Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality: Lobbyist McCurry Raises Ire
BBCWatcher writes "Mike McCurry, former Clinton Administration Press Secretary turned telecommunications industry lobbyist, reacts to his many new critics in the battle over Net Neutrality: "There are millions and millions of good Democrats who get paid by corporations," he said, "and I think every time we bash corporations, we just turn off people who are in the middle of the political spectrum." Among others, top political blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga responded swiftly to McCurry's latest assertions: "What a dishonest piece of sh[..] McCurry has become. This is an anti-corporatist jihad, is it? Is that why we are aligned with Microsoft, Google, and eBay? And when did the Christian Coalition and the Gun Owners of America join the 'left'? What a pathetic attempt to marginalize those of us working for net neutrality....McCurry is now a sad, sad, pathetic man.""
Plenty of democrats are paid by corporations. But the unions continue to contribute a heck of a lot, as well as other groups who aren't great fans of corporate power. There's no reason for democrats to shy away from criticising corporations just because corporations fund some Dems, and some middle-of-the-roaders aren't opposed to corporation-bashing. OTOH, the reflexive bash-the-corporation responses that some Dems exhibit (and Republicans too - espc over oil prices, where "price gouging" - aka charging what the market will bear - gets screamed each time the gas price rises due to exogenous factors) do not make them seem very credible. It's hard to trust people who have routine scapegoats; it suggests they don't think enough.
Exercise your right not to vote. thinkoutside.org
"There are millions and millions of good Democrats who get paid by corporations,"
Yup, by his definition they are "good".. By the rest of us they are paid off hooligans trading personal wealth and power for our freedoms and rights, and our freedoms and rights are a no cost giveaway for these guys.
Good is a relative term and it has been proven for thousands of years that those in power have a very different view of good and evil than the rest of the population.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Corporations that
-Have explicitly said they plan to make Google et al pay twice to use "their" pipes
-Have already blocked e.g. Vonage
-Have (unconfirmed, someone check) reserved 80% of the bandwidth in their fiber for their own TV service
-Have constantly said "There's no problem; the free market will work it out". Which to me translates as "We just want to make sure we have the power to degrade everyone's net service in order to benefit ourselves; we're not actually going to do if of course..."
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Is this official confirmation that not only do the corporations run the GOP, but also the "Democratic" party? I'm glad we have it out in the open.
How does a 7-person democracy cut a pie? Into 4 pieces.
The Kox piece has useful, good info in it. Give it a read. W quotes Jesus; that doesn't make him (W) God, though.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
No comrade the Dailykos is a counterrevolutionary reactionary blog. Clearly his allignment with politically recidivist elements shows he is nothing but a tool of control for the masses. Clearly you should be modded flamebait for making a statement so devoid of observable evidence.
#1. Yes, DailyKos is a Democratic site. But at the same time, the DKos community is pretty much committed to lessening the influence of a whole wide variety of interest groups from the political process and increasing the power that the individual citizen has, on both sides of the aisle. From Unions straight through to Corporations.
#2. Generally speaking, wider "left" political blogsophere supports net neutrality very strongly. And the reason for that, is actually a traditionally centrist viewpoint, namely in order to maximize the effect and forces of a free and open market. Eliminating net neutrality is a great threat to putting a full stop to innovation in business and technology on the internet. It stops new players and technologies from taking those first baby steps out.
You have one area of business with high barriers to entry and a few companies, and you have another area of business with much lower barriers to entry and new companies forming every day?
Which is the important one to protect here?
I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure that quotes like "What a dishonest piece of sh[..] McCurry has become." do nothing but make you look like your foaming at the mouth. If you read the rest of that bloggers post (another slashdot member posted it above) you'll really see my point. Argument is good, but uncontrolled and uncensored anger will never be taken seriously in politics.
Of course I agree with this blogger, but I don't think he is doing our cause any good by spouting off like this. On Slashdot we always poke fun at corporate bigwigs with anger issues(look at Steve Balmer), why should bloggers be any different. That said, I of course agree with net neutrality like anybody in their right mind would... unless of course they work for said corporations.
Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
Article text via bugmenot:
WASHINGTON -- Former White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry is no stranger to well-aimed political attacks. After all, he held down the briefing room podium for Bill Clinton during the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, a task he compared to being a "human pinata."
He was called "a stonewalling administration mouthpiece" who "perfected a plethora of dodges" and "was a master at speaking with charm, wit, self-deprecation and ease -- yet saying nothing."
ADVERTISEMENT
But even McCurry admitted surprise at the verbal shellacking he's received on the Internet lately. More shocking to McCurry is the end of the political spectrum doing most of the name calling: his traditionally supportive left.
It's all because of his latest job working for AT&T Inc., BellSouth Corp. and some other communications companies to shape public opinion on perhaps the most controversial aspect of telecom legislation moving through Congress.
"I've faced far worse in the past," McCurry said of the criticism. "Although the bad names I got called were from the other side."
McCurry is co-chairman of Hands Off the Internet, a group arguing against so-called Net neutrality rules -- federal regulations preventing phone and cable companies from charging extra to zip some high-bandwidth services through their wires faster than others.
The group is squarely in the middle of a brewing battle over the issue against big Internet companies, such as Google Inc., Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp. With many congressional Democrats and liberal bloggers supporting Net neutrality, McCurry finds himself opposing his historical allies.
In a highly charged election year, McCurry has been branded a turncoat, a Democratic Jedi lost to the dark side at a time of looming crisis across the Internet.
The intense and personal flogging -- partly provoked by McCurry's sharp responses -- shows how contentious Net neutrality has become for some Internet users.
He's been called a "sellout" and "stooge," a purveyor of "dishonest hackery" and "classic flack misdirection," and an "industry sock puppet."
"I think people are reacting not just to the issue but to their disdain for a top-tier Democrat shilling in such an overt way for big-money interests," said David Sirota, a liberal political blogger and author of "Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government -- and How We Take It Back."
McCurry said the response to his new job demonstrated the "constant jihad" of 21st century politics and the ongoing struggle between the liberal and centrist wings of the Democratic Party.
"There are millions and millions of good Democrats who get paid by corporations," he said, "and I think every time we bash corporations, we just turn off people who are in the middle of the political spectrum."
McCurry is one of those Democrats.
After leaving the White House in 1998, McCurry became a partner at Public Strategies Group in Washington, developing communications strategies for corporate and nonprofit clients.
He signed on earlier this year with a coalition of telecommunications companies battling an effort by large Internet companies to get Congress to pass rules that would outlaw any preferential treatment of data over the Internet.
Some phone company executives want to charge extra to guarantee fast and reliable delivery of video and other data-heavy applications.
As word spread of McCurry's role, bloggers started ripping him.
Last month, McCurry ripped back.
"On Net neutrality, I feel like screaming 'puh-leeeze,' " he wrote on the Huffington Post, where he sometimes blogs. "The Internet is not a free public good. It is a bunch of wires and switches and connections and pipes and it is creaky."
He slammed his critics for "worshipping" Vint Cerf, a co-founder of the Internet and now a Google executive who has testified to Congress about the need for Net neutrality rules. McCurry said Cerf had "a clear
Seems to me that Daily Kos is a website that's brought up quite frequently in Slashdot (political) stories these days, many times for an opinionated view. Why is this the case and not with, let's say - Redstate? I know that Kos is a reader of Slashdot, but I don't think that has anything to do with it.
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
C'mon, folks: the words "press secretary" are simply code for "weasel." Anyone who thinks otherwie -- and mind you, this is totally regardless of party affiliation -- is being silly. The one and only press secretary for whom I hold any respect is Reagen's, one Jim Brady. During the assassination attempt, he was shot in the head, with substantial brain damange. The work he's done to control the unfettered access to handguns is nothing short of remarkable; he and his wife are to be commended. All other press secreteries are simply PR figureheads, who never -- not ever -- present their own views, if, indeed, they even have any. (A fine and juicy movie that deals with similar people is Thank You for Smoking. See it.)
One of the big mistakes of the Net Neutrality discussion is that is has boiled down to a Legislation v No Legislation battle.
