But that bad telecom McCain is back in action, introducing a bill that would invite telecoms to have their way with the public toobz.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced a bill in the Senate on Thursday that would effectively allow Internet service providers to slow down or block Internet content or applications of their choosing.

[snip]

McCain’s bill, the Internet Freedom Act, would block the Federal Communications Commission from making Net neutrality the law of the land.

Maybe McCain’s just the kind of guy who, once bought, stays bought. Or maybe he has returned to his pre-presidential campaign ways, badmouthing the influence peddlers of Washington DC while playing ball with those same influence peddlers.

But one thing’s for sure. McCain is fucking over the taxpayers who own the public airwaves with a virtually indefensible policy.

The letter is very odd, especially if you’re not well versed in telecom lobbyist lingo. It lays out “concerns” relating to net neutrality that really don’t make much sense.

The heart of the letter reads:

As the FCC embarks on its much anticipated rulemaking addressing the subject of “net neutrality,” we therefore urge the Commissioner to carefully consider the full range of potential consequences that government action may have on network investment. We are confident that an objective review of the facts will reveal the critical role that competition and private investment have played — and of necessity will continue to play — in building robust broadband networks that are safe, secure and open. In light of the growth and innovation in new applications that the current regime has enabled, as compared to the limited evidence demonstrating any tangible harm, we would urge you to avoid tentative conclusions which favor government regulation.

Clearly, these Members of Congress are urging the Commissioner not to adopt net neutrality standards. But the argument they’re making is very curious. They point to the innovation that drove the creation and adoption of the Internet and broadband technologies as a reason to keep government regulation out of the picture.

On the surface, this might be convincing. After all, the Internet has grown up just fine without these regulations, why would we need them now. That is, until you realize that net neutrality is already the de-facto law of the land.

Right now, we have net neutrality in deed if not word. The FCC has enforced the provision, too, as Chairman Genachowski explained:

We’ve already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet’s historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen one service provider deny users access to political content.

And as many members of the Internet community and key Congressional leaders have noted, there are compelling reasons for concern about even greater challenges to openness in the future, including reduced choice in the Internet service provider marketplace and an increase in the amount of Internet traffic, which has fueled a corresponding need to manage networks sensibly.

The rise of serious challenges to the traditional operation of the Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see technology used to shut doors to entrepreneurs instead of opening them. The spirit of innovation stifled. A full and free flow of information compromised.

Or we could take steps to preserve a free and open Internet, helping to ensure a future of opportunity, prosperity, and the vibrant flow of information and ideas.

I believe we must choose to safeguard the openness that has made the Internet a stunning success. That is why today, I delivered a speech announcing that the FCC will be the smart cop on the beat when it comes to preserving a free and open Internet.

In other words, the Internet grew up to be the amazing tool it is today precisely because net neutrality reigned. Recently, telecom companies have started to change that.

In this light, the 72 Democrats who signed this letter don’t have much of an argument. They correctly note that the Internet has grown up well in the open platform it was given, a platform that includes net neutrality. And then they proceed to argue against making these rules formal. It makes no sense…

…until you consider the lobbyists.

As Free Press notes:

The big phone and cable companies have launched an all-out assault on Capitol Hill to try to stop Net Neutrality. They’ve hired hundreds of lobbyists, spent tens of millions of dollars, and unleashed sleazy Astroturf groups to mislead politicians, distort the facts, and resurrect long-debunked myths.

The bad news is that these dirty and deceitful tactics appear to be working on a few people who should know better.

This afternoon, several dozen Democrats sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking them to walk away from their plans to protect Net Neutrality.

Their letter parrots telco talking points — which had to come from somewhere, and it certainly wasn’t from the more than 1.6 million people who have signed a petition in support of Net Neutrality.

This is a campaign by telecom lobbyists to block net neutrality from being preserved, using a false talking point about increased regulation. And yes, these Democrats really should know better, especially people like Jared Polis, who’s trying to have it both ways by defending this letter and saying he supports net neutrality.

It is because of net neutrality that we have blogs like this one. It’s because of net neutrality that we have Google, YouTube, Facebook, and all the other sites we take for granted every day. And there’s nothing wrong with the FCC making net neutrality a formal rule so this innovation can continue into the future.

Sign the petition supporting net neutrality and watch out for that telecom spin.

photo by wheresmysocks

It’s a big day for net neutrality. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski officially endorsed net neutrality as the policy for the FCC:

I believe we must choose to safeguard the openness that has made the Internet a stunning success. That is why today, I delivered a speech announcing that the FCC will be the smart cop on the beat when it comes to preserving a free and open Internet.

