« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Real Net Neutrality Astroturfers

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  October 3rd, 2009 at 08:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The left is at it again. They know that in a straight-up battle of ideas, their socialist perversion of Net Neutrality could never win out. Nobody but the most blindly partisan supporters of Barack Obama wants a government takeover of the Internet, because everybody knows that when government takes something over, freedom in it tends to die.

That is why Save The Internet is resorting to dishonest smear campaigns in an attempt to shout down and discredit their opponents. They want to win by driving all opposition off the field, turning this debate into the Internet equivalent of the streets of Berlin in Weimar Germany. They must not get away with it.

Save the Internet is a diverse coalition of mostly radical socialist groups like SEIU, ACLU, PIRG, select AFSCME locals, PETA, Democrat Underground, MoveOn.org, AfterDowningStreet.org, and Common Cause, but also a number of corporations and ISPs both foreign and domestic, and even foreign interest groups. There are some mistaken right-wingers and libertarians in there like Glenn Reynolds, the Christian Coalition, and the Gun Owners of America. I would urge them to leave, because the movement has been hijacked, ladies and gentlemen. You are now being used to promote a radical left wing movement.

Their website is full of blatant lies. They claim that Net Neutrality would not be a new regulation, when in fact the whole point of the push is to get new regulations in place backed by the so-called Internet Freedom Preservation Act currently in the House. Obama’s FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski also made that much plain in a recent speech, that he wants the FCC to be an active, aggressive force on the Internet, picking winners and losers in private network policy disputes.

Further, they blatantly lie about who’s on their side, claiming that big corporations are only on the side against Net Neutrality. And while it’s true that the socialist vandals of Save the Internet want total state control over the multi-billion dollar private investments made on the Internet (including Two billion or more that AT&T, Verizon, and others will spend deploying LTE and WiMax high-speed wireless Internet), the fact is there are dozens of corporations part of their coalition, and by their own admission some titans of the Internet are on their side. “Amazon.com, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook, Skype, and Yahoo” are all on their side. Some of those are small companies, but Intel and Microsoft are members of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Microsoft’s market capitalization stands at over 220 billion dollars today, and Intel’s at half that, $106 billion. The big, bad AT&T itself is only worth $1.2 billion, or about half of one percent of Microsoft. Google, Amazon, and EBay are also featured in the Fortune 500. You cannot tell me only side has the big bucks in this fight for state control over the Internet.

But despite such blatant falsehood, Save the Internet presses on to accuse its opposition of being ‘astroturf,’ that is, fake grassroots involvement. Now I would love for someone to accuse me of that, because I and anyone familiar with my financial situation would never stop laughing. Of course, they don’t mention the Open Internet Coalition backed by the above Internet titans, oh no. Only opponents like Broadband for America, a group promoting greater Internet access across America, gets that tag. I mean sure, when I think ‘corporate astroturf’, I think of BfA members like the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Child Safety Task Force, Hispanic Leadership Fund, the Livestock Marketing association, and the Jewish Energy Project. That’s just the corporate Axis of Evil right there, Save the Internet wants you to think.

I do disagree with some of its members, notably AT&T which wants to exclude its wireless Internet from the same rules that wired Internet providers would have to play by. This even though the FCC severely limits competition with its wireless services, and grants legal protection to its broadcasts from interference.

LTE and WiMax are most likely a glimpse of the future of last mile Internet into American homes. And while I don’t think its government-backed (by FCC or by franchise monopoly) providers should be able to set network policies to harm competitors such as Skype or YouTube, I think competition in that field is vital to our well being. The last thing we need is competition-killing regulation of every router and wire in America, increasing the costs of business high enough that only the richest companies can compete, and paving the way to the Socialist dream of Single Payer Internet in America.

So we all need to look hard at just who is pushing this agenda, and note that every time they point a finger, three fingers are pointing back at themselves.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Scope

    that had an article just a day or so ago that the US gave up it’s control to an International community. It was something like ICCAN or something like that. I know you follow this closely, and, I doubt that you would have missed it.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Basically ICANN is the Internet’s zoning board. Of course it has much, much less power than a real zoning board, since it can’t control content. So all it’s left to do is dole out IP addresses to people and designate the root of the DNS system.

    It’s incredibly dry, boring stuff, and there was really no reason at all that the thing should be under the thumb of one government.

    If we didn’t give up control, then eventually the rest of the world was going to go create their own, usurp ICANN, and the net effect would be worse for us. And everyone really, because the Internet only works as we know it today because it has a single, uniform root DNS and map of IP addresses.

    This way, the services ICANN provides were released from us on our terms, and not the terms of some anti-American body founded specifically to go against us.

