Friday Talking Points [147] -- Democrats Fighting The Good Fight
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I thought that was a pretty good week for Democrats.
Maybe it's just the subject matter I've been tackling this week, that could contribute to my spirit of optimism, I suppose. I began the week examining the increasing and interesting struggle for power between the Tea Party Republicans and the entrenched-establishment Republicans, which is always both fascinating and amusing. Tuesday, I reflected on heroism as President Obama awarded the first Medal of Honor that went to a living recipient since the Vietnam War -- an uplifting subject matter if there ever was one. Wednesday, I got to interview the chairman of the Populist Caucus, Representative Bruce Braley, who was a little-noticed success story for Democrats in the midterm election (he had millions in outside anonymous donor money spent against him in some vicious attack ads, but instead of retreating from being a Democrat he proudly stood up for Democrats' recent achievements in his campaign -- and he won re-election as a result). And yesterday I wrote what could be read as a preamble to today's column, about Democrats and the lame duck session of Congress (more on this in a bit). [You can read any of these at my site, as I didn't want to over-link this paragraph with all the individual article citations.]
All in all, pretty positive subject matter all around. Of course, there were a few disappointments, but on the whole what I would call a pretty good week for Democrats -- something they haven't enjoyed in a while.
But mostly the optimism centers around what could happen, and not what actually has happened yet. Meaning that, once again, I have gotten my hopes up a bit. Perhaps this is naive and they will come crashing down to reality by New Year's Day, but that's the risk you always take when quaffing from the eternal spring waters of Hope.
But we shall continue to so quaff, mostly because "quaff" is such a cool word to type. Hey, I warned you I'm in a good mood this week.
Enough nonsense, let's get on with the show....
There were three Democrats worthy of mention this week. Actually, there were more than that -- which is an optimistic sign, at the very least -- but these three stood out in particular. And their names may come as somewhat of a surprise to some readers.
The first is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Perhaps Reid has been spooked by his recent very-tough re-election battle. Perhaps he has been spooked by how close Democrats came to losing the Senate. Perhaps he is following others' leads. Or perhaps it is just that Harry has shown he can indeed get things done -- right before a Senate vacation. But whatever the reason, Reid deserves credit for backing up the other two honorees this week.
As I wrote yesterday, the lame duck session of Congress could actually be more productive than the conventional inside-the-Beltway "wisdom" had been thinking. Democrats, after all (so this punditocracy-cocktail-party chatter held), were supposed to lie down, roll over, and play dead until the Republicans took over a few months from now. Democrats, of course, wouldn't get anything done except what the Republicans wanted -- more massive tax cuts for the rich.
Democrats seem not to have received this memo. Because they don't seem to be lying down and playing dead. And Harry Reid seems to actually have their back. He's been promising votes on some very contentious issues, giving a lot of political strength to Democrats who are advocating for action on these issues. For once, Democrats seem to be coordinated in their actions. And Reid played a big part in this, so he has earned an Honorable Mention for doing so.
But the first of our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards goes out to President Barack Obama. Ever since getting back from his Asia trip, the president has seemed a lot more energetic and a lot more involved with moving some legislation in Congress than he has been for a long time. As I wrote yesterday:
President Obama's White House deserves a lot of credit, at least so far, for pushing these issues to the fore. While Obama's legislative style up until now has been mostly to work behind the scenes as Congress dithers, and then jump in and support whatever bill actually makes it out of the sausage-grinder up on Capitol Hill. This is a mostly risk-free strategy for the White House, because Obama never has to come out and fight for any provision in such a bill that may ultimately get defeated.
But maybe Obama has realized that the lame duck is going to be his last, best chance to advance any major parts of his agenda until 2013. Or maybe it's just part of the "midcourse correction" that all presidents go through after their first midterm season. Maybe it's because Rahm Emanuel is gone. Whatever the reason, though, it certainly marks a change in strategy (or, at the very least, in tactics) by the White House.
President Obama has not only been making lots of calls to senators, to get them on board one issue or another, but he has also been sticking his neck out politically in a way not seen since the early days of his administration. Obama has been taking political risks by getting strongly behind issues which may fail to pass in the lame duck session. He's fighting for some things he may well lose on, in other words -- and he is doing so wholeheartedly, and not in some vague, on-the-sidelines way.
This can be seen clearest in his push to get the "New START" nuclear arms reduction treaty ratified by the Senate. Treaty ratification takes a two-thirds majority, or 67 votes -- a higher threshold than the filibuster. If every Democrat votes for it, Obama will still need a lot of Republicans to do so as well. And Obama has lined up some pretty powerful people who agree with him -- Republicans and Democrats who have served in the past three or four administrations. He has been offering Jon Kyl any sort of "Arizona Kickback" he wants, but so far to no avail.
This is a standoff Obama could win. There still are sane Republicans who subscribe to the old "politics ends at the water's edge" way of thinking on American national security issues. If Obama relentlessly hammers Republicans as putting politics ahead of American security, he could get a lot of the public's opinion behind him and shame the Republicans into ratifying the treaty.
But he could fail, as well. It's a big risk for him to take -- especially considering that 67-vote bar he's got to clear. But that's exactly what we (and a lot of others) have been begging Obama to do for a while now -- take a few risks. Get behind some stuff that might not pass. Even if the pundits will gleefully say "Obama failed!" you will still be seen as standing up and fighting for what you believe is right -- which will, in the end, help you politically in your next fight.
Obama didn't have to pick this fight. He could have thrown up his hands and punted the issue to the next Congress. But that would be putting politics ahead of security, as well. For not doing so, and for getting out on a limb for once, President Obama wins a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award this week.
Perhaps I should warn our readers to be sitting down for this next part. Our second MIDOTW award winner may come as an even bigger surprise, because it is none other than Senator Joe Lieberman. It absolutely pains me to type it, but he's really shown some "Joe-mentum" this week.
Hey, I warned you to sit down, so don't blame me if you just fell down and bumped your head in frank astonishment.
Lieberman is one of the chairmen of the Senate committees which deals with the military. And he has become the point man on the effort to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (DADT) of denying gay Americans the right to openly serve their country in uniform. A few weeks back, the rumor made the rounds that one of the other Senate committee chairmen -- Carl Levin -- had already agreed with his Republican counterpart to strip the DADT repeal out of the Pentagon's appropriations bill for the year. In other words, Democrats would throw in the towel on the entire effort, and it would likely be dead for the foreseeable future -- before the fight had actually begun.
Lieberman called a press conference this week with a passel of other Democratic senators, and said, in essence: "Not so fast!" He's been telling anyone who'll listen since then that he actually has the 60 votes he needs to pass the repeal, especially after the Pentagon report comes out in a few weeks.
