(Please welcome Senator John Kerry, who joins us in the comments — jh)
I realize there’s a certain primary in Pennsylvania on Tuesday that a lot of people are thinking about -– myself included (in fact, I’ll be on the ground there again tomorrow) — but one of the things I think those of us in the Senate need to do is try to keep some focus on another big event that day which we can’t afford to get lost in the shuffle because it affects net neutrality.
The Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing on Tuesday to look at the future of the Internet, and a big part of that equation is net neutrality.
Obviously — and I know you don’t need to hear it from me — we need to keep up the pressure on this issue. The uncertainty isn’t helpful, and we have to set the rules of the road and protect the innovative world of a free and open Internet.
When we held hearings previously about net neutrality, many of us who were pushing for it warned that without net neutrality we’d start to have problems as companies started making their own rules on what they would allow to happen on their networks. And it turns out we were right.
Just this winter, we heard reports that Comcast was blocking traffic that was using the popular file-sharing program BitTorrent. Comcast initially denied this, but when engineers proved it was happening, Comcast was forced to admit the truth — they were blocking traffic around a particular program.
And this wasn’t just Comcast – there have been incidents reported involving AT&T and Verizon as well.
Eventually, after a lot of public pressure, Comcast cut a deal with one company providing BitTorrent services to allow their traffic, and they called that an example of the market working.
That’s a cautionary tale. We can’t allow companies to pick and choose what companies they allow to access their networks, and we certainly can’t depend on overwhelming political pressure on every decision to keep the networks open. This is not good for the future of the Internet and, frankly, it’s not good for anyone who uses it either.
Sure, it’s amazing that this remains an issue, but that’s not surprising because there are big corporate interests involved and they’re doing what they do — they’re looking out for their own agendas. But there are bigger issues at stake than any single interest’s proprietary concerns: the value of innovation on the Internet has shown itself in a ton of ways. From the economic value of new Internet applications and new market opportunities to the political and social value of new modes of organization, the free flow of information on the Internet has never been more important. And we need clear rules of the road for everyone to follow.
Look, this doesn’t mean we’re going to apply a prescriptive, heavy-handed bureaucratic approach to how network providers are permitted to serve subscribers. But we need to insist on basic fairness and an open, content-neutral approach to how users can access the backbone of our telecommunications system. There have been a lot of excuses about why it’s difficult to do that, and frankly, most of those excuses have turned out not to be accurate. There’s no reason why we can’t do this, and no reason why we shouldn’t.
But — and I say this all the time on so many issues — it’s not going to happen unless we all make it happen. Because of the importance of the PA primary, there’s a danger that this hearing can come and go without the people’s voice being heard. You need to make sure it is heard. Call, write or email your Senator and let them know you are watching this debate, and that an open internet is important to you. And now let’s have a good discussion.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

John Kerry! I still have your yard sign!
Welcome Senator Kerry !
Hello Senator
Welcome back to FDL, Sen. Kerry — thanks so much for taking the time to discuss such an important issue to all of us. Net neutrality is crucial for the continued open conversation on the internet. Thanks so much for pushing this issue to the fore once again.
Welcome, Senator Kerry. And thank you so much for being such a vocal proponent of this.
Can you tell us about who’s going to be at the hearing, and where you think the battle lines are drawn?
Welcome Senator Kerry, it is a great privilege to have you with us.
[Former constituent, Wayland]
Good to be here, look forward to the discussion
Considering how well the big telecomms run everything them controlling the internet is a rotten idea. And the Right has Fox but we have the blogosphere highground and that is what they hate.
the Net is the last bastion of free political speech imo,and WELCOME Senator
Senator Kerry, how much does the fight over Net Neutrality overlap with the fight over granting telecoms immunity for the failure of the telecoms to demand that the government provide them with warrants signed by a judge before complying the the Bush Administration’s requests for information and access to their networks?
Good morning, Senator. Is it also an issue to be concerned over the intersection of Net Neutrality and FISA come together?
ah-ha — great minds and all that.
Christy: of course, I agree – you sum it up well. And it’s not just crucial for open conversation, I also think it’s crucial on the economic front. We need an open Internet to spur the innovation our Internet economy needs — we learned something in the late 90’s about long term economic growth in technology vs a short term bubble, and these are the kinds of policies we need for the long haul.
Would it be conceivable to argue that the internet had a significant impact on elections in 2006 and are the answer to the right wing echo chamber that includes the MSM(example ABC”s recent”debate”)?
Is Net neutrality vital to democracy given the present corporate media climate?
It is strange isn’t it the Republicans want less control over the companies that want to have pretty much total control over the interchange that goes on over the internet. So less control for them only means that it is good if it helps the telecomms rake in more money.
You are preaching to the choir here. Telecoms and other internet providers already offer over priced substandard service as compared to other countries. They have taken large subsidies that were meant to finance the building of a nationwide electronic infrastructure, pocketed them, and not built the system. I would like to see that money returned. The fight against Net Neutrality is just another means of controlling the marketplace in a non-competitive way. So profits can be maximized while services are minimized.
