That Al Franken is a pretty smart guy, isn't he?

Remember the email from Sen. Franken that I re-posted yesterday? Remember how he said this, among other things?

The sky is blue. The world is round. Two plus two equals four. These are truths. Here's another one: Net neutrality isn't a government takeover of anything -- in fact, it protects the Internet from a corporate takeover.

And what do we learn in today's news?

Why, that it's perfectly fine if the government takes over the Internet, provided by "the government" we mean "the GOP and their corporate donors!" (Especially when they're afraid of competition!)

IOKIYAR. IOKIYAR. Always and forevermore, IOKIYAR.

(x-posted)

Sen. Al Franken's Latest Email on Net Neutrality

Brendan --

The sky is red. The world is flat. And two plus two equals pancakes.

These statements aren't just false -- they're downright ridiculous. And so is the claim that net neutrality amounts to a government takeover of the Internet.

Let's get this straight: Net neutrality isn't a change -- it's the status quo. It's the way the Internet operates right now: free and open. And it isn't the government that's attempting an Internet "takeover" -- it's the big corporations who want to undermine net neutrality and the Republicans who want to let them.

It's important that everyone we can talk to DOES know the truth -- because this anti-Internet-freedom, pro-corporate-takeover legislation is coming to the Senate.

I'm asking you to make a commitment to standing up for truth, logic, and the free and open Internet by clicking here and taking action to help us get the truth out.

• Forward this email to five friends
• Share what we're doing in this fight on Facebook or Twitter
• Add our campaign as your instant messenger status
• Tell at least three other friends the real story of net neutrality -- no clicking required!

The sky is blue. The world is round. Two plus two equals four. These are truths. Here's another one: Net neutrality isn't a government takeover of anything -- in fact, it protects the Internet from a corporate takeover.

And here's one more truth: It'll only stay that way if we stand together and fight back against misinformation. Will you take a few minutes today and help save the Internet?

Al

(x-posted)

Al Franken Interviewed, Regarding Net Neutrality

Interview (text) of our favorite senator on this crucial issue. Additional links offered, as well.

(h/t: Threat Level)

[Added] It will probably come as no surprise to you that the Republicans are dead set against Net Neutrality. They like the already powerful getting additional advantages, and they're all about denying access to everyone else. Because they believe in Free Markets™.

Al Franken not giving up on Net Neutraility

Good for him, and good for Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA). See Al Franken's blog or Reclaim the Media for the latest.

When considering the importance of keeping the Internet from being controlled by ever fewer, ever more powerful interests, you might reflect on the situation in Egypt. See recent posts by Don McArthur and James Cowie. Yes, the US is not Egypt. But the time to push back against the desire for totalitarian control is now, not when matters get worse.

[Added] These connections are already tighter than you might think.

[Added2] Correction: I had Sen. Cantwell's first name wrong in the original post. It is Maria, not Patricia. Thanks to Paul Chadwick for noting this in the Comments.

Another Fact-Free Wingnut Meltdown, This Time Over Net Neutrality

Lots of liberals think the FCC's proposed Net Neutrality guidelines don't go far enough (see Sen. Al Franken for a good brief example), but the reality-free foaming at the mouth from senior Republicans and the usual radio gasbags is nothing short of astounding.

And given what I already think of these people and their willingness to ignore the truth if it means an excuse to rile up the base, that is really saying something.

__________

[Added] More on this from Roy Edroso.

Net Neutrality and the Congressional Black Caucus

That fine organization, Color of Change, whom you know from their Turn Off Fox campaign (see sidebar) has put together an open letter and a petition addressed to the Congressional Black Caucus. CoC says some in the CBC are either misinformed or excessively catering to their corporate donors, and calls upon them to reconsider the stances they have been taking.

You can read the letter and sign the petition here. If you want more background, have a look at the email CoC sent out to its members this morning.

I added this postscript to mine:

Dear CBC Members:

I understand that all non-billionaire members of Congress have to take money in order to stay in office, and I believe that most of you do so because you sincerely think there are "greater good" principles at stake.

But I will tell you this: if you knuckle under on this one, and allow yourself to be bought off by Big Telco, you have lost forever your right to claim that you speak on behalf of the little guy, let alone anyone who is downtrodden.

--bjk

You never know what might work until you pitch in and try. Please add your voice.