This is the way to fight. Get out in front, with a show of strength. President Obama and the White House have also reportedly joined in the fray, pushing hard for repeal in many phone calls to individual senators. This is the way to lead your team!
Once again, the effort may not succeed. Both Obama and Lieberman are sticking their necks out, and taking some risks. And that is what most people call "leadership."
For leading the charge on DADT, we hereby gratefully award the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to Senator Joe Lieberman. [Yeah, we know -- he's not technically a Democrat, in the same way that Lisa Murkowski is now not technically a Republican, but for the sake of discussion (and awards) we've long since decided that Lieberman is eligible. Mostly because we keep giving him MDDOTW awards, we fully admit. Heh.]
Keep up the good work, President Obama and Senator Lieberman! Other Democrats -- it's time to get behind them and fight the good fight.
[Congratulate President Barack Obama on his White House contact page, and Senator Joe Lieberman on his Senate contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]
Before we get to the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, we've got to pause for a bit of silliness. From Pennsylvania state lawmaker Paul Costa, to be precise.
Costa was, a few weeks ago, attending a Pittsburgh Steelers game. As many Americans do, he was tailgating in the parking lot before the game. Also as many Americans do, he smoked a joint with a buddy of his. And, sadly, also as many Americans, Costa was busted by undercover police (who were actually looking for illegal T-shirt vendors).
None of that, mind you, is the disappointing part. What was actually beyond disappointing, jumping over the borderline to absolutely ludicrous was Costa's defense (issued through his lawyer): Costa "detests marijuana."
Um, OK. For this mind-bending legal defense -- "My client so detests marijuana that he was forced to consume as much of it as he possibly could so that others would not have the opportunity to consume it" -- Costa wins a (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week. [Insert your own "what was he smoking" type joke here.]
But our real Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award is somewhat of a no-brainer this week. Representative Charlie Rangel takes the MDDOTW cake this week. This will be Rangel's sixth time for the award, as he's won it on five separate occasions -- four of which were given for the same misconduct we're talking about now (see: FTP [47], [97], [113], and [132]).
Now, Rangel's already gotten the MDDOTW for his income tax problems themselves (while chairing the House committee which writes the income tax laws), and for not stepping down from his powerful chairmanship until forced to do so. But this week, he wins not for finally having his trial and being found essentially guilty on 11 counts, and not for the humiliating censure he's about to have to endure; but rather for his grandstanding conduct during the ethical hearing itself. He huffily got up and stormed out of the hearing, because the committee refused him time to raise money for a lawyer. The man's got chutzpah, that's for sure. He forgets to report a property in the Caribbean worth over half a million bucks on his taxes, and now he's pleading poverty to the committee -- he simply can't afford a lawyer to sit next to him, and wants time to raise money for one via a legal fund drive. Oh, puh-leeze.
For his antics in front of the committee, which were only partially mitigated by the much-more-humble statement he gave later in the week, we hereby award -- hopefully for the last time (at least for this particular subject) -- Charlie Rangel the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.
[Contact Representative Charlie Rangel on his House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]
Volume 147 (11/19/10)
This is a warning to Democrats everywhere: the new fall line of Republican Talking Points is out.
There are, basically, two of them. The first is that the Republican Party is now doing what "the American people" (or perhaps "The American People") want. The second is the flipside of this, which is that Democrats "just don't get it." This one is comfortably vague and all-encompassing.
But the first one isn't, and this presents a giant opening for Democrats to fight back. Because we can actually tell, on many important political issues, what "the American people" think about things. Yes, I'm talking about opinion polls. Now, polls can be a two-edged sword, I'd be the first to admit that. But why let the other side use its edge and perpetually blunt your own by refusing to wield this weapon?
Because there are a lot of issues on which the American people are solidly, even overwhelmingly on the side of the Democrats. So use this fact! Point it out, for Pete's sake! Don't let the Republicans steal the phrase "the American people" as they've stolen so many others over the years.
I guarantee it -- if Democrats start using the exact same phrase to describe their positions on popular issues, then Republicans will stop using it, or at the very least, tone it down a bit. But you've got to forcefully swing that sword in order for it to cut both ways. And there's no time like the present to start doing so.
The American people want DADT to end
Here's the first one. It's easy. And it'll become even more effective when the Pentagon releases a report showing that not only do ever-wider majorities of the American people favor dumping DADT, but also that majorities of people currently serving also favor jettisoning the policy as well.
"You know, Republicans have been making a lot of noise about how they now speak for 'the American people,' and how Democrats 'just don't get it,' but then they turn that on its head when it gets down to specific issues. For instance, something like 60 to 75 percent of Americans want us to end the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy on gays in the military. I put it to you, sir, that the American people want exactly the same thing Democrats do on the issue, and Republicans are the ones who really just do not 'get it.' Even a large majority of those in uniform want an end to the policy, but Republicans continue to thumb their nose at the will of the people on the issue of ending such discrimination in the military."
The American people want arms reduction
Can somebody please get Obama's back on this one? Pretty please?
"You want to know what the American people want from Congress? I'll tell you. Recent polls show that three out of four Americans want the Senate to ratify the new nuclear arms reduction treaty -- the 'New START.' Why are Republicans playing politics beyond the water's edge? Why are Republicans in the same corner on this issue as Iran? America's national security will be strengthened by getting our inspectors back into Russia to, as Ronald Reagan said, 'trust but verify.' We cannot verify right now, because the old treaty expired. The American people want us to pass this treaty, and there is absolutely no reason why we should not ratify it. Republicans are trying to wheel and deal and get their own kickbacks put into the bill. They are shamelessly playing politics because they don't want Barack Obama to get a 'political victory' on this issue. They just don't seem to get it -- this won't be a political victory, this will be a victory for any American who cares about our national security, and we call on Republicans to support it, as three-fourths of the American public does."
Thanks, Scrooge
This one is such an enormous bludgeon, it is almost begging to be used.
"Right before the Christmas holidays, Republicans have blocked extending unemployment benefits for millions of Americans. If you are about to lose your benefits and you voted Republican in the last election, I'd just like to point out that you put this lump of coal in your own stocking. This is what you voted for -- people who would cut off millions from their last resort, right before Santa arrives. Thanks, Scrooge McRepublicans!"
A Texas-sized hole in the deficit
This one comes from a recent story about a new ad going up in favor of ending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires. I find I can't improve on McMahon's words one bit.
