Rep. Markey Warns About Right-Wing Misinformation: Net Neutrality May Be The Next ‘Death Panels’
Rep. Markey Warns About Right-Wing Misinformation: Net Neutrality May Be The Next ‘Death Panels’
Last week, the Federal Communications Commission voted to move forward with regulations to preserve the open architecture of the Internet. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is trying to make our current system’s “net neutrality” official by ensuring that broadband providers “cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications” and are “transparent about their network management practices.” That same day, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced legislation to block the FCC, inexplicably arguing that preserving net neutrality would be a “government takeover of the Internet.”
Yesterday, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) held a conference call with bloggers to discuss net neutrality. He and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) have introduced legislation — which currently has seven co-sponsors — to “establish overarching national broadband policy and ensures an open and consumer oriented Internet.” Markey stressed the importance of fighting “misinformation,” invoking death panels and the other red herrings the right wing slung into this summer’s health care debate:
As you all know, a lot is being written and said about what open Internet requirements would mean for broadband investment innovation and consumers. [...]
It’s almost as though some people want to have their own equivalent of “death panels” that we had in the health care debate back in August. That was a red herring that took us off the main point of providing health care to everyone, for a month or six weeks. Now we’ve got that straightened out, but we have to battle hard to make sure the misinformation is responded and responded to in a very brief period of time.
Watch it:
Fox News host Glenn Beck has been fear-mongering on net neutrality for weeks, saying that the Obama administration is trying to shut down freedom of speech. “You have a freedom of speech or the government,” said Beck last week. “You can’t really have both.” He’s been getting his talking points from Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity, who also fueled Beck’s campaign against former Obama adviser Van Jones. Some telecom companies — which, along with the cable industry, is driving opposition to an open Internet — have begun astroturfing efforts as well.
The telecom and cable industries are the ones interested in controlling access to information on the Internet. What the FCC’s regulations on net neutrality would do are ensure that the Internet remains an open, non-discriminatory marketplace of ideas, rather than a pay-for-play system where broadband providers could make certain companies’ sites run faster if they’re willing to dole out large sums of money.
Net neutrality is essential to free speech, which both the Christian Coalition and the Gun Owners of America have acknowledged. From a 2008 testimony by Michele Combs, the Christian Coalition’s vice president of communications:
Consequently, the reason the Christian Coalition supports Net Neutrality is simple. We believe that organizations such as the Christian Coalition should be able to continue to use the Internet to communicate with our members and with a worldwide audience without a phone or cable company snooping in on our communications and deciding whether to allow a particular communication to proceed, slow it down, or offer to speed it up if the author pays extra to be on the “fast lane.”
Free Press has put together a report here debunking some of the myths on net neutrality, and our Progress Report today has more information.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I have no doubt that–if the Republicans had remained in power in 2006–you would not be reading this.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:14 amRepeat after me:
GOP = American Taliban
October 31st, 2009 at 9:18 am“You have a freedom of speech or the government,”
And who is it that guarantees free speech? Sheesh.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:20 amBeck is fear-mongering to a demographic that would believe anything he says about dreaded, Liberal “Internets” that he or they know little or nothing about. Does anyone really need any further proof that Republicans and “conservatives” really have NOTHING for America but fear and hate?
October 31st, 2009 at 9:20 amComcast Cable already offers different updload and download speeds based on how much you pay for their service.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:21 amthanks for this, amanda…
i posted this at C&L last evening – no bites… anyone here?
a caller to randi rhodes [friday] was quite concerned with some FCC language concerning net neutrality… i only caught a part of his comment, the gist of it… he asked that randi look over it to advise and opine, as the open comment period is closing soon…
did anyone hear that, what it’s about?
October 31st, 2009 at 9:26 amkist93 says
That has nothing to do with blocking or restricting content.
Close, but no cigar!
October 31st, 2009 at 9:27 amalso from C&L, comment:
Net Neutrality IS the free market
Fri, 10/30/2009 – 15:26 — nom de plume
without it, only sites with deep pockets will be able to afford to pay service providers for the access to us users. A small start-up business, blog, news site, etc. will be locked out of the market.
THIS is why Beck and other conservatives oppose net neutrality. They figure News Corp can afford to pay the service providers and sites like Crooks and Liars, Media Matters and the zillions of smaller sites that call their b.s. won’t.
scroll down a bit for a very interesting take by hooker jay…
October 31st, 2009 at 9:29 amRep. Markey Warns About Right-Wing Misinformation: Net Neutrality May Be The Next ‘Death Panels’
– - I’ll give you my internets when you take them from my cold, dead hands!