Sen. Kerry, you say that “…we need clear rules of the road for everyone to follow.” Does this mean that some regulation on speech and/or other restrictions such as payment requirements would be acceptable to the Senat Commerce Committee? If so, what would those be, in your opinion? And doesn’t this run against the full request on net neutrality?
I think I may be misunderstanding your intent on this, so I wanted to give you an opportunity for clarification, if possible. Thanks!
Here’s some info concerning the Comcast issue.
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1270#comments
Point being Bit Torrent as company is not the same as Bit Torrent the protocol.
Welcome Senator abd thank you very much for taking time with us today.
Peterr: The same political players involved obviously — similar interests involved — certainly in both cases the Administration has shown its disdain for consumer rights.
dugg
Jim Clausen: I think it’s more than conceivable – it’s indisputable. Not just 06 either – but 04 in terms of what we raised on the Internet – and yes we should’ve opted out — and how much the right wing laundered bad stories through the right wing blogs to Fox and into the national dialogue. And then obviously yes the Internet had a significant impact on elections in 2006.
Although I don’t look at it as necessarily partisan. I think anything that makes it easier for people to have their voices heard is a good thing for democracy, but I frankly like the fact that we progressives have gone more ‘guerilla’ out there in our tactics. I have had a lot of blogger friends tell me they learned a hell of a lot from how the right wing killed the Bush National Guard story in 04 using the blogosphere.
The Internet(with a capital I) has developed to the point where it can be considered part of our nation critical infrastructure. Can it be posited that as a public good that any traffic should not be interfered with? Keeping in mind that free market ideologues have been trying for years to eliminate the very idea of a public good.
this is so true,especially NOW
1,816 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen John Kerry and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
First of all, thanx for coming on…I am a ‘Nam vet and I still have your 2004 campaign bumper sticker on my back window next to the one that says “Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot”.
My question is, why is there ANY resistance to “net neutrality” on the part of the Democratic Party leadership, both elected and institutional? It seems to me that those people who are truly interested in leveling the playing field for the Democratic Party vis a vis the Republicans understand that the internet is the vehicle that has nationalized the funding base of the party and eliminated the corporate stranglehold on campaign finance. Does the resistance to net neutrality identify those “corporate Democrats” that have been facilitating minority Republican rule lo these last 28 years?
KEEP THE FAITH AND REMEMBER NOT ALL FASCISTS CALL THEMSELVES REPUBLICANS!!!
Christy: Absolutely not. No restrictions on speech. The basic goal of net neutrality – that all content on the Internet must be treated equally – is ironclad in my mind.
I hope this doesn’t sound too crazy, but shouldn’t we try for a
pre-Herbert Hoover FCC and a free WIFI to provide an electronic
commons for the political and economic life of the democracy to
flourish? Thanks for your service, keep up the fight!
I thought that was the case, based on prior work that you have done on the issue — thanks much for the clarification!
It’s more than just similar interests and players, or even a parallel disdain for consumer rights, it seems to me.
I would be curious to know if there was any sort of quid pro quo between the telecoms and the Bush Administration, exchanging access to the telecom’s networks for the Bush Administration’s forceful opposition to net neutrality. I don’t think it was set up at the outset of the warrantless wiretapping arrangements, but as the arrangement became less of an emergency situation and more of an ongoing business agreement, I would not be at all surprised to discover that this was the case.
1.816 DAYZ AND THE KIILIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen merkwirdiglieber:
Right on…great question-suggestion!!
KEEP THE FAITH AND DON’T GIVE THE BASTARDS ANOTHER DIME!!
Has Sen. McCain, who is a committee member, made known his stance on this issue?
Peterr — to that end, I’d love to know if and when the Congress will be able to view any and all indemnification agreements and other correspondence between the telecoms and the Bush Administration that would have been exchanged prior to those “listening post” taps being put into place. No corporate legal department in their right mind would have allowed that to take place without warrants being lawfully obtained without substantial and written assurances — and I have yet to see any of those, nor have any staffers or members of Congress that I’ve asked about them.
I do wonder if there was some quid pro quo on this and other regulatory issues — the breakdown in media ownership divisions via the FCC being another of my lingering questions. All of this is so intertwined in terms of players and profit-margin considerations and lobbying interests, it’s amazing how much so once you start to dig a bit beneath the surface just how intertwined it all can be.
One thing I want to say here – it relates to a lot of this debate – we really need to change our policies to get more broadband capacity — .starting with underserved areas like Western Mass and urban areas, and we need to make the backbone of our telecommunications faster and able to carry more data. The focus on managing the content we have completely misses the point that we need to expand capacity, not restrict speech.
Greetings, Senator…It’s an honor to have you here with us.
If the internet is allowed to fragment into a collection of parallel networks-to Balkanize-we don’t really have an Internet any more, in my opinion. How likely is this to happen, and who in the Democratic Party could possibly benefit from this?
Thanks again, Senator.
Always a pleasure Norske, nihil illegitimati carborundum!