If you take away the legislation part of this discussion I'm not sure that the lefties and free market guys wouldn't swap positions on Net Neutrality.
The push for legislation has steered this discussion more than the issue itself.
As I see it, there is already many ways to purchase better access to your site. You can set up multiple servers throughout the network. You can buy or hire your own pipes, or even lease some bandwidth from an existing pipe, and carry your data on it. (I have read reports that google is doing just that with 'dark fibre'). If a megacorp wants to get better QOS for their customers, they can buy it, and the large telcos can sell it to them.
Surely this obvious fact renders the arguments against NN null and void?
Of course, most here believe, (and I among them) that this is about taking control of our internets, and preventing all the inovative things that are threatening the status quo that is making the existing systems rich.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Past Hundred years ???
Clintons surplus was non existent (see counting social security taxes as income and not counting the debt). The last real surplus was under Eisenhower and had a Republican congress.
National unemployment rate at 4.7 percent or full employment, gotta enjoy that decline.
Sir despite the above I will concede you the debate for I am crippled in that I argue from facts.
Actually, it was
Mercenaries. Must be nice to be able to redefine the language for one's convenience.
Who the hell modded this insightful? Anyone who uses the phrase "liberal left," and then calls Slashdot a "party," is anything but insightful. This doesn't rise above an ideological thumbing of the nose, with all the insights that entails.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
The source of the comment is enough for your outright dismissal, I see. I can understand that: getting all sticky having an actual argument is so gauche.
My book, podcast
Exactly! AT&T and Verizon only have YOUR best interests at heart in opposing network neutrality.
A lot of the network neutrality supporters don't even understand the issue at all. Take this for example, where the NYT and a lot of bloggers think of this as an attack on the web, as though telecoms really want to block off websites instead of regulate bandwidth to things that are going to consume terabytes or more of bandwidth like hi-def video services.
The approach that would work best for assuaging free speech concerns is to beef up common carrier laws. Extend common carrier status laws to the point that any ISP or telecom that blocks legal speech in the United States loses all common carrier protection through every service it provides. Yes, make it a legal corporate death penalty statute so that the MPAA and RIAA can literally sue Verizon into irrecoverable bankrupcy through the DMCA if they start playing speech king-maker.
And here's the funny thing about the "democracy" angle. When domain names were "democratically" controlled, they were much more expensive than they are today. Democracy sucks ass at allocating resources compared to a competitive free market. I'll take my chances with the market over protections for either side, thank you.
What a dishonest piece of shit McCurry has become....McCurry is now a sad, sad, pathetic man. Completely stripped of all goodwill he had built over the years....McCurry, lying sack of shit that he has become....
Don't hold back on the character assassination there Markos. However, if you read through his blog post it seems to be pretty well deserved. McCurry does seem to have run out of arguments on the issue in question and is now resorting to "Well, these people must just be anti-corporation lefties", somewhat ignorant of the fact that many corporations are seriously against all this. It would be hugely detrimental to Google
"The internet has always had rules. One of those rules is that even if you own a pipe, you're not allowed to tell people what they can put through that pipe. You can't block web sites, you can't say 'don't stream video', and you can't dictate what people and can't say. You do have to pay for the pipe you use; Google pays millions a month on one end, and millions of consumers pay smaller amounts ($20-$60) a month on the other. But no one can tell you what you can do with those pipes. It's very much the opposite of cable TV. There are no gatekeepers, and that's by design. This has created a highly competitive marketplace."
This is the way the internet works, and even if the Telcos get what they want the internet will definitely not work like this. There is simply no other way. It will simply collapse and people will bypass the telcos and go their own way, or the internet in the US certainly would be non-existant for most ordinary citizens while other countries surge ahead. Anyway, one can see why the telcos are reacting badly because in the long-run they are simply on a hiding to nothing, but it really doesn't matter one bit how much they spend. The only certainty in life and in business is change.
What youre saying is correct but wrong. Youre proposals would increase a sites availibility on the network in general but it does nothing if the end of the pipe decides to shake you down for your lunch money.