    This is something that’s been coming a long time, and there wasn’t really a way to stop it. I’m not worried.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com David Hinz
  • http://brockwayfamily.spaces.live.com/ Erick Brockway

    An Open Internet Is Part of Our Basic Civil Rights

    Net Neutrality is essential to free speech, equal opportunity and economic innovation in America. Since the FCC removed this basic protection in 2005, the top executives of phone and cable companies have stated their intention to become the Internet’s gatekeepers and to discriminate against Web sites that don’t pay their added tolls.

    What does this even MEAN?
    That those who maintain all the hardware and software driving the internet shouldn’t be compensated? It should be free to anyone with a pair of wires and a computer?
    Or does “Added Tolls” reference somehow I won’t be able to access, say RedState without paying a toll to get my signal through Arizona after I already paid my ISP to access the internet?

    And this;
    Web to be Limited to Those of Financial Means

    Since the constitution and Bill of Rights grant us free speech , we do not need the Telecommunications Industry to act as censors, filterers and thereby act as Gate-keepers for the nation .

    Does he really think the ISP will filter him based on ideas? Or that only someone with a job can access the net? Or he’s lamenting his ISP is censoring his access to free music downloads? What??

    For anyone interested, here is the entire list of members, no doubt subject to change depending on good/bad press.

  • Scope

    the fact that we have now globalized the internet, It bothered me alot that it states that Governments now will have more control over the internet. China controls what their citizens see on the internet. With the move to give the internet to the UN globals, will they control what we see? Is this Genokowski’s way of getting around the Fairness Doctrine?

  • http://brockwayfamily.spaces.live.com/ Erick Brockway

    IP address assignments, IP Blocks or address ranges. Seems benign to me. If a country wants to limit access to its citizens they just filter the information through a giant firewall. They can block by IP address or a range of addresses, but the assignment of those addresses shouldn’t matter.
    From BusinessWeek;

    The ICANN has “always been an independent organization”, where decision making has “always been decentralized”, he noted. He said the organization operates on a set of bylaws and is administered by a board of 21 members, representing all parts of the world, and who are selected for their geographic diversity.

    “But, there has been a perception, because of the JPA, that there was some form of oversight under the U.S. Department of Commerce,” he said. “Today’s announcement marks the internationalization of the Internet. If there was a perception that it was managed by one government, that perception is now dead.”

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    1. This has nothing to do with the ability to censor the Internet.

    2. ICANN is not controlled by the UN

    3. I can’t find the foggiest connection to the fairness doctrine

    Seriously, relax. This isn’t anything, and this was started long before Obama ever seriously had any chance of being elected President.

  • http://stopthecap.com phillipdampier

    Neil, I continue to believe you have a big misunderstanding about what Net Neutrality is really all about. In fact, it’s designed to preserve the status quo of the Internet as it exists today, free from providers censoring content they don’t like, impeding traffic for “network management,” and building a platform that lets only the biggest voices through on the fast lane (because they paid for premium service).

    Net Neutrality preserves the freedom we all enjoy on the Internet today, where your ideas can stand on equal terms with any mainstream media outlet or big corporate provider who can afford to pay. That’s the amazing thing about the Internet. Blogs like RedState can bypass the mainstream media and present their own views without going through a media filter.

    Now imagine what happens if a corporate provider doesn’t like your views, or you didn’t pay the premium each provider could charge to agree to keep your views on the Internet fast lane. If a consumer gets one page in three seconds and had to wait for 20 seconds for yours, they are likely to not wait around for yours.

    In Canada, where Net Neutrality does not exist, an ISP blocked not just one, but an entire block of IP addresses trying to keep one of their critics from being seen. Broadband service in Canada is speed throttled for non-preferred applications like peer to peer (by up to 90%), and Internet Overcharging schemes like usage allowances and caps combined with overlimit fees and penalties for exceeding them are commonplace.

    None of this is theoretical — it’s all happened just to our north. In the United States, the cable industry is experimenting with a project called TV Everywhere, which will provide on-demand access to potentially hundreds of cable network shows, but only to “authenticated” cable subscribers. Online video is something the cable broadband providers want to control very much, as Dr. John Malone, who used to run TCI, has said publicly. I don’t mind if they only provide the content to cable subscribers, but will it be provided to their customers on a level playing field? Do you think they will throttle the speeds of their own content? What about their competitors?

    I have no idea where people get the idea Net Neutrality is about an Obama/Socialist Internet takeover. In fact, it assures the exact opposite by prohibiting ISPs from interfering with legal content.

    Neil, you said: “Only opponents like Broadband for America, a group promoting greater Internet access across America, gets that tag. I mean sure, when I think ?corporate astroturf?, I think of BfA members like the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Child Safety Task Force, Hispanic Leadership Fund, the Livestock Marketing association, and the Jewish Energy Project. That?s just the corporate Axis of Evil right there, Save the Internet wants you to think.”