"On the campaign trail, Republicans and their corporate backers paid a lot of lip service to the Tea Party crowd about reining in the deficit," said Tom McMahon, executive director of AUC [progressive group Americans United for Change]. "But back in Washington, what's the very first order of business? Blowing a Texas-sized hole in the deficit by extending the Bush tax breaks for Wall Street bankers and millionaires. That's $700 billion reasons why Congressional Republicans are not at all serious about putting America's fiscal house in order and getting the economy moving again for anyone but the special interests."
Listen to the Patriotic Millionaires
I can't improve on these words either. There's a new group of wealthy folks (they've even got a website) calling themselves the "Patriotic Millionaires," who are advocating to end the Bush tax cuts on themselves and people like them.
From their letter to President Obama:
We are writing to urge you to stand firm against those who would put politics ahead of their country.
For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.
We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.
We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation's moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don't need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.
Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction.
Hippie terrorists? Honestly?
This one is just ridiculous. Our tax dollars -- which are supposed to be paying for valid anti-terrorism efforts -- are instead being used to play out some Nancy Reagan-era action/adventure fantasy which casts as the evil villain marijuana terrorists.
You just can't make this stuff up, I'm afraid.
Here's the story, via WashingtonPost.com:
Federal, state and local officials carrying out a counter-terrorism drill in Northern California Wednesday played out a scenario in which local marijuana growers set off bombs and took over the Shasta Dam, the nation's second largest, to free an imprisoned comrade.
According to an account in the Redding (Calif.) Record Searchlight, the 12-hour drill was part of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Critical Infrastructure Crisis Response Exercise Program, begun in 2003.
"More than 250 people from more than 20 agencies took part," said Sheri Harral, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Reclamation, according to the paper.
Harral said the drill took 18 months to plan and cost the bureau alone $500,000. The other agencies covered their own costs.
The paper made only passing reference to the scenario's designation of pot growers as terrorist villains.
In the otherwise realistic mock-terror scenario, the marijuana growers' "red cell" set off bus and car bombs as distractions, took over the dam with three hostages, and then "threatened to flood the Sacramento River by rolling open the drum gates atop the dam," according to the paper.
I'm at a loss for words. Seriously. Free "an imprisoned comrade"? I mean, what year do these people think it is?
You're going to have to make up your own talking point to cover such idiocy. Imagine if this money had been spent in the wilds of some red state on a drill involving a "right-wing terrorist group," and then channel the outrage which the other side would have vented -- that may help you to formulate your talking point, here.
Sigh.
Because that was so depressing, we will end on a much lighter note this week.
Was it good for you, too?
Why can't we have political ads like this in our country?
This isn't really a talking point, per se, but more of a When Harry Met Sally moment, so to speak.
Spain's young Socialists have come up with an ad titled "Voting is a pleasure" -- which is exactly what it sounds like. I guess that's why Republicans are so afraid of Socialists, because they're terrified ads like this could ever run in this country. Heh.
Watch the ad. See for yourself.
"I believe I'll vote for whom she voted for..."
[Program Note: See you in two weeks, and have a Happy Thanksgiving!]
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post
-- Chris Weigant
Chris,
It was a pretty good week for Democrats ... with the promise of a few more good weeks before the end of the year.
And, on that happy note, enjoy your long overdue and much deserved break from all of this!
I'll get to the your TPs later, but I just wanted to announce the creation of a new political term that ya'all will be seeing a LOT of in the coming months.
The Pelosi Syndrome....
Symptoms of The Pelosi Syndrome (AKA TPS or the "Seriously???" Syndrome) are a complete and utter denial of reality even after said reality reaches out and Gibbs-smacks the sufferer of the syndrome upside the head. Other symptoms include a nearly overwhelming desire to fiddle when in the presence of severe conflagrations..
It's gonna be a fun two years.. :D
On another, unrelated note.... I would like to encourage everyone and anyone who enjoys CW.COM and follow Liz's lead and match my post total/donation. You can see the number of my posts in Italics after my... er... "sig" (such as it is)
Now, for those who aren't regulars here at CW.COM, you might wonder why should you donate?
To answer this, I invite you to take a gander at some other Left Wing blogging sites.. With no exception, those sites are what is known as "Head Stomping" sites.
Don't believe me? Here's a little test for you to try.. Go over to a certain site (identified by babies wrapped in cellophane... Funny, iddn't it :^/) site and post, "Ya know, Sarah Palin really isn't all that bad. She is a fellow American after all and should be give that respect at least"... Then watch how fast your head gets stomped.. Or, point out the hypocrisy of Elvis who whines and cries about the "violent" Right Wing and then suggests that everyone declare "Jihad" on the Right..
This is but one example of how other sites handle dissent. They "Head Stomp" anyone who speaks against the Echo Chamber..
But, not here at CW.COM. Here at CW, you can speak your mind. You don't have to worry about being banned or censored just because your opinion is different from other people. As long as you are respectful of others as human beings and you attack the message and not the messenger, you will always have fun and be welcome here at CW.COM..
And THAT is why everyone who reads here, everyone who posts here, everyone who enjoys this site should match my post/donation..
OK, enough of all this serious stuff. I am tearing up here.. :D
Michale.....
28
I would have thought "The Pelosi Syndrome" would be getting tons of stuff passed that is popular with your peeps only to have it all die in the senate. Soon it will be replaced with "The Boehner Syndrome" but will pretty much be exactly the same thing.
I would have thought "The Pelosi Syndrome" would be getting tons of stuff passed that is popular with your peeps only to have it all die in the senate.
By "peeps", of course you mean Liberals..
Funny thing about that. Liberals make up a small percentage of the population of the United States. What was it?? Something like 20%??
So, popularity with "peeps" is not the goal. Popularity with ALL Americans *SHOULD* be the goal.
Sadly, Democrats fail to learn this lesson over and over despite being told by the American people. Over and over and over again.
Soon it will be replaced with "The Boehner Syndrome" but will pretty much be exactly the same thing.
Any quatloos on that?? :D
Michale.....
29
By "peeps", of course you mean Liberals..
Of course, you continue to assume what others think...
I meant Democrats. If Liberals are a mere 20% then nothing that is "liberal" would ever get passed in the house. If you look at Pelosi's record of getting stuff passed, it's much better than that.
What is popular with the American people? Are we talking the 42% that voted? Do you know what the non-voting 58% thinks? Or maybe the slightly less than 50% that voted for the other guy? Or the slightly more than 50% that voted for the winner?
There is no "Popularity with ALL Americans" Because at any one time right around half plus or minus think the exact opposite.
Either Boehner is going to learn to compromise or he will see all his bills die in the Senate. A filibuster is a two way street, though I think that will be rare as anything to extreme will quietly die long before it reaches the Senate floor. Just because Liberals no longer identify themselves with that word does not mean they have all become conservatives.