In particular, I proposed that the FCC adopt two new rules to help achieve this.

The first says broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. The second says broadband providers must be transparent about their network management practices. These principles would apply to the Internet however it is accessed, though how they apply may differ depending on the access platform or technology used. Of course, network operators will be permitted to implement reasonable network management practices to address issues such as spam, address copyright infringement, and otherwise ensure a safe and secure network for all users.

I also proposed that the FCC formally enshrine the four pre-existing agency policies that say network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.

Perhaps more importantly, it looks like he has the votes to pass it through the FCC and make it into policy.

Congressman Markey, "co-author of legislation that would establish national broadband policy and ensure an open and consumer-oriented Internet," immediately had a statement of support as well, as did Speaker Pelosi.

We are on the verge of a huge victory for the open Internet – the tool that has nurtured blogs and created this form of world-wide communication so many take for granted. With net neutrality as the law of the land, the kind of grassroots innovation we’ve witnessed can continue.

Of course, the devil is in the details.

The meaning of the words "reasonable network management" matter. Internet service providers (telephone companies, cell phone companies, cable companies, and other telecoms) will use their lobbyists to push for the loosest, most business friendly net neutrality rules possible, to give them the "freedom" to block content they don’t like or charge you and I more for faster service on certain websites. They don’t want to be regulated like utilities, forced to carry Internet traffic regardless of its source. They’d much rather charge big companies like Google for faster service, leaving smaller outfits – small blogs, for example – in the slow lane.

Still, the chairman of the FCC outlining net neutrality rules that apply to all Internet communications is a huge step forward, and the fact that he has support from Congress as well as most likely has the votes in the FCC makes this announcement even more of an achievement.

If and when net neutrality becomes reality, it will be an Obama campaign promise fulfilled and a fundamental right of the Internet enshrined into law.

Pay for the fast tube?

The Wall St. Journal wrote this morning that Google has sold out Network Neutrality.

Naturally we trust Murdoch to tell us the truth in all things.

No, wait. We don’t.

As is typical with the Journal, it turns out they’re lying across the board.

The President-elect denies the claim he is backing off NN:

TPM Election Central

The Obama transition team is reaffirming his complete commitment to net neutrality and is disputing a much-discussed report today claiming that the President-elect is softening his support for it or shifting his position.

Obama transition spokesperson Nick Shapiro told us moments ago that Obama’s position — strong support for net neutrality — hasn’t changed.

Asked if the Obama camp had shifted its stance in any way on net neutrality or softened its commitment to it, Shapiro answered: "No."

There’s more…

Network Neutrality is a fight over the nature of Internet pipes.

The Internet was built on what are called "dumb" pipes, that is, tubes ranging from the modem-sized tubes of some years ago to today’s broadband to tomorrow’s fiber optic cable — small, big, enormous — all of which are based on the same fundamental principle: first come, first served.

The economic wonder of the Internet depends on everyone, world-wide, having absolutely the same equal-opportunity chance of getting to everything else, based on when they entered the system, first come, first served.

If my packets hit a relay junction before yours, I’m going to get the data first. It doesn’t matter if you’re a queen, a king, a president, or a billionaire. The Internet doesn’t know who you are, and can’t be made to care.

Network Neutrality is the fight to keep class-warfare the FUCK out of the Internet.

The people who own the largest pipes — AT&T, Sprint, and so on — believe in their corporate hearts, they should be able to charge more in exchange for different classes of service. More to guarantee your video streams get there without stuttering and breaking up, more to make sure your voice data sounds better than your competitions, more to be certain you can own a category all to yourself because the rates are too damn high for your competition and that’s how we play monopoly.

What can’t be won in the hearts of actual customers, can be won with enough money by simply denying those customers any other choice. Then overcharge the hell out of the newly locked in customers to pay to keep the customers locked in. The people who sell the bandwidth will be happy. The folks locking up the customers will be happy. And even most of the customers will be happy, locked in their snug cocoons of product/advertising slumber.

After all, before the breakup of AT&T, how many customers were truly upset with Ma Bell? Sure, people cursed the phone company; that’s what one did. But everyone got dial tone. Everyone had a phone — black. And when you called, a repair man (yes, a man) was at your home the next day. What’s not to like? Cell phones, answering machines, fax machines, the frigging Internet… what the hell are you talking about?