Well that was news
According to Congressional Budget Office (reported by Reuters in 2004, you can probably find the graph if you search for it), the only president that has had any significant budget surplus since 1963 was Bill Clinton. And if you want to argue that Clinton's budget surplus wasn't real, then the figures for the Republican presidents are even more disastrous than they were reported to be.
The Republican pattern of fiscal irresponsibility and anti-growth policies is also illustrated at the state level: there is a huge net flow of funds from Democratic states to Republican states.
Republicans like to talk a lot about growth and fiscal responsibility, but in reality, what Republicans primarily deliver is handouts to the rich, bloated government, and restrictions on personal freedoms.
It would be nice to have true conservative government: government that is frugal, government that respects traditional liberties, and government that limits its own size and scope; unfortunately, Republicans are the antithesis of that. The problem with Republican rhetoric isn't even that their criticism of Democrats is wrong, it's that they themselves are even worse.
Really? Did we need more proof of how corrupt our government is, do our politicians actually have to stand up and flat out say they are corrupt now and act proud of the fact that they are all in the pay of various corporate interests and not doing squat in the interests of the People?
This is the base who's wondering why Bush slept at the switch for six years and then suddenly discovered this highly-divisive issue when his poll numbers were tanking. They're here. They are part of the economy. They are here SOLELY because they have discovered that employers will hire them -- and it is to the exploitative employers that the "base" directs our ire. These employers have lived in an atmosphere of wink-and-nod enforcement of immigration. We've had a global amnesty before -- it's a way to reset the system and make it honest. If you think you can jerk 11 or 12 million people out of our country without a noticable economic impact and also without initiating a concentration-camp style deathmarch you're dreaming. But what's going on has nothing to do with any kind of "gathering threat" and everything to do with pushing people's panic buttons to get them to the polls. See last year's gay marriage threat.
2. This is the base that wants immedi
This is the base that wants their public leaders to speak in complete, intelligible sentences.
3. This is the base that wants abortion on demand for underage girls without parental or legal notification
This is the base that wonders why the same people who insist we ban abortion won't stand up for readily-available birth control. This is the same base that views with something approaching complete revulsion the recent statements by scions of the religious community that vaccines for STD's are tantamount to a greenlight for sex. This is the base that can pretty easily see that the issue has nothing to do with "pro-life" and everything to do with people of one religion inserting their moral views into the legal code in violation of just about everything this country stands for.
This is the base that deplores legalized abortion but despises even more the inevitibility of illegal abortion that a full ban would bring, and would like to see some evidence-based strategy to reduce unwanted pregancy, rather than "abstience-only" programs based on religious flummery and wishful thinking.
4. This is the base that wants to raise taxes to promote economic growth
Clinton raised taxes. It certainly didn't kill economic growth. Don't tell me the 90's boom had anything to do with Reagan because that's been repeatedly debunked.
Bush cut taxes. We're stuck in stagflation now, and the dollar is crashing, and the national debt will be paid off by my children and their children. And in real terms, wages have been dropping. Don't tell me what a great economy this is. Go out into your community and ask your neighbors if they're better off now than they were six years ago. A clear majority of them will not agree.
5. This is the base that applauds when dick durbin and jack murtha compare american troops to nazis
Give me a source of both the quotes you imply and an opinion poll of the "base" agreeing with said quotes. Then we can talk about that statement.
You should be thankfull you have the DLC to mask your base from the rest of the country.
Currently the opinions of "my" base are in tune with the opinions of 71% of the rest of the country. The DLC is out of touch, and so are you.
My book, podcast
My take is this, Net Neutrality sounds great on the surface, but here's why I don't like it; if you are a content producer you should pay for the bandwidth that is allocated for your content
Excuse me, but as a content producer myself, I ALREADY pay for the bandwidth of my content. At the moment, it costs about $10/month, but in the event that my weblog becomes much more popular than it is now, I'm going to have to start shelling out much more money.
Google already pays millions of dollars a month for its bandwidth. Kos himself pays thousands a month to maintain dailkos.com. The bandwidth is already paid for. The telcos shouldn't be charging "protection money" from web site producers who are already paying big money for their bandwidth.