Sen. Kerry,
We met a while back at the Perkins School for the Blind when you were campaigning for Deval Patrick. I’m now living in PA and will be one of those in the voting booth next Tues.
One of the things I was impressed with was Sen. Obama’s Net Neutrality plan which Matt Stoller praised rather strongly last fall. Will the Senator from IL who has very strong opinions about this be present for the discussion? Has his proposal been discussed by your committee?
Thanks for your work on Net Neutrality Sen. Kerry.
Net Neutrality is one of the few issues that concern me beyond executive overreach.
As someone who lives in a much more rural area of the country in WV, I couldn’t agree more on that issue. We have high speed access through our local cable company, but a large portion of our state doesn’t have the same access — and it’s especially important for school children to have those opportunities for research and learning in school, and at home. We are far enough behind in math and science as it is these days…
Senator: Thanks for your work on this issue. Please be sure to talk about rural broadband access. Companies are often so obsessed with the lucrative urban “triple play” market that they leave rural consumers in the dark. Provider access should also come with the responsibility to extend broadband access to all Americans. Thank you!
de-lurking to welcome sen kerry to the lake…. lets keep the nets free
I think this is something we need to mobilize behind in a way that we haven’t — universal access. It really is critical to giving all people the ability to participate and lobby for themselves within the online community, which is rapidly becoming an influential public commons (among other things).
Senator Kerry, is this something you’ve taken a position on?
Net neutrality is a no brainer. Only greed motivates the opposition. We need reasonable regulation. In my town there are two fibre optic systems (one is unused). Now AT &T is installing another. While I welcome the potential for competition, it is two systems too many. (we should regulate what Cablevision is permitted to charge) AM radio is almost unlistenable because of commercials. It is a travesty on the concept of public airways. It should be clear to anyone with eyes that free markets favor suppliers, not users.
Is jokester Senator Ted Stevens still chairing the committee and still able to block efforts in regard to net neutrality? His unforgettable quotes about “the toobz” have echoed around the net since he uttered his almost completely uninformed views. Is it fair to say that Ted Stevens seems to only understand the color green and yes, I mean money. How can we influence him and people like him to realize that people like me consider the internet their lifeline. I am 63 (today, in fact) and disabled. Since I’m on a fixed income, I could not afford the cost of the internet if everything on it cost just a bit more. I believe that goes for a lot of people who’s income has been shrinking when compared to the the costs they must pay to live in this world. Unfortunately, the way they figure the federal COL just doesn’t tell the whole story. (To be truthful, my best sign of hope was expressed by Barack Obama when he recently said, “Pain trickled up.” I believe that’s starting to happen, and things will change for the better when those people who have been profiteering on the backs of the poor and middle classes begin to realize that they have shrinking markets due to their own greed.) But I’m not sure Senator Stevens cares about my bottom line; I know he cares about his. (I seriously don’t think he’ll be around much longer, but I can only hope that someone just as bad doesn’t take his place in the Senate.) Thank you for caring, Senator Kerry. We really appreciate your leadership on this issue.
Sen Kerry, Comcast tried to portray the the Bit Torrent issue as a traffic management problem. Do think that this rings true considering that internet traffic account for only a small percentage of the cable’s bandwidth? A much larger portion goes toward their On Demand service.
Sen. Kerry – the company I work for used to be in the dark fiber business. Companies such as Verizon make pole attachment and conduit occupancy not only horrifically expensive, they also take a position of not cooperating with you. It made our being able to do business, bid for business, etc. just impossible. The whole basis of how companies can get on the poles and into the ductwork needs to be examined and dealt with; Verizon is already abandoning service in rural areas. This is only getting worse – not better.
Good to see you here again Senator Kerry.
Can Tho 69-69
Dewey Canyon III, 1971
Senator – thank you for fighting the good fight on this! it’s such a central issue.
Some what off topic but I would be interested in Senator Kerry’s take on the ABC debate, that it was not until 8:51 before the first question of substance was asked, that a former Clinton staffer was one of the two moderators, that almost all the questions asked of both candidates were based on right wing talking points, that Charlie Gibson was allowed to throw a tantrum over the capital gains tax that affects few Americans outside of him and our current guest, and that the negative reaction to the debate was downplayed or ignored in most press accounts of the debate.
Is there a forum for a debate that is not so blatantly slanted?
Welcome, Senator Kerry.
A 4/6/08 article in the London Times Online informs us that a brand new form of internet is in the works.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t…..689881.ece
THE internet could soon be made obsolete. The scientists who pioneered it have now built a lightning-fast replacement capable of downloading entire feature films within seconds.
Such a technological breakthrough would render moot the telecom argument that net neutrality stands in the way of their upgrading the internet infrastructure to allow a greater (and more profitable) flow of data.
There appears to be no cogent argument against net neutrality.
RonD: Of course, that was an early notion of the Internet, with different providers giving different products. It’s exactly the model we don’t want to go back to – the ease of making connections makes the Internet what it is. That’s the key fight around net neutrality. To my mind, no one – not even the telecoms – benefit from that old model because it stifles too much activity
I agree.