Let us not confuse NN with caching, with doing stuff to make the Internet’s dumb pipes run faster. It’s fine to take the servers that have the content that gets used the most and stick it in places — the actual physical locations, called "Network Access Points" aka "peering points" — where the Internet physically connects around the country (New York City, LA, Palo Alto, Seattle, Chicago, Dallas) and around the world. That’s smart network management. Everyone from Google to utility companies puts their key servers in the places best suited for them to serve up data. As well as to make sure the data is spread out redundantly.

Google caches and so does everyone else. It’s a "best practice." If Google didn’t, they’d be leaving themselves open to a shareholder’s lawsuit for failing to manage assets properly. Not to mention, searches would be slower.

This entire story is because the Journal has crappy technical writers, and worse, because they’re pushing their politics onto their news page. What do you expect… they’re Republicans. They don’t live in Reality with a capital R. Which is why they support an Internet which would be divided by class.

For grins, let me point out a couple of problems with such a beast. If Channel A is always half a second faster than anyone else, I can arbitrage the hell out of the NYSE, dog racing, video poker, and Halo. Not to mention World of Warcraft, which means I could finally beat my daughters. (This could make the whole thing worth it, actually. Pardon me while I throw over my entire worldview. Just for the chance to win in WOW.) Everyone who depends on real-time results would be forced to delay their results by half a second or more, simply to level the playing field again.

How much fun telemedicine will be when some doctors and technicians are using true real-time and others are on a half second delay. Yeah, that surgery is going to be FUN. "Quick… grab that bleeder…"

We need a smart electric grid, which means bringing true broadband — fiber ideally — to every home in America. Doing so will change the nature of work, education, entertainment, communication, family and friends. It could change everything from banking to the Fourth Ammendment if we’re not paying attention. But all this promise will only work if everyone stays equal. Equal-opportunity means equal for everyone, not some can buy their way to the front of the line.

What we relax about for today at least is this…

President-elect Obama stands strongly with us for Network Neutrality.

I picked up John Harwood and Gerald Seib’s Pennsylvania Avenue: Profiles in Backroom Power on the day after Teddy Kennedy spoke at the Democratic National Convention, and the more I read, the more I was struck by the appropriateness of the subtitle. This is not a book about profiles in courage, such as Teddy’s brother John crafted, but about profiles of a much different kind altogether.

These are stories about people concerned with power — the acquiring of it, and the keeping of it. These are stories about the use of power in the backrooms — not out of any sense of modesty, but out of a desire to avoid being challenged. These are stories of the clashing of powerful forces, but clashing done mostly out of sight and behind the scenes.

These are not profiles in courage.

Those profiled include both Republicans and Democrats, government insiders and those on the outside, and longtime DC figures as well as relative newcomers. Each is given a quick descriptor — such as the Spinner (Brendan Daly), the Republican Strategist (Karl Rove), the Advocate (Hilary Rosen), and the Netroots Warrior Meets The Establishment (Eli Pariser meets Kyle McSlarrow) — which sums up the profile painted of each.

As both the Acknowledgments and the Notes state, "The bulk of the material in this book came from a series of on-the-record interviews the authors conducted with the subjects . . ." The citations from other sources are few and far between, presenting the readers with generally benign glimpses of these power players. Little seems to have been challenged in these portraits, and none of the figures are portrayed in less-than-flattering light.

Thus, we have "The Democratic Strategist" Rahm Emanuel, who led his party to victory in 2006 and has led the challenges to Bush’s war in Iraq. His profile ends: "Rahm Emanuel — the boy-wonder politico with the cellphone that never stops — had set off tremors that spread not only up and down Pennsylvania Avenue, but across the globe to the Middle East as well." I’m sure this is the picture Emanuel wants the nation to see, though others may disagree. (Howie Klein and Paul Lukasiak, for instance, have a very different take on the victory claim.)

In the same way, we see Elliot Abrams, highlighted as The Policy Adviser. Harwood and Seib describe him as one of the"new foreign-policy thinkers [Bush the younger] represented and empowered" (p. 147) as Bush pursued policies "to change governments." Calling Abrams and this policy "new" seems odd, given Abrams’ role in the State Department and the Iran/Contra scandal under Ronald Reagan. Iran/Contra merits three entire paragraphs in Pennsylvania Avenue, one of which is devoted to his pardon by Bush the elder. By contrast, Judge Walsh gave Iran/Contra (and Abram’s role in it) slightly more attention.