Al Franken Speaking on Net Neutrality

Here's the key link. From his email (emph. added):

You may have heard that, a few weeks ago, Google and Verizon announced a proposed policy framework that they claimed would protect net neutrality.

Unfortunately, that's simply not the case.

The Google-Verizon "framework" was written so as not to apply to wireless Internet services. If you use wi-fi or access the Internet on your phone, this is a serious problem. Their framework could even allow for corporations to pay for premium access to the "wireline" Internet.

This framework doesn't protect net neutrality -- it undermines it.

We can't let corporations write the rules they're supposed to be following. Corporations are responsible only to their shareholders, and they will always act to maximize profits. The government -- which is responsible to the public -- has to write tough rules to protect net neutrality and reverse the trend towards media consolidation. And you and I might have to be the ones to force the government to do it.

This evening, I'll be speaking at an FCC hearing in Minneapolis. I'll urge the commissioners to reject the Google-Verizon framework, stop the Comcast/NBC merger, and take action to keep the Internet free and open.

But I won't be alone. Nearly 100,000 of you have signed our petition, and even if you can't be at the hearing (there won't be enough chairs for all of us!), your voice matters.

We've set up a special link so you can watch the hearing, courtesy of the UpTake -- it starts at 6:00 Central Time (7:00 Eastern) tonight. Please invite your friends to watch by Tweeting and posting to Facebook. This is a big opportunity for us to stand up for net neutrality -- and stand up to big corporations who want to own the flow of information in America.

[Added] More info at SaveTheInternet.com/mnhearing.

Perspective

Here's one of many interesting points in "Lightning Round: The Continuing Unpopularity of the Republican Party is Excellent News for Republicans" (an in-joke I never get tired of), posted by Mori Dinauer:

• Speaking of health-care reform, Jonathan Chait use the latest conservative attack on Obama's fiscal policies -- that he's honest about ugly budget numbers -- to point out the hypocrisy of the GOP's commitment to "fiscal responsibility:" "George W. Bush and the Republicans created a new health care entitlement in 2003 that was completely unfinanced. Not a dime was paid for. The Democrats have decided to completely finance every cent of health care reform, and they're taking a hundred times more flack for fiscal irresponsibility than the Republicans ever did."

Jon's whole post is worth a read, especially if you have yet to grasp fully what we mean by IOKIYAR.

P.S. On an unrelated note, but certainly a related theme, Mori also points to a report -- and this'll shock you -- that Glenn Beck is either lying or clueless. This time, the giant baby is whining about net neutrality, and he's about as wrong as he can be.

WSJ Leakage?

Unless you're a denizen of Greater Wingnuttia, you probably consider the editorial stance of The Wall Street Journal either nauseatingly or laughably far to the right, depending on your mood. This is not something any sane person argues about.

The claim has long been, even among many liberals, that the firewall between the opinion and news departments at the WSJ is quite robust, that the rest of the reporting and analysis is not distorted by a pronounced conservative bias. Worries about the robustness flared when Rupert Murdoch announced that he wanted to buy the WSJ, and while he assured the world that he had no interest in gambling with the WSJ's reputation as a news source, I'd have to say that at least in my mind, there has been a tickle that has never gone away ever since Murdoch sealed the deal. I mean, Fox News? Anyone? Anyone?

I now leap upon a piece of evidence that supports my theory.

Lawrence Lessig, blogging today, begins:

I got off the plane from Boston to find my inbox filled with anger about an article in the Wall Street Journal. To those who were angry, I hope you will direct any anger at the Wall Street Journal after you read what follows.

The article is an indirect effort to gin up a drama about a drama about an alleged shift in Obama's policies about network neutrality. What's the evidence for the shift? That Google allegedly is negotiating for faster service on some network pipes. And that "prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their views on the subject."

Who are these "Internet scholars"? Me. And of course, because I have "softened" my views about network neutrality, and because I advised the Obama campaign about technology issues during the primary, it follows (and obviously so) that Obama too must be going soft on network neutrality.

Lessig goes on to dispute how the WSJ article characterized him and his alleged "softening," politely saying, "… I do know something about my own views, and what the Journal has done here is really extraordinary."

If you share my interest in the issue of Net Neutrality (and really, who doesn't want to be clear on the difference between edge caching and tiered service?), there's a lot more to be had. Start by reading the rest of Lessig's post, read the responding post on Google's Public Policy Blog, and read the source post for these links on Ars Technica, which also rebuts the WSJ article. There are more links at the bottom of the Google post, all of which take issue with the WSJ article and offer coherent and well-supported reponses.