I think with about the same dissatisfaction with both parties, compromise is what the american people want, or maybe just the 35% of moderates...
I meant Democrats.
Well, Democrats make up less than half of these United States..
Perhaps Democrats should worry less about Democrats and more about Americans, eh?? :D
I think with about the same dissatisfaction with both parties, compromise is what the american people want,
I would dispute that American voters gave the Democrats a "shellacking" because they wanted the GOP to compromise with the Democrats.
The American people want the GOP to STOP the Democrats and their agenda, not compromise over it..
If the Democrats didn't learn that lesson by the last shellacking, I am sure the American people will be happy to show them again in 2012... :D
Michale.....
30
Let's see if we can find some common ground here..
Are we all agreed that Democrats lost Independents and NPAs massively this election?
Can we at least agree on that??
Michale
31
This is for any CW pet lovers. I tried to get the legion of dog and cat owners over at Balloon Juice to look at it with minimal success, so thought I'd post the link at my favorite site. Hope any who check it out enjoy it :D
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/index.php/2010/11/16/cats-vs-dogs/
This is for any CW pet lovers. I tried to get the legion of dog and cat owners over at Balloon Juice to look at it with minimal success, so thought I'd post the link at my favorite site. Hope any who check it out enjoy it :D
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/index.php/2010/11/16/cats-vs-dogs/
"I don't care who you are, that right thar was funny as hell, I tell yooo what."
-Larry The Cable Guy
:D
Michale
32
Glad you liked it Michale, and thanks for checking it out.
Kevin,
I'm not exactly what you'd call a pet lover, but that link you provided was pretty funny!
So, what's wrong with the Balloon Juice crowd? Wait a second ... Balloon Juice? Never mind ... :)
By the way, I trust you've heard about David's Fall Fund Drive for Chris ... it seems to be off to a great start!
Michale
Thanks for that link;it provided me with a smile in a otherwise gruesome week.
Kevin -
Ok, that was funny!
I have a similar cartoon on my fridge. It has a dog and a cat, both with thought balloons over their heads. It is titled: "If we could read their minds."
Dog balloon: (empty)
Cat balloon: "I have so many brilliant ideas running through my head right now, I'm going to have to pace myself."
Heh.
-CW
Kevin,
Glad you liked it Michale, and thanks for checking it out.
It was great.. I printed it off for the wife too, and she loved it...
Americulchie,
Thanks for that link;it provided me with a smile in a otherwise gruesome week.
As much as I would like to take credit for it, that was ALL Kevin.. :D
Michale.....
33
Michale
Thanks for that link;it provided me with a smile in a otherwise gruesome week.
I stand corrected;rather distracted today.:/
Kevin thanks for the link;even the cat who thinks she owns me liked it.
I have to hand it to you CW...
You DID pick some issues that Americans would agree with..
Unfortunately for Democrats, those few issues are probably the ONLY common ground available.
As I said above, if Democrats were smart politically, they would hold these common ground issues and push them thru when the GOP controls the House.
One issue I notice that you haven't touched on..
The issue of Net Neutrality..
What's your position on that?? Just curious...
Michale.....
34
First of three Turkey day dinners tonight. Home, home, and away. Soooo sleepy. Fading fast.
A few ramblings ...
Republicans playing politics with American security ... nice, CW. Though I cringed when you said "Joe-mentum".
Good to see the independent house ethics committee come out against Charlie Rangel. Too bad Mr. New Speaker Boehner wants to get rid of this group. Not a promising start, John.
Here's an area where - and I can't believe I'm saying this :) - I agree with the Tea Party. They want to keep and strengthen the committee.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/11/18/Boehner-walks-fine-line-on-ethics-office/UPI-36991290126183/
Thanks for the link, Kevin. It inspired much round-the-table after-Turkey talk. As Liz mentioned, we're conducting an informal fund drive for CW. During this drive, we'll match funds up to the 1st $250 of donations.
net neutrality
I'd hope you'd want net neutrality, Michale. Otherwise, service providers are going to give you the lowest level of service possible unless you pay for a higher tiered service.
Imagine waiting for minutes for CW's site to come up! Sounds like a return to dial-up days :) Simply follow the money to see who's backing this.
Giants losing to the Eagles ... tryptophan kicking in ... getting sleepy.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ....
-David
I'd hope you'd want net neutrality, Michale. Otherwise, service providers are going to give you the lowest level of service possible unless you pay for a higher tiered service.
Both sides of the argument do have logical points.
On the one hand, your point is good. The Net should remain free of such control where only the rich get the best of the Net..
On the other hand, such a move would stifle innovation. Why would anyone want to innovate or create something new, if it's going to be reduced to the lowest common denominator, price wise.
Further, we already pay more for better services and such a pricing structure is simply a logical extension of that. I pay about $30 a month for an 8 megabit connection at home, but I pay about $100 for a 22Mbs connection at my shop. It's not logical to expect that I would get the much faster connection for the same price as a slower connection.
So, I think the idea of Net Neutrality should be approached with a sense of keeping the Net as non-regulated as possible, but have some common sense about letting the market innovate and charge appropriately for it.
Giants losing to the Eagles ... tryptophan kicking in ... getting sleepy.
Although they didn't deserve it, the Jags pulled out a win against Cleveland.. SIX turnovers!!! Thank gods, the defense was unusually effective. They forced a three and out on 4 of the 6.
What's even better is that both Tennessee and and Indianapolis lost so that puts the Jags in a tie for 1st in the division. :D Woot!!
Michale.....
Giants losing to the Eagles ... tryptophan kicking in ... getting sleepy.
For the record, the Giants will be losing to Jacksonville next weekend. :D
Michale.....
37
On the other hand, such a move would stifle innovation.
How?
If anything, I'd think that the SPs would be stifling innovation because they would have the ability to control what type of content gets what priority.
For example, say they think you should be paying more to watch video. They could then de-prioritize your video content.
I pay about $30 a month for an 8 megabit connection at home, but I pay about $100 for a 22Mbs connection at my shop.
Higher connection speed prices I can understand. But what the SPs want to be able to do is to tell you what you can and can't see using your connections.
They want the ability to prioritize your content. It's not about rich/poor. But should the SP have the right to prioritize which content you watch?
If I want to watch video on my connection, it should have the same level of service as audio, or as HTML, etc. The company shouldn't be determining what content I use.
I don't see any innovation. How would an SP de-prioritizing video be a better "innovation"?
But if you want crappier and more expensive Internet service, I guess it's your right to ask for it! :)
-David
Higher connection speed prices I can understand. But what the SPs want to be able to do is to tell you what you can and can't see using your connections.
If you can understand higher connection speed prices then you should be able to understand higher prices for higher end content.