But remember: these are profiles largely crafted from interviews with the principals themselves. Taken together, Pennsylvania Avenue is a virtual group self-portrait of some of the major players of DC. Almost all of the profiles speak of crossing party lines, bipartisanship, and other lofty-sounding phrases that bespeak cooperation, public service, and the public good. The details, however, say very little about these matters. Reading between the lines, the reader gets the sense that what matters to these DC backroom players is personal power and making that power felt.

Don’t get me wrong — there is much to be learned from these profiles, as long as you aren’t expecting them to be hard-hitting and digging into the claims made by the subjects. You learn what they think, and how they either see themselves or want to be perceived. Careful readers will also see the idols they worship and the illusions they exploit.

Missing from the book, though, was even a single profile representing one of the major groups of backroom power players in DC: the members of the Washington press corps. Just in the past few days, for instance, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward has revealed yet another one of his "you give me access, and I’ll write your story" books on the front page of the Post, raising again questions of who Woodward is serving — his employers at the Post, the readers of the Post, the Bush administration, or those who purchase his book. Whoever he is serving, the backroom power arrangements that allow him to write his books are surely a part of the story of Pennsylvania Avenue.

But perhaps the late Tim Russert best exemplifies need to include the DC media’s in any collection of DC "profiles in backroom power." On the day after Tim Russert testified in the Scooter Libby trial, WashingtonPost.com’s Dan Froomkin wrote:

If you’re a journalist, and a very senior White House official calls you up on the phone, what do you do? Do you try to get the official to address issues of urgent concern so that you can then relate that information to the public?

Not if you’re NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert. . .

And get this: According to Russert’s testimony yesterday at Libby’s trial, when any senior government official calls him, they are presumptively off the record.

That’s not reporting, that’s enabling. . .

Many things are "on trial" at the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse right now. Libby is the only one facing a jail sentence — and Russert’s testimony, firmly contradicting the central claim of Libby’s defense, may just end up putting him there.

But Libby’s boss, along with the whole Bush White House, for that matter, is being held up to public scrutiny as well.

And the behavior of elite members of Washington’s press corps — sometimes appearing more interested in protecting themselves and their cozy "sources" than in informing the public — is also being exposed for all the world to see.

DC is a city built around power, and as Pennsylvania Avenue accurately notes, much of it is developed, nurtured, exercised, and protected not in broad daylight, but in the backrooms. I am pleased to welcome authors John Harwood and Gerald Seib, two savvy veteran analysts of the DC political scene, for this conversation about their new book on the backroom power players of Washington DC.

(As is the practice for our Book Salon chats, we ask that you please keep the discussion on this thread on topic as a favor to our guests. Other discussions can continue on the prior thread. Thanks!)

99 Poems about Ted Stevens! 63 on Tuesday, 36 on Wednesday. And although Ted hasn’t been surfacing in the news today like he was earlier in the week, the sun doesn’t set in the North this time of the year, until very late.

I wrote that Thursday, just before TedFest! Day Three was supposed to be posted here. Some people say that Ted decided to enter his own poem in the fest. When he finished his doggerel, he pushed "enter" and firedoglake’s TOOBZ got snarled for three friggin’ hours.

That’s what "some people say." Ted did call me though. It was a robo-call. I was really hoping that he’d call, or that somebody from his staff would call back, accepting my offer inviting somebody in his Alaska office to help judge this contest over the weekend. But, no, just another damn GOP robo-call. Here’s my favorite part of Ted’s call:

Hi! This is Senator Ted Stevens. Sorry to miss you today. I’ve called to invite you to a town hall meeting – BY TELEPHONE! I’m reaching out to you with this new technology….

Now, is that rich poetry material, or what?

Wednesday’s entries, though diminished from Tuesday’s tornado of activity, had a couple of gems, and one masterpiece, the last being from the pen keyboard of Oilfieldguy, a longtime firedoglake regular. Here are the gems:

Barbara shows concern for Ted’s holds or disappearances of important legislation…

To have and to hold,
To watch the thing mould,
Until it’s so old,
It’s forgotten.

The man has a flair
For fouling the air
Methinks something
in Juneau is rotten.

dakine01 writes about Ted’s role over the years, in diverting fisheries resources to well-connected friends and relatives (this is probably the most serious of pending charges against the Stevens father-son combo)….

Ted and his son liked all the lobbyists
Who liked to pretend they were fishing hobbyists
But the true fishers knew that Ted was a scammer
Now they wait for word he’ll join Ben in the slammer.

Oilfieldguy’s entry, a new, slightly modified form of a classical poetic structure, is almost in a class of its own. and, as he noted at the time: "Shit, that was some hard stuff!" He used the villanelle form, but decided later, that in Ted’s case, it is truly a villainelle….