All posts by me on Net Neutrality are available by clicking the NET NEUTRALITY link in the list of labels at the bottom of this post. You'll see this one at the top, and the rest following below, most recent first.

(h/t: Buzz Out Loud, podcast #872)

Farhad Manjoo on Net Neutrality

I admit it. I talk about this issue from time to time. It's important. So here's some more.

The always stellar Farhad Manjoo has a good piece about the issue as it plays out in the U.K. The BBC is beta testing something called iPlayer. This is a combination program and web service that aims to provide free access to tons of its video content. Amazingly, the ISPs are wailing and gnashing their teeth. And -- hold onto your modems -- they want money! More money!

---

Update

2007-08-14 17:59 EDT

A glance at Farhad's archives from last week reveals a tidbit that mashes up every buzz topic you could name. Except Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality Update: 2006-10-04

MoveOn.org sent out an email today, celebrating the fact that the Senate has adjourned without voting on the telecommunications bill that would have killed Net Neutrality. They also warned that the biggest challenge will be to keep up the pressure when Congress returns after the election, characterizing the lame duck session as the time when Congress is least accountable. There's a nice summary of the issue, and a handful of links, on their site.

Two days ago, Daniel W. Reilly posted "The telecom slayers" (S$) on Salon. This is a very good read.

You still think Net Neutrality is a minor issue? The telcos sure don't. Consider this, from Reilly's article:

In 2005, the big phone and cable companies began putting their money where their mouths were. That year, they spent $71 million in lobbying, reports Bloomberg News, to make sure Net neutrality died a quiet death. This spring, according to a study conducted by Gary Arlen, president of Arlen Communications, a Maryland telecommunications research firm, the telecom companies spent more than $1 million per week in targeted TV advertising in the D.C. area. Arlen puts that level of advertising "on par with a car dealership," although in this case, he says, the ads are aimed only at "the 535 members of Congress and their staff."

In addition to the TV ads and the lobbying efforts, the telecoms have been conducting a number of Astroturf campaigns. Chief among the talking points: they need the money to expand the broadband infrastructure. Believe it? Reilly again:

To hear McCurry [head of one of the lobbying groups] tell it, the telecoms are struggling. Without tiered pricing, he says, the companies will not have the funds to build out broadband networks. However, Verizon generated nearly $80 billion in revenue last year, more than all other cable companies combined. AT&T's revenues clocked in at a paltry $44 billion. Over the past five years, the four Bell phone companies have received more than $15 billion in federal subsidies to help wire rural and low-income households through the "universal service fund." All to say nothing of the monthly charges they receive from the average Internet user.

Contrast that with this article, from last week's NY Times, about a town in rural Vermont that still can barely do dial-up. I don't know where that $15 billion in subsidies went, but it sure didn't make it up to Canaan.

There are times when it's appropriate to let the private sector and market forces run the show. This isn't one of them. The U.S. is already way behind most of the developed world in broadband access, and the letting the big telcos set up tollbooths on the Internet is not going to change that. It's just going to make matters worse.

I'd like to close with some words from that most eloquent of senators, Barack Obama, whom SaveTheInternet.com quotes from one of his podcasts:

It is because the Internet is a neutral platform that I can put out this podcast and transmit it over the Internet without having to go through any corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge. But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it. They say that they want to create high speed lanes on the Internet and strike exclusive contractual agreements with Internet content providers for access to those high speed lanes. Everyone who cannot pony up the cash will be relegated to the slow lanes.

---

Gory political details:

SaveTheInternet.com maintains a tally of senators and their respective positions on this issue. They also have a nice interactive map. Click on your state to see your senators' positions.

Here's what they know as of today.

On the plus side, 28 senators are counted as supporting Net Neutrality: Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Mark Dayton (D-MN), Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT), Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND), Russell D. Feingold (D-WI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI), James M. Jeffords (I-VT), Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), John F. Kerry (D-MA), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Barack Obama (D-IL), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Harry Reid (D-NV), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Kudos to Olympia Snowe, the lone Republican on the side of the people.

On the dark side, 14 senators are counted as opposing Net Neutrality: George Allen (R-VA), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Conrad R. Burns (R-MT), Larry E. Craig (R-ID), Jim DeMint (R-SC), John Ensign (R-NV), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Trent Lott (R-MS), John McCain (R-AZ), Gordon Smith (R-OR), Ted Stevens (R-AK), John Sununu (R-NH), Craig Thomas (R-WY), and David Vitter (R-LA).