Senator, who are the people in the Senate that are either undecided on net neutrality and universal access or who are opposed to them but might be vulnerable to some political pressure? Who most needs to hear from us?
Absolutely.
Those who visit Europe or blog from there are constantly telling us how much better/faster/cheaper high speed is over there. We are stuck with slower, more expensive and less reliable service than the Europeans. That’s because we have “let the market rule.” The market is made up of maybe 2 providers in any given geographical area neither of which provide good service or a good product and both of which charge far too much money. This is another means of separating the haves and have nots. Our cultural and economic barriers extend and perpetuate because of this.
that’s what i wanted to hear – thank you senator!
We all had a great deal of fun with Senator Stevens’ explanation a few years ago of how the Internets work. Meaning no disrespect, how “boned-up” are Senators and Congressfolks on this issue? I presume those working on the committees are up to speed, but what about the rest? Is there a consensus that the internets are an integral part of our infrastructure now? I ask because in my personal experience, here in my small town, many of those over 50 are pretty much clueless, still.
Hugh , see my #7 and the Senator’s reply
Happy Birthday, Ann.
{{{Ann in AZ)))
Then why the controversy over the issue? Why doesn’t net neutrality just sail through, as the no-brainer it should be?
Oops, #14 Sorry
They have taken large subsidies that were meant to finance the building of a nationwide electronic infrastructure, pocketed them, and not built the system. I would like to see that money returned. The fight against Net Neutrality is just another means of controlling the marketplace in a non-competitive way. So profits can be maximized while services are minimized
It’s funny how we hear of pocketed subsidies over and over again in other industries as well. BigPharma for instance? Then the fight for net neutrality becomes symbolic in the fight against other egregious DC ways of doing business. correct me if I am wrong.
RevDeb: Barack Obama’s technology plans are really transformative. His technology whiz on staff is someone I know well, Danny Sepulveda, very very smart. These policies could open up some amazing opportunities. I’m not sure if he’ll be there at this committee – in defense of both Hilary, Barack, and John McCain, the truth is, when you’re running you’re running — but Barack’s been out spreading the word on Net Neutrality. He’s worked very hard on this issue.
If they’re going to try the ‘we can’t afford to have net neutrality’ argument again, can someone point out that the telecoms are being paid three times for their services and hardware (by the content providers, by the ISPs and DSL suppliers, and by the users), and are not hurting at all?
Mr. Kerry, very nice post on net neutrality. I agree wholeheartedly
On a different topic, please stop pandering to the NAB. Your attempt to further delay or prohibit the merger of XM and Sirus is disingenuous at best, particularly after the DOJ already spent a year researching the merger and found that no monopoly would exist, and no harm would come to consumers for this PAY service. Oil companies have merged in far less time than it has already taken for a pay entertainment service.
Ron, I think part of the issue in the US vs. Europe and other places is that outside of the US, communications is seen as a “public good” – the way gas/electric utilities and telecom was seen here before deregulation. Now, we’ve allowed people like Verizon to determine what level of technology we have..which is why we are stuck with copper to the home — which is one reason why the concept of “universal access” is sort of a misnomer — we are all stuck with the slowest technology going to our houses, no matter where we live.
Thanks, RonD.
I just wanted to say Thank-you Sen Kerry for taking time to ’speak’ with us…Back to lurking and learning….:)
The Boston Globe has an interesting article today on how that “debate” question about Obama’s connection to former Weatherman William Ayers came up through the ‘net. http://www.boston.com/news/nat…..ws/?page=1
the brutal reality is that we, the internet, the blogs are now the fourth estate, media has consolidated to just about 4 owners once owend by over 50
once we loose net neutrality the fourth estate exists no more
Jane: I couldn’t agree more — I feel like it’s almost trite when politicians say it now — but yes getting universal access to broadband Internet done is a big challenge. And getting it done right is especially a big deal; think of the 50’s when we decided to connect America through highways and in places like Boston with the Central Artery we actually ended up cutting ourselves off from our own waterfront and neighborhoods. You have to get it right. THe rules of the road have to make sense. But it has to happen — I have a lot of my state that still doesn’t have it, and we have some of the most advanced high-tech companies in the world in Massachusetts. But, yes, this has been a priority for me for quite some time. I worked for years on the Berkshire Connect public-private partnership out west in Massachusetts – and we’re still not where we need to be.
A tech note to Senator Kerry and any other newcomers to FDL:
If there is a particular comment you want to reply to, click on the little “Reply” button just below (and to the right) of that comment. A little pink bar will appear above the “Leave Your Response” box that says “Replying to . . .”
This makes it easier for you to reply, and also helps everyone else to follow the discussion.
Thanks for being here!
Thank you Senator Kerry for your work on this important issue. I wonder when companies like Comcast advertise on television a PowerBoost service at extra cost to their existing high-speed broadband subscribers, that they aren’t already engaging in disenfranchising consumers from reasonable internet access.