Ode to Ted

Cranky ol’ Ted builds bridges with fear
Good bills tho’ he stops with a hold
Beholden by lobbyists he holds so Dear

Slaughtering our freedoms Ted has no Peer
‘Tis for our own good we’re told,
Cranky ol’ Ted builds bridges with fear

Donors access granted, citizens to the rear
His attention is purchased with Gold
Beholden by lobbyists he holds so Dear

Plagued by scandal and bribes we hear
He must be beat, he’ll never fold
Cranky ol’ Ted builds bridges with fear

Angry ol’ rhetoric is his only gear
drill, bow, the Ted Stevens mold
Beholden by lobbyists he holds so Dear

A loss for Ted, his eye to tear
Empathy for him has been sold
Cranky ol’ Ted builds bridges with fear
Beholden by lobbyists he holds so Dear

As you can see from the YouTube above, provided by Dennis Zaki’s excellent web journal, Alaska Report, we want our Alaska back!

Thursday was the Netroots Nation kickoff. Needless to say, Ted won’t be there. His likely opponent in November, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (here’s Mark’s Blue America page) is there, though, and wants us to get our Alaska back from Ted and Ted’s GOP and corporate cronies. Talkingpointsmemo’s Josh Marshall has announced he will be interviewing Mark, who is scheduled to speak, and participated in today’s Energizing America: Setting an Agenda for Progress forum.

Mark Begich and the Alaska Democratic Party have highlighted Ted’s duplicity in his important role in creating our energy crisis, through his passage of Wendy Gramm’s Enron Loophole, back in December, 2000. And Begich and our Alaska Democrats have pointed out that Stevens, in his bold-faced lies to constituents and the Alaska press, that he supports our Veterans, has been even further from the truth.

As emptywheel observed here Wednesday, Ted Stevens is total anti-transparency, wanting transparency to return to the Oval Office on, on, well, on January 21, 2009. How convenient, eh?

Meanwhile, we’re not the only ones with a Ted Stevens contest going. When Anchorage’s progressive talk radio station, KUDO-1080-AM, found out about our contest, they started holding an impromptu one of their own, on CC’s afternoon (4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Pacific time) program. And the sometimes humorous web page, RetireTed! has a contest of sorts going, in which you can find new questions to ask Ted that he won’t answer. Here are ten big ones he refuses to answer:

1. How is Stevens paying his legal fees?

2. What is Stevens involvement in the ongoing Federal Investigation?

3. Did Stevens deliver earmarks and contracts to help benefit his son’s clients?

4. Did VECO pay for the remodel of Steven’s Girdwood home?

5. Why won’t Stevens talk about the millions in earmarks for his business partner Bob Penney?

6. Why did Stevens allow the Enron loophole rider onto his appropriations bill?

7. What exactly does The Ted Stevens Foundation do and who is funding it?

8. Why did Stevens try to shut out the public from the legislative process?

9. Why won’t Stevens talk about his 527 group made up of former staff and lobbyists?

10. Why won’t Stevens disclose his and his wife’s full personal finances?

Here’s where you can send in your questions.

But, meanwhile – Hey Firedogs! – get out your pens, your brutal, artful doggerel, your accrued haiku breakthroughs, your rhythmic limerick arsenic, and help us, in the words of neurophius, another firedoglake poet, write more poems and…

Ted Stevens is in Fed trouble–
Trouble oh so big
So let’s all join in and “honor” him
By giving his Contest a Digg!

Today is the last scheduled day of TedFest! Give it a shot.

This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television.

Well . . .

I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard that produces words and pictures. You will forgive me for not telling you that instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you that the fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

Make it plain, preacher!

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done–and are still doing–to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

Come on with it, preacher!

Let us have a little competition. Not only in selling soap, cigarettes and automobiles, but in informing a troubled, apprehensive but receptive public. Why should not each of the 20 or 30 big corporations which dominate radio and television decide that they will give up one or two of their regularly scheduled programs each year, turn the time over to the networks and say in effect: "This is a tiny tithe, just a little bit of our profits. On this particular night we aren’t going to try to sell cigarettes or automobiles; this is merely a gesture to indicate our belief in the importance of ideas." The networks should, and I think would, pay for the cost of producing the program. The advertiser, the sponsor, would get name credit but would have nothing to do with the content of the program. Would this blemish the corporate image? Would the stockholders object? I think not. For if the premise upon which our pluralistic society rests, which as I understand it is that if the people are given sufficient undiluted information, they will then somehow, even after long, sober second thoughts, reach the right decision–if that premise is wrong, then not only the corporate image but the corporations are done for.

