TampaYankee

Josh Silver.President, Free Press Posted: August 5, 2010 09:26 AM http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html For years, Internet advocates have warned of the doomsday scenario that will play out on Monday: Google and Verizon will announce a deal that the New York Times reports "could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege." The deal marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as you know it. Since its beginnings, the Net was a level playing field that allowed all content to move at the same speed, whether it's ABC News or your uncle's video blog. That's all about to change, and the result couldn't be more bleak for the future of the Internet, for television, radio and independent voices. How did this happen? We have a Federal Communications Commission that has been denied authority by the courts to police the activities of Internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast. All because of a bad decision by the Bush-era FCC. We have a pro-industry FCC Chairman who is terrified of making a decision, conducting back room dealmaking, and willing to sit on his hands rather than reassert his agency's authority. We have a president who promised to "take a back seat to no one on Net Neutrality" yet remains silent. We have a congress that is nearly completely captured by industry. Yes, more than half of the US congress will do pretty much whatever the phone and cable companies ask them to. Add the clout of Google, and you have near-complete control of Capitol Hill. A non-neutral Internet means that companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Google can turn the Net into cable TV and pick winners and losers online. A problem just for Internet geeks? You wish. All video, radio, phone and other services will soon be delivered through an Internet connection. Ending Net Neutrality would end the revolutionary potential that any website can act as a television or radio network. It would spell the end of our opportunity to wrest access and distribution of media content away from the handful of massive media corporations that currently control the television and radio dial. So the Google-Verizon deal can be summed up as this: "FCC, you have no authority over us and you're not going to do anything about it. Congress, we own you, and we'll get whatever legislation we want. And American people, you can't stop us. This Google-Verizon deal, this industry-captured FCC, and the way this is playing out is akin to the largest banks and the largest hedge funds writing the regulatory policy on derivative trading without any oversight or input from the public, and having it rubber stamped by the SEC. It's like BP and Halliburton ironing out the rules for offshore oil drilling with no public input, and having MMS sign off. Fortunately, while they are outnumbered, there are several powerful Net Neutrality champions on Capitol Hill, like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, Jay Rockefeller, Ed Markey, Jay Inslee and many others. But they will not be able to turn this tide unless they have massive, visible support from every American who uses the Internet --- whether it's for news, email, shopping, Facebook, Twitter --- whatever. So stop what you're doing and tell them you're not letting the Internet go the way of Big Oil and Big Banks. The future of the Internet, and your access to information depends on it. Author's note: Notice how a company can change their tune in the name of profitmaking. From Google in 2006: "Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody - no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional - has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay." Follow Josh Silver on Twitter: www.twitter.com/freepress

Often not, but I am not familiar enough with his family life history to make any judgments on that one way or the other. Otherwise, we sort of got off on a tanget above. I plead guilty to being a main instigator.

Right on about hypocrits. Rachel last night highlighted several Repulican Senators/Congressmen on tape, arguing against their own proposals they had earlier proposed. Among others were McCain and Grassley strongly pushing the health insurance mandate a few years ago now proclaiming it unconstitutional today. Another example was the 7 Repubicans that offered the Bill to Establish a Deficit Reduction Comission then voted against it when Obama embraced it. Hypocrits, mencacity, political whores for $ 2500 or less. In McCain's case why does a rich guy abandon his integrity for a cheap-ass low-paying no-class job that no longer offers a stepping stone to the presidency. It's obvious that he really hasn't accepted the election and holds Obama in comtempt. He is so yesterday in his party that tolerates him only by holding its nose. Sad to see a guy lose his class and become a tin-cup vote-pander of the right wingnuts in a half-dozen years -- people he used to hold in contempt once up a time. It is just funny to see Guilani genuflecting to the crazy right wingnuts who have no intention of buying his schtick. To them he will always be the counterfit conservative in dressed-up drag. What is sad is that he doesn't have enough sense to know it.

I was thinking maybe more by a blow-out.

For your egregious oversite you will be flogged senseless with a lace ribbon studded with 100 powder puffs (pink). A second infraction will bring forth on your being the ticklish torment of the feathers.