No surprises here. All Republicans, all on any list of the usual suspects. Note, in particular, that Saint Sen. McCain continues to prove that he really isn't an "okay guy for a Republican."

Here are the declared wafflers, the "known unknowns," as it were: Joesph I. Lieberman (D-CT), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), and Arlen Specter (R-PA).

My, my. Lieberman and Specter. Who woulda thunk?

Not Exactly Breaking News

If you're like me and refuse to pay for cable, then you don't get to watch The Daily Show all that often. Thus, you overload the tubes (which is not a truck that you can just dump stuff on) and thereby prevent the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee from getting his internets.

Thanks to KK, I knew to take a look for TDS's Resident Expert, John Hodgman, explaining the ramifications of the Net Neutrality bill. I found it on YouTube. Great stuff!

I had looked for this clip yesterday, and saw the Resident Expert explaining a couple of other topics. I didn't realize until watching the Net Neutrality video today that I had seen Hodgman somewhere before: on a series of commercials, which also featured the actor who played Brandon from "Galaxy Quest."

I grow ever more firmly convinced that there really are only about 1000 unique people on this planet.

Oh, and if you missed TDS last week, here's Jon dissecting Ted Stevens's original speech.

Net Neutrality Update

You can see where your Senators stand on the issue of Net Neutrality by clicking on your state at the map provided by SaveTheInternet.com. This page will also give you the phone numbers for the individual senators.

Should you wish to call them.

You should.

More thoughts from me on NN here and here.

Mind From Nowhere

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) recently spouted his "thinking" about Net Neutrality, a topic which I have discussed before. Stevens is against NN; i.e., he is shilling for the big telcos, perhaps as a break from his main job of buying useless bridges with hurricane relief funds.

Here's a sample of his understanding of the World Wide Web and electronic communications in general (source):

"Just the other day," he said, "an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially."

An Internet?

Doesn't it make you feel good that someone with such deep understanding is the chair of the committee making these decisions?

For a truly bizarre experience, listen to the whole thing.

Keep Your Bumper Stickers Straight

Today's NY Times has an editorial about "Net Neutrality." The editorial gives a nice overview of the problem at hand.

Here's a quick overview, in case you haven't heard about this.

The big telcos and cable companies, not satisfied with conspiring with the government to violate Americans' Fourth Amendment rights, not to mention overcharging yours truly by a factor of 20 for long distance calling, now want to wreck the Internet.

Hyperbole? Maybe.

Right now, they are waging a lobbying effort and PR campaign to get permission to make the Internet into a price-tiered system. This would mean, immediately, that it could cost more for you to visit one site than another. You wouldn't have to pay directly, but the host of the unfavored site would. Eventually, cash-poor sites would likely disappear, or at best, would be served up so slowly that no one would visit them.

It's easy to see where this could lead next: the Web would become like FM radio -- a bland and homogenized super-sized serving of pap. Even worse, sites whose content is not favorable to whoever controls the pipes could be out-and-out blocked.

This is a serious enough problem that a new record for strangeness has been achieved in the arena of political bedfellows: the Christian Coalition and MoveOn.org are together on this one.

As Arianna Huffington has wittily noted, the idea that the Web should be kept equally accessible for all who wish to serve up content is a great idea. Unfortunately, it suffers from its MEGO-inducing name: Net Neutrality.

The editorial mentioned at the top of this post contains one chilling fact that I had not known about. It appears that the big telcos and cable companies have branded their nefarious efforts "Hands off the Internet." As with "Healthy Forests," "Clear Skies," and "The PATRIOT Act," the surface appearance is likely to fool many.

So, just a reminder: we want "Net Neutrality," even if it doesn't sound as good. The telco/cable slogan means, "Congress, keep your hands off us, so we can make even more money by screwing up the last bastion of democracy."

The first place to find out more is at SaveTheInternet.com. Click the bumper sticker below.

---

Further reading:

Vint Cerf's letter to Congress is posted on the Google blog.

The telcos have their own Astroturf sites, misleading named dontregulate.org and handsoff.org. Josh Silver deconstructs them.

Eli Pariser catalogs and debunks some of the rumors that the Internet wreckers are trying to spread.