If I want to watch video on my connection, it should have the same level of service as audio, or as HTML, etc. The company shouldn't be determining what content I use.
You use more of the ISP's resources (bandwidth) when you watch a video than you do when you post here to CW.COM. Just like I use more of the ISP's resources when I have a 22Mbs connection than I do with my 8Mbs connection.. Since I use more resources, I have to pay more.
I don't see any innovation. How would an SP de-prioritizing video be a better "innovation"?
Let's say you invented a kewl new process that brings Glasses-Less 3D video to a person's home computer via the Web. But the process requires a 150Mbs connection. The companies that build networks and such would have to pay oodles of money to put in the infrastructure to support your process, but would not be able to charge customers for this premium content.
So your invention is not put into practice, because it's a losing proposition to put in the infrastructure to support it.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with your points and they are valid points.
I simply say that the other side of the issue ALSO has valid points.
Michale.....
38
But, getting back to Republicans, Democrats and the recent Mid-Term elections...
Ya'all seem to think that the American people are not "FOR" the GOP, they are simply against the Democrats..
"A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."
-Commander Spock
But how do ya'all explain not only the "shellacking" that Democrats received at the Federal level, but also at the State level.
Republicans added over 650 seats in state legislatures across the country. In 13 states, legislatures switched from Democrat control to Republican control.
Governor races went to Republicans 29 to 19 with the GOP picking up TEN new states.
Given all these FACTS (and yes, they are FACTS) how can ANYONE claim that the American people support the Democratic Party agenda??
Michale.....
39
Michale,
Why don't you try some explaining and tell us all what you think accounted for the California exception of the midterms.
Despite the glorious lack of a word limit around here, feel free to post your answer in non-brief, multiple parts. :)
Liz,
Why don't you try some explaining and tell us all what you think accounted for the California exception of the midterms.
California...
'nuff said.. :D
Despite the glorious lack of a word limit around here, feel free to post your answer in non-brief, multiple parts. :)
"Schneeeeky, schneeeky...
-Butler, MR DEEDS
:D
Michale.....
40
You use more of the ISP's resources (bandwidth) when you watch a video than you do when you post here to CW.COM.
If I'm paying for an 8MB connection, I'd think you should be allowed to use that 8MB for whatever you want. Video, audio, whatever. I'm not using any more ISP resources.
But perhaps video is a bad example. Because video will tend to use most of your 8MB while other sources wouldn't.
Here's another example. Suppose your ISP enters into an exclusivity agreement with MSNBC. MSNBC wants to give their content priority. The SP could then restrict your access to Fox or other conservative sites.
Sorry if getting rant-y here, Michale. It's not with you. But my marketing BS-o-meter is going off. I hear the cable companies saying "It's going to stifle innovation" and then they can't say how. That's a sure sign of marketing BS.
It's people like this guy that make me angry:
http://precursorblog.com/content/why-deregulated-broadband-public-interest
A lot of BS about "free markets" and the Constitution yet the guy can't tell you how it would be good for anyone but ISPs.
Let's say you invented a kewl new process that brings Glasses-Less 3D video to a person's home computer via the Web. But the process requires a 150Mbs connection.
I don't see how net neutrality would prevent this. They can still develop higher-bandwidth apps. And they can still charge for faster connection speeds.
But this is more like them saying, we're going to determine which content has higher priority and even which can be blocked.
"Don't tread on my Interwebs!" :)
Ok, ok. I know you're just trying to say that the other side has a valid point. But I still don't see it. Looks like a bunch of marketing from the ISPs.
How can ANYONE claim that the American people support the Democratic Party agenda?
I think you have to look at this in a couple of different ways, Michale.
First, from a marketing and framing perspective. Democrats have lost this badly. Republicans have managed to bring back their "small government" mojo and have painted Democrats as for "big government".
But if you look at the issues and talk to people about issues, people tend to agree with the positions Democrats are taking. Trouble is, people don't usually vote based on policy positions. They vote based on perceptions about what people stand for. And c'mon. I'm surprised you're not laughing at this point because I'm using "Democrat" and "stand for" in the same sentence :)
Cheers
David
David,
Here's another example. Suppose your ISP enters into an exclusivity agreement with MSNBC. MSNBC wants to give their content priority. The SP could then restrict your access to Fox or other conservative sites.
There are already laws and regulations in place that prevent this sort of thing.
NN will not help this in the least because it's the same kind of content.
What we are discussing is different kinds of content.
Going to MSNBC or FOX doesn't use any more resources than one or the other.
However, downloading a bunch of movies or TV Shows (:D) DOES use a bunch more resources than going to MSNBC or FOX.
And THAT is what NN will have an impact on..
NN has nothing to do with Content.
It has everything to do with the TYPE of connections..
Sorry if getting rant-y here, Michale. It's not with you. But my marketing BS-o-meter is going off. I hear the cable companies saying "It's going to stifle innovation" and then they can't say how. That's a sure sign of marketing BS.
I have already shown exactly HOW it will stifle innovation.
Let's face it.. For the most part, people invent new things to make money..
If you take away the money incentive, then the vast majority of people who are in a position to invent new things simply won't..
I don't see how net neutrality would prevent this. They can still develop higher-bandwidth apps. And they can still charge for faster connection speeds.
No, they can't.. Because Net Neutrality won't LET ISPs charge more for higher bandwidth operations..
THAT's the whole point of Net Neutrality. To force ISPs to charge the same, regardless of the type of connection..
Ok, ok. I know you're just trying to say that the other side has a valid point. But I still don't see it. Looks like a bunch of marketing from the ISPs.
Maybe I see their side because I run two ISPs right now. Well, technically they are WISPs... But if NN becomes reality, I will have to charge the same whether a customer uses 5,000,000 GB of bandwidth or 5 GB of bandwidth.
And that's simply not fair. The people who use more should pay more.
It's really that simple.
NN will force the ISPs to charge the same, regardless of usage...
AND THAT is why it's wrong...
First, from a marketing and framing perspective. Democrats have lost this badly. Republicans have managed to bring back their "small government" mojo and have painted Democrats as for "big government".
I reject this explanation completely..
Isn't it possible that Democrats lost the "marketing war" simply because their agenda IS bad??
The vast majority of Americans see Democrats as "big government", not because the GOP told them so, but rather because the American people saw it for themselves..
You are falling into the "Obama" trap...
"If only I would have explained it better, THEN the people would be for it."
The people understood the "explanation" just fine.
They just don't like it.. Period...
THAT is what the Mid-Terms was all about.. It wasn't about framing or marketing or perspective.
It was simply about that the American People saw the Democrats' plans and the American People did not like them..