Good lord, can you imagine if highways and roads WERE owned by corporations? Everyone would wind up with the equivalent of bus passes just to drive their own cars. Then when switching to the roads owned by another company you'd start paying roaming charges... LITTERALLY.
And then some roads... would be just impossible to get on. What's that? You say you want to drive to Disneyland? Congratulations because now the roads to access the Disneyland parking lots all charge a sur-charge of 20.00.
What's this? You want to drive to the beach? Well because its the weekend and the first hot sunny day in 3 weeks, you're going to be charged an extra 10.00 "good weather weekend" surcharge if you want to drive closer than a 10 block walk to the beach. But surely this is fair? I mean these are private roads, don't they have the right to restrict access to the better roads or the roads that get you closer to where you actually want to go?
Blind capitalism is not the American way.
As far as Bridget's arguments however... its totally rediculous. Content providers and content users all PAY for their bandwidth. If i want more bandwidth i have to pay for it. If my website goes over so much traffic, I pay for it. If I want a T1 installed to my house, I have to pay ALOT for it. Do you think E-Bay is paying the same amount in bandwidth cost that Craigslist is paying? No freaking way.
This isnt about paying for bandwidth, this is about fragmenting the internet, blocking competition, blocking voices, blocking access. For the home user, they want to charge you extra for being able to access Ebay just as if it were a premium channel on HBO. For companies like Ebay and Google, they understand that they'll be extorted to pay a premium to not have their service to certain areas degraded! It's the flipside of the cable analogy whereby instead of hte customers paying for access to some services on the web somewhere, now services on the web also have to pay a "fee" to be carried on these networks!
Oil prices have risen because the 6 oil companies that control our government have cut down production. No new oil refineries have been built in the US since 1976. We are at an 8 year high in supply for oil, we just don't refine it!
If you look at these oil companies investor reports, you will see it is price gouging. Take Exxon/Mobil. Last year as a share of capital investment, Exxon Mobil made a 46% rate of return on it's US oil operations, a 59% profit margin on it's US oil refining, totalling $36 billion. They love reporting this information to their investors. While a barrel of oil costs $20 to make, they turn around and sell it for $70.
It's a myth that Saudis or some organization sets these prices. The prices are set on energy trading markets. Back in 2000, Enron lobbied hard for the "Commodities Futures Modernization Act." Look it up. It deregulated the energy trading exhanges, meaning over half of the trades are unregulated. When the oil companies are the main ones throwing money around on these exchanges, it's easy for them to hike up the price.
As for the Democrats, yes they do receive money. But if you look at the percentage of campaign contributions going to Republicans, Republicans receive 4 times as much money from oil companies than democrats. That means Republicans should be hung 4 times as high for making consumers deal with this BS.
See Tyson Slocon's testimony before the Senate:http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear
Oil Refiners:
http://wyden.senate.gov/leg_issues/reports/wyden_
http://69.63.136.213/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/e
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_100605I
Campaign Contributions:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?I
Thus, it is not the obligation of the owners of these 'highways' to let anyone use it or let anyone use it for a lower market value.
Every backbone provider is being paid for use of their networks. I fault the "cloud" concept of the Internet for the public's ignorance, because people just assume their data magically gets to the other side through sheer benevolence on the part of the unseen network providers. When people say that Level 3 doesn't pay AT&T for carrying traffic, and then they use that premise to promote quality of service fees, what is not largely understood (or purposely left out) is that AT&T doesn't pay Level 3 for carrying traffic either! If AT&T starts degrading Level 3's traffic unless a fee is paid, AT&T will see either Level 3 asking AT&T for money for its traffic, or Level 3 will drop its peering and start routing traffic around AT&T (as will every other backbone network), thus leaving AT&T to pay *more* for connectivity or live in a black hole.
Please read up on Internet Peering, the practice of two large networks exchanging traffic for mutual benefit.
