Washington Post: Opposing Net Neutrality a Political Third Rail
February 20th, 2007 by tkarrOpposing Net Neutrality has become a political third rail for candidates who seek elected office, according to a story today in the Washington Post.
Post reporter Charles Babington praised SavetheInternet.com Coalition efforts to mobilize the netroots and other Internet activists around this issue.
The Christian Coalition’s Michele Combs delivers one million petitions to Congress — with MoveOn’s Joan Blades and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) |
Net Neutrality “was hardly a household term” before the spring of 2006, Babington writes. Yet now every major Democratic presidential candidate has endorsed it as has much of the new leadership in Congress.
Many on the other side of the aisle are coming around to the issue as well. A veteran political campaign consultant told Babington, “if you’re not for net neutrality, then the blogs will kick your [ass].”
That this issue has grown to such prominence is a testament to our efforts, writes Babington:
“Last spring, the debate over net neutrality barely scratched the consciousness of Congress, let alone the general public, after a House subcommittee defeated an effort to add net-neutrality restrictions to a multi-faceted telecommunications bill. The 23 to 8 vote goaded more than 850 interest groups, many, but not all, politically left of center, to form a coalition called SavetheInternet.com.”
Our coalition includes groups from across the political spectrum. Michele Combs of the Christian Coalition of America told the Post that Net Neutrality is a nonpartisan issue but that “the conservative side has not been educated on the issue.”
Still, the Christian Coalition along with the Gun Owners of America have successfully rallied support from their membership calling Net Neutrality an issue for conservatives, libertarians, and other champions of free speech and the free market.
“As long as Congress is making the rules for a handful of major companies in providing the infrastructure, it has to make certain those companies give equal access to all comers,” wrote Gun Owners Internet director Craig Fields. “That’s the way it has been for the very lifetime of the free and open Internet we’re all interested in maintaining.”
MoveOn.org’s Adam Green added that Net Neutrality should transcend political lines. “An issue like Net Neutrality, which directly taps into Internet issues … could have a special energy in the political season,” he said. “Every Republican and Democrat who uses the Internet is threatened by corporations that want to control which Web sites people can access.”
February 26th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Okay, I am for Net Neutrality, honest, left wing even in the olden days. But…
I am also a TINY little business, still liberal, but I have been denied participation in a Google project because I am too little (really, honest).
I accept the search engine rating where it is every person for themself but for Google to deny me an opportunity to compete against the big guys because of my size rather smacks the face of Net Neutrality.
So, to all you believers out there I would quote some words of caution;
In the immortal words of the WHO, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
While we ask/pray for neutrality are we simply asking for new overlords?
I will continue to ponder that question. Do I want the telecoms to control things, no, of course not. However, is that any different from Google demanding that you use Google Checkout or they won’t list you (hypothetical)?
See, I have been around long enough to have been here before Google, Yahoo, MSN, all of them. From a political standpoint I have always voted toward the left and will continue to do so. But, sometimes (in my experience) the left becomes the right when they make enough money.
It is a dangerous path, this Net Neutrality thing. Broaden your demands.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:16 am
Any large corporation such as Google is bound to have a major advantage in terms of resources compared to an individual or smaller company however that has never stopped the little guy from doing it better!
The purpose of Net Neutrality is to give everyone equal access to the
“last mile” end users but it is in no way intended to solve the meriad of problems resulting from large corporations gaining and then taking advantage of their excessive market share. Monopolistic positioning (i.e. gaining a huge amount of market share) by any large corporation is supposed to be countered by anti-trust laws however anyone with half a brain can see that the current government (all aspects of it) is in bed with corporate america. Politicians get elected by doing their biding and get rich going to work for them when they leave public office.
Obviously passing strong net neutrality laws is but the tip of the iceberg in countering the enormous influence corporate america has purchased with campaign contributions and lucrative job offers. Whether its control over mass media or getting rich off of war in the middle east, these behemoth corporations are well overdue for a good ass whipping by the american people (do not think for a moment that the politicians are going to lead the fight!)
February 27th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Yeah I agree Raz. Net Neutrality is only the start of combating this type of thing… but it’s a very VERY important start.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:25 am
(clicking my name previously takes you to a porn site.. so.. might not want to do that. Changed blogs, someone took over the old name, forgot to update it, long story. Should be fixed now)
February 27th, 2007 at 6:06 am
[…] Read More […]