October 31st, 2009 at 9:31 amWhat the republicans want to do is make it legal for the Telcoms to extort their customers.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:06 amNet Neutrality is just another example of big government regulating businesses, trying to keep businesses from controlling the information you receive over the internet. But if they’re the service providers, why can’t they pick and choose what services to provide? It’s a free country, and corporations should be free to do whatever they want without big government stepping in and telling them what they can or cannot do.
/Rush
This is what it is all about, folks:
The ruling class wants to control the flow of information over the internet. Too many times have progressives used archived information on the internet to point out the hypocricies of our elected officials. Too many times have progressives used the internet to communicate world-wide with like minded thinkers. Imagine if we did not have this means of communication, if past archives were regularly edited to match current statements. Actually, you don’t have to imagine, just read “1984″.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:14 amFreedom of speech, but only for those who can afford it
October 31st, 2009 at 10:17 amthese retarded morons, I swear.. any legislation that protects consumers from all the greed in the private corporate sector is a government “takeover”.. oh brother… only in America.. what a joke these clowns are…
October 31st, 2009 at 10:19 amI agree with BnF @ #11. This is more about control than it is about greed.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:25 amHell, the Republicans put the airwaves out to the highest bidders and what did we end up with, hate radio and television.
I will be dammed to give the corporate interests the internet. The corporate interests will stop at nothing to turn a buck.
Who do you want to protect your freedom, the government or corporations?
October 31st, 2009 at 10:27 amThe government will not abdicate their role this time to protect our freedom of information.
Glenn Beck is a perfect example of the results of corporate control of information.
I will be dammed to sign up for that.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:33 amThis fight will cut across many demographics. Strange bedfellows may be standing side by side. This issue is cutting too close to home
So what happens when some liberal ISP owner decides to suppress say Foxnation, then the howls will come. Guess they should have supported net neutrality. Of course the more likely outcome is that ISPs are owned by conservatives, like
October 31st, 2009 at 10:35 amComcast who already plays games with television lineups, like putting Fox News on basic cable while MSNBC requires extra fee. If anyone thinks this isn’t political manipulation, they are dreaming.
It’s the Republican way.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:44 ami’m trying to find the LINK for the FCC comments, starting here:
and found this – i hadn’t heard about blackburn:
Mozilla on Friday issued its support for the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed net neutrality rules, but a House Republican this week introduced a bill that would block the commission’s efforts.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee introduced the Real Stimulus Act of 2009, which would prohibit the FCC from “needlessly imposing regulations on the Internet,” Blackburn said in a statement.
“the Real Stimulus Act of 2009″… ‘09 IS ALMOST OVER!
October 31st, 2009 at 10:51 amIt would be helpful to point out that net neutrality is what we have now.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:53 amGetting rid of net neutrality is changing things so the telecom providers can set up a new system-a system that holds your site and your internet business hostage.
Net Neutrality is a conservative proposal. It conserves the status quo.
These wild-eyed radicals want to tear it down and put up a newer, far uglier structure, based on their belief, apparently, that private monopolies are good things.
Want the Internet to look like your Cable TV?
20 pbeeg
I see the spin is already working even on fellow progressives.
No offense intended on my part but, it is
ANTI – Net Neutrality what the gNOpigs and retrogrades are proposing.
I am sure it was just a mistake, since in your precedent paragraph you support the idea of Net Neutrality.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:03 amTo those arguing against Net Neutrality:
Freedom of speech will be the first casualty of an
unregulated internet. All those interested in open
communications will not take too
kindly upon seeing our websites shut down.
Yearning for open discourse, sharing
October 31st, 2009 at 11:04 amopinions, and anonymously bashing opponents is
universal. Net Neutrality is the way to go.
TP – is there a LINK to FCC you could post, to allow us libs to weigh in on this, before the right gets ahead of us (as happened with the health care ‘debate’)…? please.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:04 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
“SATAN who supports net neutrality”
What spark of insperation lead you to this conclusion Dougy?
October 31st, 2009 at 11:12 amThe RepubliCorporican Way is to privatize government. Only people who can accumulate massive fortunes while abandoning any sort of conscience are fit to run the country.
You can have all the freedom you want…as long as you can pay for it.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:17 amAnyone seen K Street Whore? I have business with the POS poser.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:18 amDoug: You mean you reached Satan for comment about net neutrality and the public (not pubic, dear. Different thing entirely)? I’ve been trying to call that damned bastard all week long for a comment and he’s been ducking my calls. if Satan loves liberalism so much, why won’t he return my calls, damn it?!