You and I laid that fiber with our tax dollars and still Verizon and the other big telcos get sweetheart treatment from congress and FCC no matter what they do. In a perfect world, when you pay someone to do something for you that is mutually beneficial and then they try to abuse that in a way that fucks you over, you put the smack down on them. In this case Verizon, et. al. have decided that our efforts in helping them do something mutually beneficial to both of us were not enough for them and now they are trying to fuck us over. Plus there is that whole "common carrier" concept that is apparently like a law or something, it would be totally cool if the government would enforce the motherfucking law, but for some totally weird and unknown reason they doN't Seem to reAlly give a shit...
First off, it's the gas refineries that are the problem, since there are so few.
Considering that the Democrats have prevented new gasoline refineries from being built in the last 10 or 15 years and that the oil companies profits on one gallon of gas are around 9 cents, I find your arguments (and all those links you provide), completely unconvincing. Don't even get me started on the amount that ever single gallon of gas is taxed.
We'd be better off building more refineries and eliminating some of the massive taxes on gasoline, and spending less time citing hand picked statistics.
No new oil refineries have been built in the US since 1976. We are at an 8 year high in supply for oil, we just don't refine it!
Perhaps you could let the oil companies know of a location where they could set up a new refinery. It would need to be near existing oil distribution systems and the neighbors and local community ordinances will need to not oppose the development. Shouldn't be too hard, right?
If you look at these oil companies investor reports, you will see it is price gouging. Take Exxon/Mobil. Last year as a share of capital investment, Exxon Mobil made a 46% rate of return on it's US oil operations, a 59% profit margin on it's US oil refining, totalling $36 billion.
These prices and profits can also be explained by limited supply (in gasoline and other refined products) and high demand. Limiting supply in many markets is only possible with a cartel, but there are exceptions. It all depends on the cost of entry. In refined oil products, there is no new entry. It is currently impossible to build a new refinery in the US for any amount of money. So you have an upper cap on supply with no upper cap on demand. High prices are the result as the demand curve shifts against the supply curve. Econ 101.
The problem is the "build absolutely nothing anywhere at any time" attitude that residents and communities currently have. Which they (and you and I) will start paying for with higher fuel prices. Which I don't mind. Personally, I think the government ought to phase in an additional 50% tax on gasoline to push the price still higher (and all of the interest in alternate fuel and power that will engender).
Regards,
Ross
Hate to break it to you, but it wasn't Verizon. It was outfits like Global Crossing and Metromedia Fiber and so on, most of whom built out much too fast and then went belly up. Their investors and creditors paid for that fiber. Now a lot of it has been bought up by Verizon (and, apparently, Google) at pennies on the dollar. Verizon's gotten it almost free, most all of it is laid through public right-of-way. So you're saying because they've had this windfall in fiber capacity (most of which they've held off the market so far) they deserve a further windfall in being able to monopolize their sectors of the Internet?
Note when it was built the business plan was to make model under the old, network neutral, model. It was never an investment towards a proprietary net.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
We're drifting off topic, but the national unemployment rate doesn't take into account the number of discouraged workers, who have simply given up looking, which has got to be at an all time high because the number of new jobs created under Bush has consistently been lower than the number just to keep up, on a percentage basis, with the increase in population. Plus the median wages under Bush have not even kept up with inflation - after making real advances under Clinton for the first time since the sixties. Meanwhile the economy has kept going only by household debt raising to unprecidented heights, just as Bush has run the national debt to heights never seen before.
Okay, to come back to topic: We're really out on a limb here. Either we Americans will innovate our way out of the debt hole we've collectively dug under Bush's leadership, or we're going to see another Great Depression, as the dollar falls violently against other currencies (the Asians are already tiring of propping it up by buying our debt), and personal bankruptcies multiply as mortgages become unpayable. Most people who lose jobs now only find new jobs that pay much less. The only thing that can save us (aside from not electing any more Bushes) is radical economic innovation, of the sort we saw in the 90s before the Enron-style hucksters got ahold of it and milked the boom. And the only way to promote that innovation is to keep the Net neutral, and control of the economy away from the dinosaur-like old-line megacorps (particularly in communications and energy and banking) which have done so much to push us towards the precipice we risk falling over.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
"There are millions and millions of good Democrats who get paid by corporations," he said, "and I think every time we bash corporations, we just turn off people who are in the middle of the political spectrum."