Not to pick on Rudy only... he is just one of so many, many Repubicans that have sold their integrity for cheap politics. I'm ashamed to know that, as registered Republican for 20 years, I supported some of these turkeys in the past. I began to recongize the growing stench in 2000 (when I discontinued my affiliation) which has only continued to ripen into the cess pool of lies and mendacity today. IMO you can count on one hand, maybe two, the number of prominant political Republicans that have held onto much of their integrity and credibility. I'd be hard pressed to engage the second hand off the top of my head.

Breaking News... http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1 (CNN) -- A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found in his ruling that the ban violated the Constitution's equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment. The closely watched case came some two years after Californians voted to pass Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Neither opponents nor supporters of same-sex marriage said before the ruling that it would likely be the last. Both sides said the decision will be appealed and eventually wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

IMO that could actually strengthen the GOP as a party as the split you postulate would obviously weaken the GOP oppostion. On the other hand a moderate party might coalesce into a majority if it could pull enough Independent/Moderate Repubicans to make a majority. I suspect such a party would look more like the GOP of the 70s with some Kennedy and Truman touches. I'm not sure who that would please except maybe me. If so that would relegate the progressives to a permanent minority party status IMO.

Frankly, I didn't know we had the capability to post a plus (or minus). More importantly, I would counsel there is no need to rate member posts as each of us knows what we think of any given post. If you are moved to post a positive comment then please do it. Distilling conbributors to a count of +'s and -'s won't help the atmosphere around here. I make this observation from history at HooBoy's where for a period of time there was a capability for members to rate each other. It resulted in a terrible flame war among members that caused all sorts of havoc. The capability was soon removed with prejudice. We do not need to repeat history here. +s and -s could be a slippery slope. If you like somebody's post tell them. One thing to remember on a message board like this one is that there is no need to post everything that goes on in one's head. That eventually contributes to a decline of civility. FWIW

Umm... yes it's me <shrugging, staring at feet while standing in the corner > She also broke the stories (as far as I know) on Cable/Broadcast about the HomoSex Death Penalty Consitution Law under consideration in Uganda and the connection to American religious leaders and right wing pols; and the C-Street House story that fell out of the Ensign Affair. Then there is her crusade to hold Obama's feet to the fire on Dont Ask Dont Tell among other crusades against her own. She really is a rare cable personality in that she actually carries out original investigative reporting in contrast to most cable talking heads that just rely on pushing an agenda or leaning on political establishment spokespersons to provide heat and light for their show and aggregating the reporting of others to carry their show all of which can be summarized as "bla bla bla". She raises the discussion level of policy issues by putting on individuals that are impacted by policy and letting them tell their own stories about how the policy impacts their daily lives. As an example, I think many were able to see that gay service members are real people doing real jobs in a real environment of acceptance by peers. It helps to make the argument that we as a country are ready for some changes. She has cut her own swath in the media fields, like her or not. I don't watch night time cable new channels all that much but when I do I know I'll see some content on her show and probably learn something.

I'm most impressed with anyone's Top 10 when it has twenty to thirty guys listed, and I cannot disagree with a single entry. I stand in awe.

Why does this look like your apartment??

A most impressive start, Townie!! I'm envious of you and lookin, not only of your partner but your timing.

Hmmm.... Visited Austin 40 years ago for a professional tech meeting. My first plane flight ever. Nice enough town (I like University towns) but too hot for me and, as I mentioned elsewhere, as a place to sink roots Texas never has grabbed me. If I had to live in Texas it would probably be Austin or San Antonio. Loved Seattle when I visted a couple of times 25 years ago. I fear it has become too expensive and too busy for me now. Not sure about the economic environment with Boeing gone. I've lived 5+ years in Washington DC 35 years ago. Loved it then but I fear it has gotten too busy for me anymore. Still believe I would love the countryside. Heavenly Spring time. Always been curious about Boulder and might have moved there in earlier life had the opportunity presented itself. But that is pure speculation without ever having visited. No interest at all in the other cities for various reasons. Guess I'll have to stay put for now.

I screwed up my first attempt at my response to KYTOP. I'm the software screw up. Sorry about that. I did post a proper response.