Bring it home now, brother, bring it home . . .

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us. . .

To those who say people wouldn’t look; they wouldn’t be interested; they’re too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter’s opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Stonewall Jackson, who knew something about the use of weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.

Can I get an "Amen!" or an "Hallelujah!" or two for our guest preacher, Brother Edward R. Murrow?

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.

So, within 48 hours after Donna Edwards trounces Al Wynn, the House decides to flip off the administration on the "Protect America Act" FISA bill with telecom immunity. OpenLeft cites Canadian broadcasting reporting, of Edwards’ win:

I can tell you one thing, on Capitol Hill following the Maryland primary, the elected officials and their staff members that I spoke with spent more time talking about Wynn and Gilchrist, than they did about Obama and McCain.

Donna campaigned against Al Wynn and his corporate financing and corruption, including his being in the tank for the telecoms.

Donna’s win represented a new model of progressive primary challenges against the corporate agenda including the netroots, progressive activists, labor (SEIU), MoveOn, EMILY’s List, environmental groups and others. This is something new: there has not previously been sufficient power or a playbook in place to break the incumbency protection racket. That’s enough to give House Dems pause, to say the least.

What’s more, all of this happened right in the backyard of the Majority Leader, who put serious chips on the table to back Wynn with street money just before election day. Right after all this, said Majority Leader offers stirring words to stand up to Bush on FISA, against the will of the telecom lobbyists.

Coincidence, or not?

Mind you, I don’t think we can ever know. I’m not even predicting the House will do right on FISA in the end once this fight comes back up again, though I certainly was surprised by this week’s unexpected simulacrum of spine calculation by the House.

What I am saying is that it’s at least plausible that the Edwards’ win may be blowing some new air on all those fingers in the wind, and House Dems (and their leadership) may collectively have decided to take a bit of a stand this week while giving themselves some time to regroup and think about what to do next.

(Sign the petition to tell the House to stand firm and reject telecom immunity here.)

Monday I shared a train ride with Jane. She was headed to New York to make an appearance on a panel at NYU, and I was headed to Philly on business.

We talked and worked, though Jane was hampered by the failure of her Verizon mobile wireless service to connect her online. Why? Because, though she had been told her bill would be bundled with her cellphone service at the time she purchased the additional wireless service, they didn’t do it, so her autopay system did not pay her wireless bill. Result? No service. Further result? An hour of senseless haggling, time on hold, and so forth with a “customer service” representative who researched the problem and then insisted on charging Jane a reconnection fee. . . for Verizon’s mistake!

Everyone I know has stories like this. My AT&T wireless charges me out the wazoo and drops my calls with demonic frequency. Meanwhile, it seems Comcast, Verizon and AT&T garner an ever growing proportion of my monthly payments while providing me with less and less service.

If we had been on a train in Europe, not only would we have gotten to our destinations faster, but we would have had free wireless with no hassle. The reason the telecom industry is so bad is because it has bought congress, written anti-competitive, anti-consumer regulations into law, so that its services get worse and worse while it places itself on precisely the business path to destruction the US auto industry has already trod.

It lies to consumers on an individual level, as Jane experienced, and more broadly, launches dishonest anti-net neutrality campaigns and seeks to absolve itself from its participation in illegal surveillance of US citizens. Oh, and it tries to destroy free speech, thank you very much. The more it builds its business model around anti-competitive, anti-consumer corporate welfare and lies, the more it must cling to protectionist, anti-innovation strategies just to survive, systemically cutting the knees out from small businesses and innovative startups. It’s a slow, steady slog toward business death. Just ask Ford how that works out.

What’s more, the rumor is the Senate version of the new FISA bill, with the blessing of Harry Reid and the Democrats, will include retroactive immunity for the telecoms for their lawbreaking. We’ve been fighting today to prop up the House progressives to fight for a better version of the FISA bill in the House, but we also need to let Harry Reid and the rest of the capitulation caucus in the Senate know that retroactive immunity is purely unacceptable during the next few days.

Gee, are there any Democratic senators who might consider launching a filibuster on the Senate FISA bill, even against the will of the leadership, like maybe, anyone from a state that likes cheese, or a senator who guest blogs at SavetheInternet.org or anyone running for president who asserts he’s truly committed to the Constitution?

What are your telecom nightmare stories? Share them in the comments.