    I learned about BfA last week and saw the list of their 100 members. Most of them were obviously equipment manufacturers or telecommunications companies. But I wondered what in the world some of those public interest groups you mentioned, among others, were doing as members of this group. I spent last week researching ALL 100+ and the results are posted starting here: ht tp://stopthecap.com/2009/10/02/special-report-astroturf-overload-broadband-for-america-one-giant-industry-front-group/

    I could not find a single group that I could verify as representing actual consumers. Not one. The overwhelming majority of those public interest groups either received substantial funding from AT&T and/or Verizon, or had a company executive on their Board of Directors. I also found disturbing connections between several of the groups and Washington, DC lobbying and PR firms who have a habit of paying to use an organization’s name for a client’s agenda.

    Let’s review just a few:

    National Black Chamber of Commerce ? This group?s stated purpose: ?To economically empower and sustain African American communities through entrepreneurship and capitalistic activity within the United States and via interaction with the Black Diaspora.? Their website hides their membership list, stating: ?The National Black Chamber of Commerce does not distribute information about our members to protect their privacy.? Uh huh. We can take a wild guess however, based on their extended reach into the astroturf diaspora with memberships in both ?Hands Off the Internet? and TV4Us. Back in December 2007 before the corporate sponsors were removed from the website for ?their privacy,? the group noted it had AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon among its members.

    Child Safety Task Force: Group president Robert K. Johnson is the Zelig of astroturfers. He?s everywhere. He was president of the now-defunct Consumers for Cable Choice, a front group for AT&T and other providers advocating for telco TV and strident opposition to Net Neutrality. Amusingly, Johnson?s group broadened its focus by dropping the word ?cable? from its title and renaming themselves Consumers for Competitive Choice (C4CC). New name, same old notorious astroturfing.

    Johnson also founded Consumers? Voice, which Verizon trashed in 2002: ?Consumers? Voice . . . should really be named `AT&T?s Voice.? At a recent National Conference of State Legislatures meeting, a representative from this group admitted that it is entirely supported by AT&T. Moreover, Consumers? Voice has no state chapters or affiliates. Johnson actually is an AT&T hired gun.? ? William R. Roberts, president, Verizon Maryland, Inc., (Cumberland Times-News, August 22, 2002.)

    The Jewish Energy Project is defunct. Try and visit their website, but I’d answer no when your browser warns you it is about to log you onto the founder’s Gmail account.

    You get the point. My personal favorite was the Intertribal Agriculture Council ? IAC was founded in 1987 to pursue and promote the conservation, development and use of Native American agricultural resources for the betterment of Native Americans. Oddly, one of the priorities for IAC in 2008 was being a full-throated supporter of the Sirius-XM Radio merger. It also joined forces with the Alliance for Aviation Across America (along with other BfA members including the National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry and the U.S. Cattlemen?s Association) to oppose a proposal to shift some of airline carriers? federal tax burden to small-jet operators.

    Odd how groups with Mission Statements that in no way relate to any of the broadband issues BfA will concern itself with: no regulation, no Net Neutrality, but yes to government handouts to providers to expand broadband, all seem to be members of this group, and often also magically chimed in on some other telecom issues, such as urging approval of Verizon’s merger with NorthPoint Communications, or their buyout of Alltel.

    If I believed for a second Net Neutrality would give the government content control over the Internet, I’d be right there with you. But it does not. All it says is that providers, as they earn billion in profits from the existing open platform, should leave it that way – open, and still profitable.

    By the way, I’m just an ordinary consumer too. No industry money, no front group. Our site got started when ISPs started trying to throw ridiculous usage caps on our DSL and cable modem broadband service as low as just 5GB per month. We got involved to fight back. Biggest advice I can give you is never simply take what you’re handed. Check it out yourself and be careful of hidden agendas and industry money, because it’s all over the place.

    Phillip Dampier
    Editor, Stop the Cap!

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You can’t win the argument so you attack the speakers.

    Get lost.

  • http://stopthecap.com phillipdampier

    This is really your reply? I “attacked” the speakers? Your own article on this topic contains:

    - “their socialist perversion of Net Neutrality could never win out.”
    - “resorting to dishonest smear campaigns”
    - “radical socialist groups”
    - “full of blatant lies”

    With all due respect, “get lost” is hardly a rebuttal, it’s a concession.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Yeah I think you might want to walk away now. Trust me.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Yeah, I’m not really going to let some fascist Obamanaut come here and start using this site to try to silence dissenters with the administration’s new FCC chairman.

    Especially snotty bad faith posters like you.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com David Hinz

    as a source on your website. You know, of course, that Sourcewatch is a George Soros funded organization, right?

    You DO know that Soros funded organizations are suspect for their extreme left-wing agenda — right?