Congrats on your retirement. I know what you mean about Cable. Actually, I like Rachel. She is a breath of fresh air with her research. She is one of the few Cable on-air talents that is more than a talking head. She is factually informative even though she pisses on a lot of conservative boots and some liberal ones too... I mean progressive. Her Afghan reporting was off the usual beaten track and stellar IMO. I won't watch Fox with the exception of Shep Smith and I turn off MSNBC if they just get into a liberal/conservative back and forth between party mouthpieces -- they do a lot of that. I have no time for it. I want non-party journalists and analysts to opine, not party hacks. CNN tries but for some reason BBCA and the News Hour do it so much better for the most part.

What about us Granite Members?

I use coupons since I retired and learned that anymore spending is really a zero sum game. (If I spend a dollar here I wont have a dollar to spend elsewhere.) But I use them only if: it is something I would buy anyway, and it is valuable enough to make it worthwhile. If I have to buy three or four of something for a dollar off then screw it as I dont want that many and a quarter per item doesn't get on my radar.

Lucky, I definitely think the mothers of these guys you are egging on (pun intended) would cconsider you a bad influence.

Name makes it sound like not all the beef they sell is chopped.

This is a sore topic with me. I would have entitled the thread: Dispicable Banks had I created it. So strong is my disgust. To be clear not all banks are dispicable but count the big ones in and many of the smaller ones are picking up the bad habits too. My rub put bluntly: banks want to make their money off of screwing customers. It is no longer sufficient to offer fair financial services at fair charges. They set credt card rates sky high and set traps for customers to fall into -- usually targeting those who can least afford that treatment. Of course when they could, they wrote a lot of trash mortgages to unqualified people, collecting the closing fees and then bundling the good and the bad together and selling them off as securities to hoodwinked investors convinced they were buying solid investments. Can anyone seriously argue that these are not corrupt business practices? Yet these bankers have not seen the light, have not repented, have not reformed their attitude, only complained that they are being regulated to death. Banking reform has constrained some of these schemes but one can read everyday how the banks are devising strategies around the regulation constraints. Rather than restructure their business model and fees to represent a fair service at reasonable fees and fair interest rates, they spend their energy and resources to figure new novel ways to screw their customers. Of course this is all done in the pursuit of maximizing short term profits and management bonuses. A fair return on money is not enough it must be maximazied to the fullest extent, even at the cost of screwing customers. IMO it amounts to legalized extortion. One can always say "go to another bank". True, but all of the big banks are engaging such practices and even the small banks are slipping in to some of them. The truth is that modern society, and the economy for that matter, depends on banking to make it work. The bankers are essential today, they know they have us bent over the barrel and they have their way. Even with reform they got their way, more than not, howling in the front room and smiling in the back room. Sure it is an inconvenience for them but they are nothing if not resliant and cunning. This sensitivity started some years ago when my bank got gobbled up by bigger and bigger banks until I ended up with one that expected me to pay a fee to check my balance at the ATM and wanted a fee to speak to a teller. In an oblique but unambiguous manner I told them to fuck off and took my busines to a state bank which has sense been gobbled up by a big national bank. Recently they instituted new terms and conditions and fees of course. However, in view of 'my long asscociation with them' and a monthly electronic deposit, which they seemed to covet mightily, they rescinded the fee changes for me. However, I'm wary of and certain that traps await me if I falter from the straight and narrow. Fuck the banks -- they are certainly going to fuck you given half a chance. I have gotten opinionated in my old age.

Please sign me up for all of these too. So many... so little time.

I'm quite taken with this one and ready to jump into the deep end,

Don't forget the neoconservative whackos who want to start more wars in Asia as if two aren't enough. Back in my youth Republicans were known for causing recessions and the Depression and Democrats known for getting into wars. It seems the GOP has got it all cornered now.

Even though not widely discussed anymore, our banks are still sitting on their mountain of bad paper too. Paulson was supposed to buy up that bad paper with TARP. (He did buy up much of Fannie and Freddie bad paper.) Instead he bought shares in the banks and loaned a little of it to them. The loans have been paid back but we still own lots of stock in those banks sitting on all that bad paper. The fact is that we are not that much, if somewhat, better off than 18 months ago. We just think we are and that confidence is 90% of the game, however fragile it may be.