I realize that this explanation doesn't sit well with the Left, but it's the only explanation that fits all the facts...
And now, the Democrats' plan is to tack MORE to the Left...
And THAT will attract the Independents and NPAs???
Seriously??? :D
Again, it's the Pelosi Syndrome rearing it's head..
Michale.....
41
Taking a brief time out to talk about the Fund Raiser and offer an idea that people might want to adopt..
My initial plan was to simply mark my posts and then, at the end of the time frame, donate the stated $0.50 per post.
Then I realized that I might have a $500 bill due!! :D hehehehehehehehe
So, my plan is to make the donation ever 20 posts, there by tacking it down to $10 every few weeks (days!?? HOURS??? :D) rather than one big lump sum..
For those that have vowed to match my donations, it might make things easier for ya'all as well...
Just a thought...
Michale
42
So, my plan is to make the donation ever 20 posts, there by tacking it down to $10 every few weeks (days!?? HOURS??? :D) rather than one big lump sum.
It's your call, but if CW is using paypal, I think he gets charged by paypal every time someone donates. Maybe a couple donations? Don't want you to get hit w/ a $500 bill either.
Maybe I see their side because I run two ISPs right now.
Gotcha. I was looking at this from a consumer standpoint.
Say someone develops your 3d app. Right now, I can access it on my connection and it will be prioritized just like any other content. I'll be subject to my connection speed of course, but it doesn't get any special priority.
What the SPs want to do is be able to charge me more - just like you said - for this high-bandwidth app. None of this goes to the app maker of course. Just to the SP.
They want to charge me more for something I have now.
All the "innovation" seems to be innovation designed to help SPs make more money. Which is great if you're an SP! Especially a big SP. The Verizons and Comcasts of the world would reap the most benefit.
(Just for the record, I'd like to add the caveat that I'm talking about net neutrality in principle and not necessarily the Google/Verizon compromise.)
If there really are laws in place to prevent politicization of content like I mentioned, then I've learned something new today. But I don't think there's anything to stop ISPs from doing this - except public outcry. Will have to research this more but your perspective as an ISP owner is interesting.
Isn't it possible that Democrats lost the "marketing war" simply because their agenda IS bad?
Oddly enough, I think you're about on the money. People think the Democratic agenda is bad.
That is, until you start asking them about specific issues. Then, in a majority of cases, they'll agree w/ the Democratic position even if they didn't know it was the Democratic position.
That's good marketing, my friend. Getting people to vote against their own best interests takes powerful marketing. When people are blaming the government for the economic collapse instead of Wall St, that's powerful marketing. When people can be convinced to pay more money for something they already have, that's good marketing :)
Cheers
David
David,
It's your call, but if CW is using paypal, I think he gets charged by paypal every time someone donates. Maybe a couple donations? Don't want you to get hit w/ a $500 bill either.
Ooooo Good point..
However, I think that PayPal has a special "donation" setup for donations whereas the recipient doesn't get a charge.. I know that when you send a "gift" to someone thru PayPal, they are not charged for the transaction. I think donations are set up similar...
Perhaps CW can provide some guidance on this...
If there really are laws in place to prevent politicization of content like I mentioned, then I've learned something new today. But I don't think there's anything to stop ISPs from doing this - except public outcry. Will have to research this more but your perspective as an ISP owner is interesting.
Granted, I don't have any first hand knowledge of this. My WISPs are such small-time, I don't worry myself with such things...
But, I would liken it to Public Access media like NPR only presenting one viewpoint and not allowing any other.... :D
OK... Bad example... :D
Seriously, I would think that a public "utility" such as a Net Provider would, by law, be required NOT to censor content..
Imagine if, say FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT made a deal with Costco and refused to provide power to WAL MART Stores... I would think such an action would be illegal..
And, while I don't have any evidence to support it, I would think that a public "utility" like Comcast can say they will provide access to GOOGLE but NOT to Microsoft..
I can definitely research it if that is really your concern..
I am thinking that we have two different subject matters here.. You are referring to content and I am referring to protocols..
To put it in a different context, you seem to be talking about voice calls whereas I am talking about VoiceCalls vs VideoPhone vs 3D Holography...
Oddly enough, I think you're about on the money. People think the Democratic agenda is bad
No, no, no...
Is it possible that Democrats lost the marketing war because their agenda IS bad. Not that people THINK it's bad. It IS bad...
Is that possible??
That is, until you start asking them about specific issues. Then, in a majority of cases, they'll agree w/ the Democratic position even if they didn't know it was the Democratic position.
I have (and will again) concede that there are a few issues of the Democratic Party agenda that the average American agrees with...
But if you were to ask the Joe Six-Pack if he agrees with the Democratic Party agenda as a whole, he would say, "HELL NO"...
That's not a marketing problem...
It's an agenda problem..
But, let me ask you this..
How can Democrats woo back the Independent and NPA vote???
Michale.....
43
I know that when you send a "gift" to someone thru PayPal, they are not charged for the transaction.
I didn't know that. Very cool. Yeah, hopefully CW can advise.
I would think that a public "utility" such as a Net Provider would, by law, be required NOT to censor content.
That there's gubt intervention, dashgummit! :)
This definitely bears some more research. Would be great if it were the case, but I don't think there's anything like that in place.
I am thinking that we have two different subject matters here. To put it in a different context, you seem to be talking about voice calls whereas I am talking about VoiceCalls vs VideoPhone vs 3D Holography.
It's all IP traffic and IP protocols. Just depends on which layer you filter it at and route and prioritize it using.
But I get where you're going. 3D video would be a big jump in bandwidth. Though people thought that would be the case w/ voice and it ended up not consuming the Internet.
If you're a company that needs to view 3-D - like a hospital using the new 3D surgery technology released by Viking Systems - you're paying extra for some big pipes anyways. I think that's as it should be.
But SPs making the decision as to which content is most important is not cool. I want that to be me!
But if you were to ask Joe Six-Pack if he agrees with the Democratic Party agenda as a whole
Exactly. Republicans have convinced Joe Six-Pack that Democrats are un-American, communist, socialist, godless, homosexual, big government, Muslims.
That's marketing :)
How can Democrats woo back the Independent and NPA vote?
Quite simple. Stand for something.
Cheers
David
@ akadjian
How can Democrats woo back the Independent and NPA vote?
Quite simple. Stand for something.
Very well said! wished I had thought of that.
But SPs making the decision as to which content is most important is not cool. I want that to be me!
Looks like it is you who is buying into the propaganda.. :D
Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
The ISPs want to be able to charge more for high-bandwidth activities...
Those who support NN want to tell the ISPs to charge the same, regardless of bandwidth...