I’ve noticed in recent months that internet connectivity issues are more frequent. As consumers, how can we tell what the real reason is for poor internet performance from our telecom vendors? And why do other countries have substantially better and faster internet access than in the U.S.A.?
- Tom
Committee members
Dem
Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (HI)
John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV)
John F. Kerry (MA)
Byron L. Dorgan (ND)
Barbara Boxer (CA)
Bill Nelson (FL)
Maria Cantwell (WA)
Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Thomas Carper (DE)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Amy Klobuchar (MN)
The Other Guys
Vice Chairman Ted Stevens (AK)
John McCain (AZ)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)
Olympia J. Snowe (ME)
Gordon H. Smith (OR)
John Ensign (NV)
John E. Sununu (NH)
Jim DeMint (SC)
David Vitter (LA)
John Thune (SD)
Roger Wicker (MS)
Hi Senator,
Many of us spent a lot of time on money working for your election.
I know that this is off topic, but do you believe that there was an honest accounting of the vote in Ohio?
I’m sorry..that was not complete. For those people who are getting their internet through their cable provider, in many cases, they are getting their traffic through fiber optic cable. For those people using their telecom provider, unless their provider is making the investment to replace their copper with FOC, their internet electrons are being pushed through copper, which is very slow(which is why dial up is so slow). Now, given the price of copper on the open market these days, you’d think that the telecom companies would be rushing out to take down their copper infrastructure and replace it with FOC, but they are only willing to do that where the profitability is highest..that is not in rural areas, unfortunately.
Traditional media outlets are fast becoming modified versions of Fox Noise. Witness media giant ABC’s version of a responsible debate between Democratic contenders for the presidency. How ABC contorts debate is how it contorts the news. Former bastions of integrity, like PBS, no longer unequivocally fulfill that role.
The Internet has become a necessary tool for non-filtered news, a prerequisite for an informed electorate and a credible democracy.
Senator Kerry – (i’m from Bedford, MA) – sorry if this has been already asked – is there a possibility of Congresspeople being intimidated/blackmailed by the bush admin using data from sweeping everyone’s telecommunications?
BTW if you are wondering what I am referring to with regard to pocketed subsidies. Here is a 2006 article from Nieman Watch.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/…..thisid=186
The article cites a figure of some $200 billion. It is probably higher. This is money that the government funneled to the telecoms to build a high speed system. They didn’t but they did keep the money. As I said, I want it back.
Yes, this is THE most important issue. When all four owners agree to feed the viewing their own view of reality, democracy as we know it is gone. The internet is a two-way street – the people can influence it. The only influence we have on TV and radio is to turn it off at this point.
Spit spot. I heartily disagree with the description of the proposed merger between Sirius and XM. The comparison of it with oil company mergers is probably unintentionally unhelpful. Nor would a comparison with any of hte recent spate of telecoms mergers, which whisked through a DOJ more concerned about getting help with illegal domestic spying than with protecting consumer interests.
welcome senator kerry
i live in an area that is underserved. se ohio.
many only have dial-up access.
cable access pretty much only in the city
a few have satellite access, unless you have trees in the way, which many do.
my concern is that dial-up already gets ’bumped’ by higher speeds, servers ’bump’ us. we use a lot of bandwidth.
so, traffic selection/rejection is already happening on a wide scale. i never hear this aspect of the issue raised.
as technology keeps getting faster and faster, more people using the internet, more things being transferred on the internet that make bandwidths more competitive, i can see dial-up band use getting cut, then all of the people who only have dial-up access or can’t afford high-speed are once again left out. i hope that your committee will address this issue. it is already being done.
i wish the analogy of a highway would be used more often……there are hundreds of net neutrality/highway analogies that my friends and i have played with, here’s one-
the blocking of certain traffic by providers is like saying you can’t drive a certain make of car on the highway..
if it’s legal to drive it, then it should be able to be driven on any road.
thanks for taking the time to talk with us today.
A great honor to have you here Senator.
Me too. I want the money back. I have to slip out the door. But sometimes it seems as if our taxes go into a black hole of corporate subsidies (and to whose best friends?). Its wrong.
i want to point out that this is no fly-by-night post. senator kerry has been on the right side of this issue since at least june of 2006. i just checked my notes, and there was a big commerce committee hearing (or markup) then too – only the result was not what we wanted… but senator kerry didn’t stop with his vote… he immediately posted on the save the internet blog to explain what had happened and why he thought net neutrality was so important.
as egr reminds us – this is a marathon, not a sprint.
here’s hoping the years of work people have put into this issue are going to pay off soon.
TomR, about Comcast, it’s a good question, fair question. And I’m sure my answer may disappoint you a little. I look at these issues really closely and I do my due dilligence, and as you know I’m not afraid of a fight with the telecoms. But on this particular issue, here’s my take: Comcast is just one of the telecoms, and they’re now working with BitTorrent, Inc on keeping the information flowing. The biggest failing is the government’s: in this like all others – we need to set the rules of the road in government. We need to set our policies with consumers and the long term in mind, because that’s our job. And for a lot of reasons, Washington hasn’t been clear.
