« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Internet is a Frikkin Valuable Thing

By: Caleb Howe (Diary)  |  October 29th, 2009 at 08:40 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

USA Today this week ran a shocking story which revealed just how easy it was to buy one’s way into cherry appointments, reporting that 40% of his top bundlers have been awarded administration posts. Moe Lane highlights all the other perks and benefits being showered on “the money” as well.

Today Big Government highlights something worth reiterating.

USA Today goes on to report that one top-level fundraiser apparently awarded with a plum job is Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski.

The paper reports that Genachowski raised more than $500,000 for Obama—which critics charge may have helped him “buy” a position that now puts him at the center of one of Washington’s most heated policy debates, namely that regarding net neutrality.

Genachowski, a strong proponent of the policy and a darling of far left groups like Save The Internet, has recently garnered criticism for what some see as an effort to ram net neutrality through with little to no debate. The proposed policy has recently become the focus of criticism and concern from everyone from internet service providers to groups typically regarded as Obama administration-friendly, such as the Asian American Justice Center, National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the National Urban League. 72 House Democrats and three Democratic Governors have also raised concerns about the proposed policy.

And Genachowski isn’t the only net neutrality proponent buying in.

Another big group of donors who purchased “broadband access” to the administration: Google. The powerhouse company is leading the charge on net neutrality. As Big Government reminds us:

The question is whether political support from net neutrality proponents like Genachowski and Google (whose CEO, Eric Schmidt, was a major Obama supporter and whose employees reportedly donated $562,000 to his campaign) has dictated or contributed to [President Obama's net neutrality position].

Obama is surrounded by net neutrality radicals, from his internet czar on down. How much of that is the result of Google’s peer-to-peer access?

Pay to play, after all, is the Chicago way.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • USNJIMRET

    Who knew that he really meant that his intentions were transparent?
    Kind of how “change” clearly meant one thing to him, and anything his followers wanted it to for them.

  • mfarmer

    I know that there is a split on net neutrality in the nerd community, but if these radicals screw up the internet, making the nerds mad might be Obama’s Waterloo rather than healthcare reform implosion.

    You get an army of nerds mad at you and it’s all over.

  • Scope

    I believe people like Genachowski et all were actually drafted long ago, and, the donations they brought in were part of a long term plan.

  • proudgop

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102904597.html

    supposedly the ethics committee is investigating 30 current congress people and the report somehow made it to the washington post

    so who are 30 congress people? I can think of a lot

  • melvinwinter

    http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-convention-delegates-to.html

  • lowndes

    Money talks, simple as

  • Warrior

    “We need to acknowledge that the world wide web and the internet cannot be forever a sphere apart. The world wide web cannot be forever the wild, wild, west.. the online world will begin to be more and more regulated.”
    —— Cara Carleton “Carly” Fiorina

    And this babe was the TOP ECONOMIC ADVISOR to John McCain in 2008.

    www.Chuck Devore.com

    • Warrior

      www.ChuckDeVore.com

  • rivahmitch

    This problem really involves two competing sets of interests: The interests of the Internet user to access informationand resources he/she wants and the companies providing infrastructure to leverage their economic gain by controlling or influencing (and charging for) content which they may control of choose.

    It becomes challenging because the Internet is a sort of “commons” to which most users buy “access” (at a particular data rate) and expect their use (within that rate) to be unlimited. In general, however, the price of access does not cover the full use of the perceived level of access purchased. Hence, most internet offerings specify that users will receive “up to” a certain data rate with the level actually received dependent on such things as the number and type of users accessing the commons at any given time. The issue becomes even more convoluted because different providers own different pieces of the networks used when email is sent or web sites accessed or data exchanged and the technology used is NOT as simple as the old point-to-point connection of the old phone company (which allowed end to end control of the communication. Sorry… that’s probably more information than most of you want or need.

    Personally, I’m not sure whether I favor “Net Neutrality” or not. On the one hand, it does seem likely to diminish the willingness of telecommunications firms to invest in infrastructure if they can’t leverage their ROI by controlling and getting some profit from the content users access. OTOH, I definitely don’t want the information/content or users I am able to access controlled (whether by denial of access or slowing of transfer rates by) either a private company (say AT&T) or a government-owned PTT (say BT or any other national company).

    I lack sufficiently Solomonic wisdom to have a solution but, hopefully, my post will shed a bit of light on what really is a complex issue.

    • Warrior

      sorry, must have pushed the wrong button…

    • jayburd

      coud be eliminated by software companies i.e. automatic updates etc.

  • Warrior

    illuminating and I appreciate the time and effort you put into it.

    I believe most people’s concern is the kind of nefarious censorship you describe towards the end of your post. Frankly, I wouldn’t mind paying a little more as long as the rates are being dictated by the market and not the gubmint. Except for defense and other essential services, I don’t see why the gubmint should be involved in the commercial side of the net at all.

    It’s fairly analogous to the dilemma we have in Alabama of needing to re-write our Constitution. The old one is full of racist language and out-dated crap and truly needs a re-write. However, conservatives are afraid that if it’s attempted, it will open up a can of worms and what comes out will be full of leftist canards and socialists nostrums which got included by hook or crook.

    The same goes for the internet. Liberals are now shocked, shocked to discover that porn can be found on the internet. So naturally, guardians of traditional morality that they are, they want the power to “control” such content. However, since they have not given a hoot in hell about porn in other media, indeed, they have championed it (falsely of course) as being protected by the first amendment, it’s not much of a stretch to believe they have ulterior motives for wanting control.

    Like stifling the free wheeling debate which often shows them for the rank charlatans they are, like curbing the avg Joe’s ability to fact check their propaganda a la Dan Rather’s doctored documents and generally regain the power to shape the debate to their liking. Until the advent of the net, these clowns had virtually total control of mass electronic media since the fifties and they really didn’t like having to share the limelight or the influence with a bunch of bloggers in pajamas.

    This is the reason we cannot let them lull everyone asleep with claims that only technical changes are at issue or that it’s too complex for the avg citizen to understand so just let them handle the details. It is so much more than that.

    “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” — Thomas Jefferson (also attributed variously to other authors)