The major reason for most of the bandwidth limiting and complaints that the network load is out growing the rate of infrastructure growth is because of the original break-up of AT&T. After that each company had to get permission through long processes to purchase bandwidth on the next generations of frequencies and pay for all of the expansion out of pocket instead of telling the government what they need and have a large portion of it provided and allowed to write off the rest. Also the reason for Hutchinson's anti-neutrality addition would seem to be more about the people she representing in Texas, especially considering she is running for governor of Texas which is home to the telecom corridor. Here we build and maintain a major portion of software and switches that all companies use around the country. The growth of telecom is connected to the economic and employment of Texas so keeping them happy and hiring keeps the public of Texas happy and wealthy, this is one reason why our state is not hit as hard by the current down turn in the economy.
Your people theory is unlikely given that the bill happens to be co-sponsored by five other Republicans from five other states: Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).
The more likely explanation is that it's a concerted partisan effort to keep the telecom lobby's checkbook in the GOP's pocket. Behind healthcare and defense, telecom is the third largest lobby in the US, and its money will surely help the Republican fight to take Washington back.
Those are all states that this year AT&T has pledged to expand services further following 3 years of infrastructure increase, just over 1.5 trillion in KS, SC, and NV(Las Vegas) alone.
This is the best article I've ever read about Net Neutrality. Definitely one-sided, but very insightful for those of use who support the premise.
There really is no other side to this argument though. The Republicans are arguing against regulating a market that is already heavily regulated by the government. As you've pointed out, there has never been a "free market" telecom business in America. The idea that we shouldn't regulate a market that's completely outgrown its previous regulation is absolutely absurd, unless you support repealing the Telecom act of 1996 and every other piece of Telecom legislation that's still in existence.
It's also convenient that the same politicians that oversaw the biggest expansion of government have become free marketeers overnight. Kay Bailey Hutchinson is actually one of the more moderate Republicans of the bunch, which is probably why they handed the reins over to her on this issue. She's one of few Republicans with a limited government leg to stand on. _K_ isn't far off though. Anything a Texan can do to give their constituents the perception that they are fighting against big government is going to bode well for them in the election, especially when she runs for governor.
I'll vouch for Robert who I have had a few off channel political discussions with. If I were to define his political views in laymen terms, I would simply say Robert has a low tolerance for bullshit. He definitely has no interest in being a mouthpiece for the left.
When we start by looking at the issue of net neutrality, and telecom dereg, and then peel back the onion you see the larger issue of a corporate government. There is a much larger issue in America, and its leading to a sort of identity crisis. It's always been there, but now corporations are so entrenched in the fabric of our government that we don't know where they start and the lawmakers end. And, that has been by and large an issue on both sides of the political spectrum, and in my mind its America's most pressing single issue, more than Middle East relations, bigger than health care, bigger than education, if you have a system where the government has become nothing more than puppets for its corporate masters, then who is serving the workers, who is serving the consumers, who is serving the interest of the majority of people?
For full disclosure, I am very passionate about this issue. I honestly feel that for America to be as healthy as it can be it all starts with leadership that is non corruptible. If I were in control the first thing I would do is totally reform campaign finance rules making it illegal for candidates to accept large corporate donations. The 2nd thing I would do is make it easier for anyone to get on their states ballot and guarantee them the right to debate the incumbent parties as well as guarantee a standard for guaranteeing media coverage for all parties involved.
America has the vote, but not really. Your vote has been corporately owned for a number of years. I'm not saying there are not some good choices from the standard parties, there are some fine ones, but even they need to butter their campaign war chest with corporate funds to get in the game, this needs to stop. For the last two elections I petitioned for Ralph Nader to get him on the MD ballot. I voted for him despite being told by all my peers how I was wasting my vote on someone that could never win. Does anyone other than me see something fundamentally undemocratic about that?
Sorry to get off on this tangent, I know the more specific issues here, but when I think about them my mind drifts to the bigger picture about Corporate benefactors, politicians, media outlets all work together and how it feels like nobody is working for us. It frustrates me.
Cliff, that's like a whole new thread. One thing I will say though is that the way parties used to fight against internal corruption was to pick their candidates behind closed doors. Some of the best Presidents, congressmen and senators were nominated behind closed doors in "smoke-filled rooms." I think the primary process has actually done more harm than good in politics, because now they have to raise money for two elections instead of one. The parties picked their candidates very carefully, as they all represented the party as a whole, and their success in the elections depended on their ability to pick good candidates. A good example of this was Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln would have never made it through a Primary. He was not very well-known and had lost so many elections people would have been afraid to nominate him. The Republicans saw him as a visionary, got behind him and he ended up becoming one of the greatest Presidents in history, and effectively sealed the lid on the inept Whig Party.
When you're dealing with the 1st amendment, the freedom of the press and the internet, there's no way to make politics fair for everyone that wants to get involved. What ends up happening is that people with money find loopholes to get around the system, and often become more corrupt and corruptible in the process. Personally I think that the McCain-Feingold bill has created a climate of a more corrupt process, and McCain ended up falling victim to the very bill he helped draft. In 2000, George W Bush's campaign made robot calls to Republican Primary voters suggesting that McCain's adopted Indian daughter was his illegitimate love child. Bush ended up winning the primary, even though McCain had a better chance of a legitimate victory against Al Gore, and had more broad support from independents and moderate Democrats. Robot calls were the result of campaign finance reform. Now, a lot of campaigning is done on the internet. When you attempt to limit a candidate's ability to effectively campaign in one medium, or try to level the playing field by giving both candidates equal access, the candidate with more money will always find a different, unregulated medium to give themselves an advantage. I understand what you're saying, but the implementation always ends up being counter-intuitive to the desired solution.