Hugh – just a little note of history for you — the ILECs(Verizon, Southern Bell, et al.)got the right to put up those poles(the utilities did also – many of those poles are ‘co-owned’)got the right to put those poles into the public right of way (and under the streets) a hundred years ago — FOR FREE. And the reason was that this was in exchange for their providing services at a reasonable price. Companies which want to provide services NOW, if they can’t get cooperation from the ILEC, must put in their own conduits and their own poles – and municipalities now charge for that. Not having to pay for those locations is a big benefit to the ILECs.
my 78–
to clarify the getting ’bumped’
when downloading documents, video and sound.
I think perhaps Senator Kerry has left the building?
that is spot on!! i read the alternate news outlets online – i get a much clearer and dare i say more complete coverage….
well, two things. first, great discussion. second, i apologize, but I need to get going to a meeting…one thing you may know about my staff is that they drive me hard and I’m getting the evil eye to wrap up. I’ll read any more comments later after I get out. Thanks so much for the conversation, and we’ll follow up
That’s really good to know, Senator Kerry. Maybe we can work together on this. We would love to help make the public case for this.
Thank you so much for being here today Senator Kerry, it’s always a pleasure. And we look forward to the hearings next week. Hopefully they’ll be broadcast on CSPAN and we can watch the action.
Thank you for your time today!
Thanks LT!
In a clear sign of the looming battle between commercial entities on the internet if net neutrality is not enforced, there have been reports of TimeWarner Cable throttling iTunes Store traffic. What’s interesting about this is that TimeWarner, being a media company, has been trying to lessen the dominance of Apple’s iTunes Store in the music industry. This has been shown by their willingness to provide Amazon.com DRM-free music while not offering the same to Apple. And now perhaps they’re looking at using their large control of the broadband market to degrade the service to Apple, a direct competitor of theirs.
Net access is a simple concept: everyone who connects a computer pays for that connectivity. Google pays for their content to be available, just as I pay for my web server to be accessible by everyone. The notion that there should be an extra fee for accessing Google is ridiculous and disingenuous, a false premise coming from the telcos and cable companies.
I don’t think we want a few telecommunications and cable companies determining where we can and can not shop, that sounds an awful lot like a protection racket.
David Vitter is unfortunately, my senator, would it do any good for me to call his office, Senator?
Whatcha want to bet the McCain shows up for this hearing? He is having so many genius ideas these days from gas tax holidays to another 100 years in Iraq that I am sure he has a great idea on this issue.
Two questions, Senator…
A macro question-from my view on the perimeter, this looks like just another expression of government-by-corporation, the implementation of Reagan’s “government is the problem” principle.Do you think this is accurate? and…
Many of us here, I’m sure, would love to engage you in a free-form conversation, without topical guidelines…would you come back one day soon for one of those?
Thanks again, Senator. You are an inspiration.
!?! (insert impolite language that i will refrain from using while on a guest thread)
that’s almost enough money to buy every american (who’s able to use it) a new computer.
Welcome Senator!
To me, the issues surrounding the net-neutrality debate mirror a larger debate that needs to happen regarding the role of government in general and specifically in balance competing interests in our society (especially when one of those interest is economically “disadvantaged”). How do we restore a representative government that is able to balance a greater good with the narrow interests of one group that wields influence? Currently the executive branch wields unchecked (uncheckable?) power, and those interests that have the favor of the executive are the interest who are represented in the policy and function of the government. The Bush administration’s attitude is summed up by the opinions expressed by John Bolton, if I may paraphrase he essentially says that the American public’s opinion matters every four years, and only every four years (when they vote on a President). How do we get government back to the business of governing and out of the business of business? Most people, even those over here in “Leftwing” land, are not calling for the end of corporate profits or free enterprise, but MOST issues of governance have issues that need to be balanced that don’t translate (in a sane world) just into a bottom line.
I don’t think its a simple partisan issue, it involves media ownership, lobbyist influence (am I just old, or did we not used to call it influence peddling?), civil liberties, secrecy, etc . . .
It’s not that these interests are insurmountable, but where do we start?
Thanx (I think) Citizen merkperson…since I only speak Amerikan and my English are terrible and I don’t understand Latin…translate please!
No,but send him some Huggies
D’oh! He’s gone…fare thee well, Senator. Come back soon, please.
OT but I would like to ask Senator Kerry, it’s painfully obvious that the corporate media is a far cry from an independent minded 4th Estate envisioned by the founders. Given the abysmal failure of traditional media, both electronic and print, would you favor the return of the Fairness Doctrine and a breaking up of the monopolies that now control the sources which provide the public with a vast majority of the information they need for making informed decisions?
it’s not only throttling information access, they will also see what sites are getting traffic, they will copy the content or idea, then make it impossible to use the competitor
for instance, why would a provider give google the same bandwidth ad they give their own search engine?
the answer is that they would not and we would be forced to use the search engine from our provider, that will give results the provider makes the most money
translation: Don;t let the bastards get you dowb!
thanks senator for coming AND for saying you will follow-up on the rest of the questions later, i was happy to read that, above and beyond the call.
