it becomes pretty clear that most all economically "progressive" Federal legislation violates the 9th (and of course 10th) amendments.

Damn it America

You should have gotten rid of your fascist government last term, get rid of there idiots. I know the majority of you don't support the current administration so I wont attack you as a people, but honestly. Get rid of the bastards before they screw up the world even more... please...

Some things like basic services should be above the market, just look at your health system and the good that the free market has done that. Information (the internet) should be a basic free service.

Power to the people!

ho come on now, this type of behavior is expected by the FTC

I hope Google does come out to compete with these telecoms SOBs. Google keeps their net neutral and make their profits on ads. I, for myself, will only then bring my business to Google. Hopefully these selfish telecoms company will then fold and a new set of net neutral net providers will spring froth.

Gman, geez. The FTC reasonable? We're not all novocained here. Corporations and the government are the same thing. The FTC (corrupt as hell) would with great delight punch the first hole in the wall to allow intrusions of the former to crash in and take over the last vistage of any privacy to bring us down before we can bring them down.

7 years of experience has taught us this government is robbing us of everything and to us the FTC is opening the back door to the whorehouse.

To me those soothing words feel like being touched by a rapist when you know what's going on. Chilly and creepy.

Australian Friend, guess you're still cool in your armchair.
Like I said in the other post, (guess you missed it)I hope Aussians don't find themselves in some deep soup but doubt americans would find your predicament quite so amusing as you are toward our people. We have finer sensibilities.

G which consumers are this majority...wha? What the fuck? That is crazy cotton candy of nothingness! You just said nothing at all! wow.

[...] as the FTC has just said that companies can now do what they like with their "pipes" see Crooks and Liars

bentmaTricks @ 142:

G which consumers are this majority...wha? What the fuck? That is crazy cotton candy of nothingness! You just said nothing at all! wow.

I said informed consumers. The ones who read about net neutrality and understand the issue. That is, they quickly understand there IS no issue. No telcomm or ISP is regulating, or has any plans to regulate, the internet. Those consumers understand the harm "neutral" legislation could cause, because of the difficulty in designing legislation which does not interfere with network protocols and nifty pieces of code which do things like stop hackers and prevent BitTorrent from flooding out everyone's bandwidth.

Valued Customer is right. There are plenty of competing technologies in development. Regulating a global packet-switched network is just a loosing proposition anyways. Plus, customers are more powerful than voters. An oligopoly of 2-3 ISPs still gives the customer more power than the voter in a 2-party system (not that I'm defending oligopolies or our 2-party system in any way, shape or form).

I forgot to mention, there is PLENTY of competition among the big Telcomms. At the backbone level, there is tons of competition (10+ choices for a T1 line isn't uncommon). The issue is the last-mile, that is the (some say) natural monopoly or oligopoly of ISPs. And that, I think, is something more for local governments, because we all know the Feds will screw it up.

People also used non-neutral internet networks, especially before the World Wide Web was popular. Remember the original AOL? Or Compuserve? Or even Sierra On-Line? People paid for those services and liked them, but the more neutral WWW blew them out of the water. And so it goes in the world of capitalism, even the stunted, crony capitalism which occurs when government and business climb into bed together.

Google's caching is an example of a non-neutral network over the internet in use today.

Non-neutral networks can be very good things.

"which do things like stop hackers and prevent BitTorrent from flooding out everyone’s bandwidth."

ISPs, mine included, already shape traffic re this. Besides, it's really the slippery slope that 'informed' consumers fear, no regulation will lead eventually to a tiered system, and if you believe and trust the big telcos than you're the uninformed one. Profit is king, and if eventually, if they can slowly shoehorn in the discriminatory pricing model they're salivating over, they will. To the determent of us all.