And Robert, I didn't assume that you're a talking piece for the Left. This was a very fairly written piece. My point was not to say that it's one-sided in a partisan matter, but that it's one-sided in a people vs corporations matter. The only thing I disagree with you about is that this is completely motivated by corporate contributions. While it's definitely important, there has been a mobilization of "free market" Republicans that is making everyone in the GOP scared to vote for anything that's being labeled as "big government." The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and right now the far-right fringe of the party is the squeakiest wheel. There are actually many people who are against net neutrality, misguided as they are.
Sorry about the tangent. I just read this and I see it as a much larger issue. A corporate agenda plus politicians that require corporate backing for election plus a popular media mouth piece that many people trust word for word, you add it all together, well, you see what I am saying. It's a scene that is all too common in the current democratic process.
Thrax
🐌Austin, TX Icrontian
Comments
The more likely explanation is that it's a concerted partisan effort to keep the telecom lobby's checkbook in the GOP's pocket. Behind healthcare and defense, telecom is the third largest lobby in the US, and its money will surely help the Republican fight to take Washington back.
//edit: Clarified language.
There really is no other side to this argument though. The Republicans are arguing against regulating a market that is already heavily regulated by the government. As you've pointed out, there has never been a "free market" telecom business in America. The idea that we shouldn't regulate a market that's completely outgrown its previous regulation is absolutely absurd, unless you support repealing the Telecom act of 1996 and every other piece of Telecom legislation that's still in existence.
It's also convenient that the same politicians that oversaw the biggest expansion of government have become free marketeers overnight. Kay Bailey Hutchinson is actually one of the more moderate Republicans of the bunch, which is probably why they handed the reins over to her on this issue. She's one of few Republicans with a limited government leg to stand on. _K_ isn't far off though. Anything a Texan can do to give their constituents the perception that they are fighting against big government is going to bode well for them in the election, especially when she runs for governor.
I have no political ties or preferences towards either of the parties discussed in this piece.
When we start by looking at the issue of net neutrality, and telecom dereg, and then peel back the onion you see the larger issue of a corporate government. There is a much larger issue in America, and its leading to a sort of identity crisis. It's always been there, but now corporations are so entrenched in the fabric of our government that we don't know where they start and the lawmakers end. And, that has been by and large an issue on both sides of the political spectrum, and in my mind its America's most pressing single issue, more than Middle East relations, bigger than health care, bigger than education, if you have a system where the government has become nothing more than puppets for its corporate masters, then who is serving the workers, who is serving the consumers, who is serving the interest of the majority of people?
For full disclosure, I am very passionate about this issue. I honestly feel that for America to be as healthy as it can be it all starts with leadership that is non corruptible. If I were in control the first thing I would do is totally reform campaign finance rules making it illegal for candidates to accept large corporate donations. The 2nd thing I would do is make it easier for anyone to get on their states ballot and guarantee them the right to debate the incumbent parties as well as guarantee a standard for guaranteeing media coverage for all parties involved.
America has the vote, but not really. Your vote has been corporately owned for a number of years. I'm not saying there are not some good choices from the standard parties, there are some fine ones, but even they need to butter their campaign war chest with corporate funds to get in the game, this needs to stop. For the last two elections I petitioned for Ralph Nader to get him on the MD ballot. I voted for him despite being told by all my peers how I was wasting my vote on someone that could never win. Does anyone other than me see something fundamentally undemocratic about that?
Sorry to get off on this tangent, I know the more specific issues here, but when I think about them my mind drifts to the bigger picture about Corporate benefactors, politicians, media outlets all work together and how it feels like nobody is working for us. It frustrates me.
When you're dealing with the 1st amendment, the freedom of the press and the internet, there's no way to make politics fair for everyone that wants to get involved. What ends up happening is that people with money find loopholes to get around the system, and often become more corrupt and corruptible in the process. Personally I think that the McCain-Feingold bill has created a climate of a more corrupt process, and McCain ended up falling victim to the very bill he helped draft. In 2000, George W Bush's campaign made robot calls to Republican Primary voters suggesting that McCain's adopted Indian daughter was his illegitimate love child. Bush ended up winning the primary, even though McCain had a better chance of a legitimate victory against Al Gore, and had more broad support from independents and moderate Democrats. Robot calls were the result of campaign finance reform. Now, a lot of campaigning is done on the internet. When you attempt to limit a candidate's ability to effectively campaign in one medium, or try to level the playing field by giving both candidates equal access, the candidate with more money will always find a different, unregulated medium to give themselves an advantage. I understand what you're saying, but the implementation always ends up being counter-intuitive to the desired solution.
And Robert, I didn't assume that you're a talking piece for the Left. This was a very fairly written piece. My point was not to say that it's one-sided in a partisan matter, but that it's one-sided in a people vs corporations matter. The only thing I disagree with you about is that this is completely motivated by corporate contributions. While it's definitely important, there has been a mobilization of "free market" Republicans that is making everyone in the GOP scared to vote for anything that's being labeled as "big government." The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and right now the far-right fringe of the party is the squeakiest wheel. There are actually many people who are against net neutrality, misguided as they are.