Yes, who wants a Lynn Cheney, famous for culling Texas textbooks of arguments not properly respectful of government or the unqualified benefits of 19th century westward expansion, or a new Joseph Breen, censoring the Internet’s educational or mail content? Or hindering its function as a marketplace for ideas?
Especially not when the censor would be a corporate actor skewing access to favored customers and against their competitors – like some 21st century railroad magnate offering preferential rates to Rockefeller, while charging other customers more (and giving the difference to Rockefeller).
That latter behavior is why we have anti-trust laws. We need comparable regulation of the Internet. Ensuring not only equal access, but the protection of customers’ personal data, something that in our current unregulated state, service providers claim exclusive ownership of.
Don’t let the bastards grind you down! Thanks citizen Norske!
Thank you, Senator, for coming back again!! I’m proud that you are my Senator.
Thank you Christy, Jane, and all. What a wonderful opportunity you’ve given us!
You know WIFI was not brought in this discussion at all but I wonder how many communities could have set up systems for even one tenth the $200 billion in subsidies the telecoms received for not giving us a high speed system. Also is it any wonder that telecoms have fought community WIFI tooth and nail?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04…..ref=slogin
Link to yet another great Krugman piece (Is there any other kind?)
Thank you Senator Kerry for engaging with us and answering our questions today. I appreciate it very much.
- Tom
good point – and how about using some of that soon to be vacated tv spectrum?
Will Barack Obama’s now famous “bitter” quote turn out to have been a big deal politically? Frankly, I have no idea.
Skip to next paragraph
Paul Krugman
“Mr. Obama’s comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong.”
Opening of the Krugman piece. In a few short paragraphs Krugman outlines some facts that are CRUCIAL to democratic politics. Must READ!
I call your Krugman and raise you Whats The Matter With Kansas? The book
was written by someone outside the Metroliner corridor, so it is a bit
more reality rather than theory based.
I agree. It is entirely inappropriate to compare the Clinton era economic bubble with the Bush era economic bubble. Also Clinton’s free trade policies should in no way be held responsible for the loss of American jobs and the push to outsourcing they engendered.
Thank you for this post! Net neutrality is more important than most people realize– it is one of the most prominent characteristics of the best Democracies around the world. Nothing like the free flow of information to aid the cause of democracy! Every Firepup should include net neutrality among their top priorities!
Bob in HI
Bull. Clinton implemented the Phil Gramm deregulation scheme that set
the stage for the financial meltdown… Glass-Stegal was the firewall
that Clinton erased for his finance sector sponsors.
exactly. and i would include banking deregulation, and telecom deregulation to your list of things we should not mention.
Am I going to have to start using a snark alert again? Glass-Steagal is a good point though.
krugman address’s frank’s arguments, but not hedges’.
Telecom deregulation is a sore point. Basically, the breakup of the Ma Bell monopoly was supposed to be a trade off between less regulation vs greater competition. Now we have less regulation but essentially a reconstitution of the monopoly.
One thing that strikes me about this and other debates is that people are referred to as consumers. It strikes me as de-humanizing and views the issuse from a corporate vantage point. Unless the discussion is specifically about human rights I am always being referred to as a consumer.
It seems that there are always people who want to feel they have been
insulted, it feeds off the victimhood culture popularized on daytime
TV… Hedges is on a higher level than that, at least to me.
I’m not even sure he addresses Frank’s. Last I checked Kansas was not in the South.
Excellent point… the commercialization of life, the “business model”
of government is dehumanizing and done for profit, destruction of the
commons is a repetetive historical theme.
yes, and according to my dad, who worked almost his entire adult life for att (except for a couple of years in the navy), the corporate culture changed as well – from the vision of being a public utility (which was already changing when he retired almost 20 years ago) to whatever it is nowadays.
Think again, Kansas-Nebraska Act, bleeding Kansas, John Brown… the
Civil War started in Kansas and spread back into the South as it aought
to export slavery into the west.
Read about the destruction of the Public Utility Commission by Senator
Lyndon Johnson in Caro’s Master Of The Senate… made his corporate bones.
Don’t forget that today’s ATT is actually based on the former “Baby Bell” known as SBC (Southwestern Bell Corp). They took the ATT name when the purchased the remnants of the old ATT. And they have pretty much re-constituted the old ATT, except for the mid-Atlantic and Northeast which is Verizon dominated.
fair enough.
i’ll correct my comment to say that krugman attempts to respond to franks, while saying nothing about hedges (who, btw is from small town maine, iirc).
and i have more problems with krugman’s piece – is church going really a good measure for what franks (and hedges) talk about? but i have not read bartels… so maybe i am confused.
That’s a bit of a stretch. If you go much further you will define everything south of the Canadian border as the South.
thanks for the reminder. that’s one of the reasons i made an effort to stop watching commercials. i didn’t like what they were doing to my thinking (the msg being about how a person’s worth is somehow related to the amount they consume)
I think that Krugman is just showing his anti-Obama pro-Clinton proclivities and choosing his arguments to fit his views. I continue to have problems taking the whole bitter episode as anything other than media hype and trivialization of a real phenomenon. People in this country are bitter. They would be fools not to be after the last 7 years.