    Of course you do.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Oh no!

  • http://whereswalden.com/ Jeff Walden

    You could set up your own Internet, functionally equivalent to the one we all know and love, if you want. ICANN simply sets the rules within the one that’s most used by far in the world, doling out addresses and delegating domain-name control. It can’t prevent alternate internets from popping up. China may very well go this route of setting up a separate one at some point, one intended for general use rather than for some limited academic or private-corporation use (they might have by now, I confess to not following this all that well). ICANN’s status doesn’t mean a whole lot with respect to this concern.

    One thing ICANN does have some control over is the creation of so-called TLDs (top-level domains), that is, com, net, org, the country codes (us, uk, zh, cn) and assorted other names (tv, name, info, etc.). There have been a couple efforts to get an xxx TLD for obvious uses. I believe the US has acted to some extent to prevent such a TLD from being allowed (possibly also a sex TLD), although to be sure I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to TLD bickering, so I might be mistaken. Relinquishing ICANN control might make it harder to prevent such things in the future. I’m not sure I care that much about it, personally (and there were recent moves to throw open the doors to essentially-arbitrary TLDs, if you were willing to pay several hundred G’s for a name like “google” or “ibm”, which might be used as http://mail.google/ or http://smallbusiness.ibm/ or so, which might have made the argument about preventing “xxx” moot). You can’t control what’s on the Internet, whether by its content or by its name, and I’m not sure it’s a good idea to even try. In any case, that’s one other practical consideration of ICANN’s spin-out, if one that I don’t think is a concern.

  • DaveWT4

    The liberal-socialist groups behind the Net Neutrality movement would discriminate and block content if they could, so naturally they assume that corporations will do it to make money. After all, those private internet services like AOL and Prodigy are dominating the Internet… oh wait. They’re not. Economics 101: profit is where the demand is. And the demand is for an open Internet. If anyone came forward with proof that an ISP is blocking or slowing down access to certain services, that ISP would lose subscribers faster than you can say CompuServe.

  • http://www.scottbomb.com scottbomb

    Create a fictional crisis and watch the lemmings line up at the cliff. It reminds me of Penn & Teller’s experiement where they gotpeople to sign a peition to eliminate dihydrogen oxide (water!). Does ANYONE on the left think for themselves?

    Over the years, my ISPs have been Netzero, Mindspring, Time Warner, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Comcast. NEVER have I been blocked from viewing, downloading, chatting, etc.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    This is a case of ‘never waste a good crisis.’ They’re taking a single, narrow issue and using it as an excuse for expansive regulation.

  • USNJIMRET

    all those now defunct ISP ‘giants’ were receiving a monthly check from me.
    For a variety of reasons, I still use a dial-up ISP for the majority of my on line time, and I’ve been hearing about this “threat” that is supposed to be fixed, or prevented, or avoided or something, for several years now.
    And yet, when I am on the dial up, or using my wireless broadband, or even WiFi at a number of “free” locations, I can’t recall that I actually observed anything at all that was an apparent “problem” caused by the service provider.
    Oh there are times when it seems like it takes forever for a site to load, or reload, and sometimes I can’t log on to some sites at all. But that seems so random and infrequent, or explainable by other conditions, that the issue of “Oh an ISP is preventing ME from doing something, because I don’t pay enough” never enters my mind.
    So, once again, this surely looks like one of those make up a “crisis” and offer that the ONLY solution is some massive increase in Government involvement/interference in the system.
    And, three things leap to mind:
    1. An inability to remember even ONE time that a new Government solution to a “problem” does anything to fix the problem;
    2. An inability to remember even one time that a new Government solution to a “problem” didn’t end up costing not only more then ‘estimated’, but often it is spending that wasn’t being spent before;
    3. When all is said and done, whatever the Government sticks it’s fingers into, never works anything at all as well as before.

  • http://brockwayfamily.spaces.live.com/ Erick Brockway

    …the facts on the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide
    For example;

    A recently noted medical phenomenon involves small amounts of DHMO leaking or oozing from the corners of the eyes as a direct result of causes such as foreign particulate irritation, allergic reactions including anaphylactic shock, and sometimes severe chemical depression.

    And in vapor for is MORE DEADLY even than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
    Should be banned immediately.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    I think you are on to something here.

  • http://brockwayfamily.spaces.live.com/ Erick Brockway

    The BIG danger was Carbon Monoxide? Cars could be successfully fitted with a device where it would only emit “safe” CO2.
    Now it’s a regulated waste, they want to turn the emissions to water vapor.
    Hmmmm.
    Like you said, number 1 greenhouse gas..

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Just like the real, actual scientific evidence suggests that we’re due for an ice age of some sort.

    The old scares were the real ones, it seems. The more likely ones anyway.