Oh, speaking as a Demcorat, I can agree that it's a bad thing to "bash" corporations, provided that by "bash" you mean "persecute in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner."
However,it's profoundly against what it means to be a Democrat to call it "bashing" just because you aren't doing what an individual corporation or cartel would like. What it means to be a Demcorat is to belive that the government is the custodian of the public good, as measured by the effect on the welfare and freedom on a typical person. Sometimes this means standing in the way of private companies, sometimes this means stepping aside, and sometimes this means encouraging them. In the end the significance of the corporation's welfare is, in itself, zero. If a policy is good for the public and good for a corporation, that's nice. But if a policy is good for the public and bad for an individual corporation, or even corporations as a whole, it's still a good policy.
That's what distinguishes us from the Republicans, who think this is very nearly a logical contradiction. You don't have to be anti-corporate to be a Democrat. You can still be a Demcorat an think that 99.9% of the time favoring corporations as a whole favors the public. You just can't think that favoring corporations and favoring people is the same thing.
You can be a Democrat and make an argument against net neutrality -- it's an uphill battle, but it can be done. You just have to show a quid pro quo in which the public gives up the right to unfettered competition in Internet content, but gains something more valuable in return. It's hard to imagine what this would be though. With cable and the end of rules limiting ownership of broadcast outlets and newspapers, we're seeing the end of the traditional media as a marketplace of ideas, even if economic competition continues unabated. What will happen when corporations can favor their own Internet media as well?
"The Internet is not a free public good. It is a bunch of wires and switches and connections and pipes and it is creaky."
This is also completely wrong.
The Internet is not a bunch of wires and switches. It's a shared consensus on how to interconnect networks and computers. Granted consumers connect to the Internet over and individual vendor's equipment; in fact when you plug your computer into the network your computer becomes, technically speaking, part of the Internet. This doesn't mean you own part of the Internet. It means your equipment is participating in it.
It follows that no cartel of vendors should be allowed to sieze control of the Internet by aquiring control strategic pieces of it. That was what the medieval barons, who were really no than brigands, used to do. They'd build a castle on a river or at a mountain pass and bled the commerce that went through it.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
First off, it's the gas refineries that are the problem, since there are so few.
Yes, it is. (though you wouldn't know it from all the oil execs lying and blaming ethonol producers, the US Congress and OPEC a few months ago).
Considering that the Democrats have prevented new gasoline refineries from being built in the last 10 or 15 years and that the oil companies profits on one gallon of gas are around 9 cents, I find your arguments (and all those links you provide), completely unconvincing.
Nobody is preventing new refineries from being built other than the oil companies. Hi, put down your GOP playbook and come on down to visit us here on the gulf coast where we do the vast majority of refining and local governments have been trying to get refineries built for decades. We've got entire cities whose citizens do nothing but running oil refineries and they'd all love to have new ones built. I can take you on a tour of Pasadena and Beaumont if you like, and introduce you to a few thousand of my close personal friends in industry and government who'd love the tax base and the overtime.
The only reason we don't have refineries being built is because there is no incentive to do so -- oil companies can sell 1,000,000 barrels for $70,000,000, or they can invest billions in refineries and sell 1,000,000 barrels for $50,000,000. It's a no-brainer, it's far more profitable to operate fewer refineries and charge more for the product. And since all the companies have merged, there's no possibility of somebody upsetting the apple cart, they just silently agree to do nothing and everybody gets richer. It's not like you and I are going to get some buddies together and build a $2 billion refinery to compete with them (ExxonMobil made almost $10 billion PROFIT at the end of 2005! That's 5 refineries right there -- ask anyone in Houston how fast the companies are throwing that money at every conceivable project they can find for tax breaks, but none of those projects are refineries!)
It's no different than in California when the out of state suppliers were artifically jacking up prices by just shutting down electric generators during peak periods for "maintenance". Why go to all the hard work of maximizing production when you can make more money by minimizing it? So what if the country as a whole gets f*cked in the process? The beauty is that they can make more money for less work, and people like you who've never worked in oil and gas actually believe them when they blame it on the big, bad government!
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.