So?
So-so …
Ah, so.
I am not!
What?
You heard me…
I don’t know what you are talking about.
That’s just what I thought!
What?
You know what I mean!
???!
You are all cultists … and delusional.
Excuse me?
Whatever happened to rational discourse?
Are you taking to me?
Who else?
I don’t understand.
Well, that’s obvious.
I’m becoming confused …
You should be used to that by now.
What?
Don’t keep ‘what’ing me, aren’t you paying any attention at all?
I think I’ve had quite enough of this.
See, you don’t want to have a rational discussion, you just want to rant…
Excuse me?
There is no excuse for your behavior, none at all.
(At this point the internal dialogue becomes serious, proving that one should never be of ‘two minds’ when it comes to polly-ticks. Arguing with oneself is almost as futile as arguing with friends, especially when what mind they have is already made up. When one ‘makes up one’s mind’ is it akin to putting lipstick on? Or is it more like writing fiction?)
i can see that the bitter thing might have been good for maybe 5 minutes of discussion/thought but 5 hours? let along 5 days? just nuts.
so yeah, your explanation makes sense… except for the part about people being so fanatically pro-clinton (or pro-obama). but that’s me – i just don’t get it.
that’s too funny to be stuck here in epu-land.
Keep that one on file for Juno.
What is the role of government?
Is it a referee of the game?
Is it commissioner of the league?
And what happens when the game begins to look like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5ENPlaowMQ
It is not an esoteric argument. The internet represents infrastructure. The tired comparison to highways and bridges to the internet are perhaps more literal in this case: as infrastructure how is the internet to be governed?
How is it maintained? How is it funded? Who has access to it?
What are the rules of the game and who enforces them?
Not so much, Missouri-Kansas is northwest Mississippi in many cultural
aspects, they bear no resemblance to Iowa, different migration patterns
are the key.
This thread is apparently dead, but I wanted to post the following from the Krugman piece—-I don’t care whether the nominee is Obama or Hillary- but the statistics and analysis in these paragraphs are important for whipping the gooper bear:
“In his Op-Ed, Mr. Bartels cited data showing that small-town, working-class Americans are actually less likely than affluent metropolitan residents to vote on the basis of religion and social values. Nor have working-class voters trended Republican over time; on the contrary, Democrats do better with these voters now than they did in the 1960s.
It’s true that Americans who attend church regularly are more likely to vote Republican. But contrary to the stereotype, this relationship is weak at low incomes but strong among high-income voters. That is, to the extent that religion helps the G.O.P., it’s not by convincing the working class to vote against its own interests, but by producing supermajorities among the evangelical affluent.
So why have Republicans won so many elections? In his book, “Unequal Democracy,” Mr. Bartels shows that “the shift of the Solid South from Democratic to Republican control in the wake of the civil rights movement” explains all — literally all — of the Republican success story.”
In other words, the gooper majority if based on racism- not God.
Well, that has been true, i.e. racism and Republicans since the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965. It was the core of Wallace’s attractiveness to Southern voters for which States’ Rights was code. Code as well for Nixon’s Southern Strategy.
Sen Kerry
I don’t know if you will read this or if the advice of someone who does not come from the consultant class is worth heeding, but you have to help Obama avoid your mistakes. Your biggest mistake was apologizing when you were not wrong. Take the missing lapel flag pin. Obama should tell anyone who brings it up that flag pins are patriotism on the cheap; that he doesn’t subscribe to my country right or wrong; only that my country be right; that challenging missing lapel pins is a dumb way to answer legitimate gripes for the way the country has been run the past seven years.
By the same token you were wrong to apologize for dumping your medals. Unfortunately you were wrong to sign Bush’s blank check. True, he cooked the intelligence, but invading Iraq was wrong. It violated international law, even though the UN passed some retroactive permission. Iraq was never a danger to the US. Millions of people around the world protested, but our
Congress couldn’t get it straight.
As for the “bitter” remark, rather than apologize Obama could have said he assumed those people were bitter after having been dumped on by Bush all these years and considering their situation there is nothing wrong with taking solice in religion. Obama could say it is difficult to understand why they are not angrier.
As for not invading Afghanistan, it was a bonehead move. There was nothing connecting the government with the terrorists. It’s like taking over the state of Michigan or wherever McVeigh came from because he blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma City. You cannot hold a nation responsible for the acts of individual citizens.
You got swiftboated because you could not bring yourself to attack Bush who avoided service in Vietnam. Did you know he was AWOL from the Texas National Guard when they pulled the swift boat business? If so, why on earth didn’t you use it? Tell Obama he has to stand up for himself. Stop apologizing and stop being Mr. nice guy. He doesn’t have to get down in the gutter with them, but he must, in the nicest, coolest way, beat them at their own game.