As I said, I am a HUGE bandwidth hog.. I do all sorts of high bandwidth activities.. I would LOVE to be able to pay rock bottom prices for that..
But I recognize that, eventually, I will get what I pay for. Rock bottom prices means no new goodies or toys down the line...
Rock bottom prices means rock bottom quality...
THAT is what it all boils down to..
Exactly. Republicans have convinced Joe Six-Pack that Democrats are un-American, communist, socialist, godless, homosexual, big government, Muslims.
Yer missing the point. I don't know if it's on purpose or what.. :D
If YOU are right, then there might have been a win for the GOP here or a win for the GOP there...
But we're talking a complete and utter shellacking all up and down the political line. Federal AND State..
That's not marketing..
In other words, those evil corrupt Republicans didn't have to "convince" Joe Six-Pack of anything.
Joe Six-Pack saw it for himself...
Quite simple. Stand for something.
No...
Stand for the same thing that the Independents and NPA's stand for..
That's the ONLY way that Democrats can woo back Independents and NPAs...
But if Democrats do that, they will lose their base..
Pretty pickle the Democrats have gotten themselves in, eh?? :D
Michale.....
44
"That's what elections are for."
-President Barack Obama
The American people just showed Obama and the Democrats what elections are for..
Interestingly enough, Obama and the Democrats are missing the message...
AGAIN....
How many seats did the GOP gain in the House??
65
How many seats did the GOP lose in the House??
3
How many seats did the GOP gain in the Senate??
8
How many seats did the GOP lose in the Senate??
0
How many seats did the GOP gain in State Legislatures??
650
How many State Legislatures did the GOP turn?
13
How many Governorships did the GOP gain?
6
How many Governorships did the GOP gain??
10
How many Governorships did the GOP lose??
0
Now, seriously???
Is that a problem with the Democrat's *message*???
Or is that a problem with the Democrat's agenda???
What happened is EXACTLY what elections are for.. :D
Michale.....
45
Michale.....
45
@CW
you just haaaaad to make it a dog and cat issue, didn't you?
~joshua
I would think that a public "utility" such as a Net Provider would, by law, be required NOT to censor content.
Interesting article on Comcast regulating the use of Bittorrent. This is the case that's sparked all the recent debate.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2362320,00.asp
I still can't find anything that would prevent ISPs from entering into exclusive deals with content providers to favor certain content over other.
David,
Interesting article on Comcast regulating the use of Bittorrent. This is the case that's sparked all the recent debate.
And therein lies the problem with your argument.
Bittorrent is a process, a protocol. It is NOT content.
Content is FoxNews or MSNBC or CW.COM or HuffingtonPost...
Bittorent or Skype or Yahoo Messenger are processes or protocols..
But, as I said, I DO understand your point. Your are likening the Net to a utility like electricity. If you pay for the Electricity, you should be able to use it for whatever you want to.
But you can't.. If you use that electricity to power a pot farm or build a nuclear device, then you are going to run into trouble.
I know, it's a crappy analogy, because electricity can only be used for one thing whereas all the things that make up the Net are as varied as the Net itself.
I run into that all the time in my computer shop. Drives me nuts.. People come in and complain that their "Internet" is not working.. They say that they can get email, they can do AIM or YAHOO Messenger, but their "Internet is just not working."
Of course, what they mean is that their web browser is not working... And, of course, I spend an hour explaining to them that "yes" their internet IS working, it's just the web browser that is not..
But I digest...
As I mentioned above, I believe we are arguing different things.
But let me ask the question in a different way.. Cable Internet Access operates in a different way than DSL. Without going into the technical aspects, DSL is "static" while Cable is "dynamic". What that means is that the less people that are on your Cable connection, the faster your speed will be..
So, would you think it would be fair if someone invented a process where they could throttle other people's connections to slow them down, thereby giving them a faster connection at everyone else's expense?
Of course, you will say that ISN'T fair. But under the proposed NN laws, that is EXACTLY what could happen. After all, this person is using what he paid for in any manner he chooses.
You are against regulating the Internet. But what you don't realize is that Net Neutrality is the biggest block of Internet Regulation to come down the pipe since the Net became the Net... And it gives the GOVERNMENT the right to regulate it.
Is that what you really want??
Michale.....
47
You are against regulating the Internet. But what you don't realize is that Net Neutrality is the biggest block of Internet Regulation to come down the pipe since the Net became the Net... And it gives the GOVERNMENT the right to regulate it.
I wanted to drive this point home...
Do you really want the GOVERNMENT regulating the Internet??
Because, in about 2 years, it's likely that there will be a COMPLETE GOP Government in control again..
So any type of government regulation/interference you set up now will be likely given to the GOP in 2012.
So, be careful what you wish for. You just might get it, but not in the way you wanted it.
Michale.....
48
Bittorent or Skype or Yahoo Messenger are processes or protocols.
I'm using the term "content" to refer to anything within an IP packet. Sorry, this is the network nerd in me.
If you use that electricity to power a pot farm or build a nuclear device, then you are going to run into trouble.
???? You've lost me w/ your analogy. So you're saying I shouldn't use my Internet connection for my pot farm or nuclear device?
I didn't even know my Internet connection could power my pot farm. Here, I've been using luminescent lights in my attic. :)
But what you don't realize is that Net Neutrality is the biggest block of Internet Regulation to come down the pipe since the Net became the Net... And it gives the GOVERNMENT the right to regulate it.
No. I'm saying is that packets should be treated agnostically. And that SPs should not be able to determine priority of traffic.
I understand that you as an SP owner want this ability. So you are arguing for what's best for your business.
That makes sense. But if you're going to say ...
- It creates innovation. You have to be able to show me an innovation that I want. All I see is a worse product that costs more.
- It creates quality. I need to see how.
- It's more government regulation. I want to know why is this bad.
Otherwise, it's marketing my friend. I don't see any innovation, I don't see any improvements in quality, and I don't see it as a giant government takeover.
Marketing is language w/o any substance behind it.
Ok. I hit send before being able to caveat that marketing can be a force for good. The marketing I'm referring to is when someone or some company has one purpose in mind that the majority of people are not going to buy into. So they use language to "market" this idea as something else.
In this case, SPs want the ability to charge more and regulate content in any way they see fit. But this doesn't sound good. So they say it's gonna bring you "innovation". It's gonna bring you "quality". It's gonna bring you freedom and pointy hats and rainbows and unicorns.
It looks to me like it's going to bring higher prices (which you seem to agree with), slower traffic, and a pay-to-play Internet.
Cheers
David
David,
I'm using the term "content" to refer to anything within an IP packet. Sorry, this is the network nerd in me.
I see your point. But I use the term "content" in the context of information. CW.COM, HuffPo, FNC, MSNBC....
But what you are referring are "tangible" items that you "physically" get from the Net. A movie, a TV show, a new game, etc etc...
Therein lies our issue...
NN will not do a thing to regulate "content" as I define it. As I said, I am certain there are regulations in place that cover this. If there isn't, there should be.
But NN won't address that. NN addresses the "tangible" items that you define as "content". And NN says that you would have to treat those "tangible" items the same as you treat the "content" even though they are radically different and it requires much more ISP resources to deliver the "tangible" content than it does to deliver the informational content..
And that won't be good for the Internet. It will reduce ALL content, tangible and information, down to the lowest common content which is informational. And ISPs and businesses won't see any profit in producing the tangible content because they won't be able to charge any more for it..
???? You've lost me w/ your analogy. So you're saying I shouldn't use my Internet connection for my pot farm or nuclear device?
I told you it wasn't a very good analogy..
But what I am saying is that if you get more and better tangible content from the Internet, you should pay more than the person who just gets regular informational content.
Think of it as Dial Up vs DSL..
You don't expect to pay the same for DSL as you do for Dial Up, right??
Why?? Because you get MORE with DSL ergo you pay more..
If NN is passed as the Democrats want it to pass, then ISPs won't be able to charge more for better services..
THAT's the bottom line...
No. I'm saying is that packets should be treated agnostically. And that SPs should not be able to determine priority of traffic.
Nice word usage.. :D "agnostically" :D
Using your position, all packets are equal. This is the fallacy of your argument. Actually, you are partially correct.. All packets in and of themselves are, technologically equal... But some packets do different things.. Some packets are part of an informational load that is 10+ GIGs (tangible content) whereas some packets are mere 100+ K (CW.COM)...
To put it into a different context, so you have two trucks. One can haul 500 lbs and one can haul 500 tons.. According to Net Neutrality, the dealer would have to charge the same for each truck...
I understand that you as an SP owner want this ability. So you are arguing for what's best for your business.
I don't charge for one of my WISPs and the other I am lucky to make $10 a week... So, whatever happens with NN, it won't affect my business one iota...
As for me personally.. Well my downloading is well-known around these here parts, so NN would actually be a PLUS for me. And for everyone else like me who get's everything they want from the Net for free...
But only for a while. Once the ISPs start losing business by being forced to give away premium access for the price of Dial Up, they will start dropping like flies. Going out of business. Laying off hundreds of thousands...
So, yes. NN is good for the consumer. Until such time as there is nothing left to consume..
- It's more government regulation. I want to know why is this bad.
So, you don't have a problem with the GOP being the ones in control of the Regulation??
Seriously?? :D
Michale.....
49
In this case, SPs want the ability to charge more and regulate content in any way they see fit.
No...
ISPs want to be able charge more for premium services and block tangible content that is harmful to their networks and the health of the Internet in general...
That is the complete extent of what the ISP industry want...
And the ISPs DO have a valid point with regards to premium services.
Not so much with the blocking tangible content argument, but THAT argument is coming from groups like RIAA and MPIAA etc etc, not from the ISPs...
The ISPs would be pleased as punch to deliver all the bandwidth that protocols like Bittorrents etc etc (tangible content) need..
BUT, the ISPs want to be able to charge for the excessive usage...
It's really as simple as that...
Michale
51
Your argument boils down to one question.
What's to stop ISPs from blocking content..
The answer to that is simple.
The Market..
If Comcast blocks Bittorrent protocols, then customers who want that service and are willing to pay for it will flock to other providers that DON'T block that content...
That's how the market works...
There is absolutely no need for government interference...
Do we HONESTLY need ANOTHER hundred or so government bureaucracies trying to regulate the Internet??
Of course we don't...
Michale.....
52
That's how the market works...
There is absolutely no need for government interference.
Now where have I heard that before ... Hmmm. That sounds like what the banks and financial firms said when they wanted to deregulate the market in the name of giant Wall St profits.
Ok, ok. It's quite obvious we've reached a point where this has turned into a giant pissing match where neither of us wants to back down. I say this because you've pulled the "market is always good" card.
Earlier in the conversation, you at least acknowledged that maybe some govt regulation might be a good thing if it were to stop censorship. After all, these organizations act in many ways like utilities, as you mentioned.
So I'm going to step back and say that the sides, the FCC, people representing the NN movement, and the SPs (not us) could probably work this out and come to some sort of a compromise.
But here's what I think needs to happen:
- The SPs need to come clean and and talk about what the real issue is for them. It's not the fact that they can't innovate, it's not that they're at risk of losing hundreds of thousands of jobs, it's not the government taking over the world. I suspect the issue is video. And/or other Internet apps which are putting a strain on SP networks as you mentioned. But I'd want to see real data to show that this indeed is the case and not that they're just saying this in order to extract ever higher profits.
- The NN folks agree to negotiate and admit that it won't be the end of the world if some changes occur because the Internet has evolved since 1993.
If this happened, I think we could end up getting a truce in place that could benefit everyone for a long time to come. A Constitution of sorts for the Internet. And I think this would be a good thing.
What do you think, Michale? Anything else you'd want to see in a negotiation between the 3 sides?
Cheers
David
Now where have I heard that before ... Hmmm. That sounds like what the banks and financial firms said when they wanted to deregulate the market in the name of giant Wall St profits.
Now yer comparing Apples and Eskimos.. :D
Ok, ok. It's quite obvious we've reached a point where this has turned into a giant pissing match where neither of us wants to back down. I say this because you've pulled the "market is always good" card.
I never said the market is always good.
I said in THIS case, it's how the market works. And it DOES work.. Do you have any evidence to suggest it doesn't??
Comcast blocking Bittorrent Ports is NOT a good example, because there are other forces at work.. Comcast cannot come out and admit that they are in collusion with the RIAA and the MPIAA...
And, considering my own personal history in this regard, I am sure you can see why I would NOT side with them.. :D
Michale.....
63
Ok, but don't let it be said that I didn't try to save you some money ;)
I said in THIS case, it's how the market works. And it DOES work.. Do you have any evidence to suggest it doesn't?
Where I live, here's what the market looks like for cable broadband. There's Time-Warner and ... well, Time-Warner.
In Pennsylvania and many other East Coast states, it's Comcast and ... Comcast.
Out West, it's Qwest and ... Qwest.
Their business model is that they are regional monopolies able to charge whatever they want because they are ... well, regional monopolies.
So while I agree with you that increased competition would help, it's not a current alternative in many areas.
I'd also support efforts to break up or introduce more competition into the regional cable broadband arena if that's what you're arguing for.
Cheers
David