October 31st, 2009 at 11:18 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Halloween, the most important and celebrated holiday on the liberal/progressive calendar.
While this is a rather broad brush statement without statistical proof, if it were true, it might be because people get laugh at and make fun of the scary things certain people have made up.
Some people say the most popular scary costumes this year are Republican face masks.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:23 amDon’t waste my time Doug.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:25 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Doug:
October 31st, 2009 at 11:29 amyou are trying to hard. It is sort of embarassing. If you need me to pay attention to you just say so but don’t suppose for a moment you have the right stuff…
too.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:30 amdoug,
Not a good idea invoking Satan. He requires payment in full.
Oh, he already owns you? I see.
I think the Right Wing already sold out to him.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:32 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Damn what is it with these people and their attention needs?
October 31st, 2009 at 11:34 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
db
I hope Jeffy Bovine (Koldys Street Ho) took my advice and he is driving down to West Hollywood.
The city is expecting around 400,000 revelers.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:38 ami’m closer, but not sure how close…
from the FCC site:
10/22/09
Commission Seeks Public Input on Draft Rules to Preserve the Free and Open Internet.
i opened the “News Release” in word, and found this at end:
The adoption of this Notice will open a window for submitting comments to the FCC. Comments can be filed through the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System, and are due on Thursday, January 14. Reply comments are due on Friday, March 5. In addition, the rulemaking process will include many other avenues for public input, including open workshops on key issues; providing feedback through openinternet.gov, which will include regular blog posts by Commission staff; and other new media tools, including IdeaScale, an online platform for brainstorming and rating solutions to policy challenges.
http://openinternet.gov/
from there, this site offers a ‘SHARE YOUR IDEAS’ button:
October 31st, 2009 at 11:38 amhttp://www.broadband.gov/
I sas a clip of that pencil-necked, liver-lipped, wall-eyed little pervert (Doug Hoffman) last night on Rachel’s show. He looks exactly like someone who wants to be spanked while wearing his mommy’s garter belt.
*shudder*
October 31st, 2009 at 11:43 amdbadass says:
Damn what is it with these people and their attention needs?
whaaat?! you mean YOU don’t know?
October 31st, 2009 at 11:45 amWas it on tv? Maybe that is how I missed it…
October 31st, 2009 at 11:47 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
So Doug
October 31st, 2009 at 11:58 amCan you explain to me the goal. Does deliberately eliciting negative attention give you some sort of validation of self? It seems sort of f ucked up and weird to me…Do you wear your down votes as some sort of badge of honor? It is so odd…
This issue is huge for me. It seems to me that McCain’s legislation would give the internet all the freedom for regular people to broadcast content as television does today. The internet will turn into a scheme for huge media conglomerates to make deals with each other and sell audiences to each other. We’d be under even greater corporate control and it will prevent the internet from becoming even further democratic than it is today.
All of these congressmen running in 2010 need be very explicit on where they stand on net neutrality, whether they’re Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t matter. This issue is more important than ideology or party.
Don’t let this happen!
October 31st, 2009 at 12:03 pmHuh?
October 31st, 2009 at 12:11 pmdougie, meet me in the alley. We can settle this right now.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:13 pmdbadass says:
So Doug
Can you explain to me the goal. Does deliberately eliciting negative attention give you some sort of validation of self? It seems sort of f ucked up and weird to me…Do you wear your down votes as some sort of badge of honor? It is so odd…
db, he’s doing a very credible parody routine — maybe too credible, because a lot of people here just don’t see it. I think he’s very funny, personally.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:13 pmgummitch:
October 31st, 2009 at 12:17 pmAny suggestions on a glut of halubut and parsnips? The parody seems to be morphing into something else but I could be wrong. Still unlike the tools I toy with I will not be called a pussy and not respond.
I like my parsnips buttered and my halibut grilled. I just can’t picture them in the same dish, if that’s your goal. At least you’ve got other mouths to feed; cooking for one gets to be a drag.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:20 pmThat wasn’t my first thought but I can see a roasted winter vegetable side to a roasted halibut entree. I usually like a roasted red pepper beurre blanc on my halibut.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:26 pmAh there is that total pos that I will be removing from this place all in good time.
Shall we discuss my challenge K Street Whore or are you still too petrified….
October 31st, 2009 at 12:32 pmLook for the white-wingers to start connecting net neutrality with anal sex.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:37 pmLie much?
—
October 31st, 2009 at 12:43 pmWe have already done this dance. No I never do. So now that we have reviewed that would you like to discuss my idea? I would appreciate it if you could just say yes or no as I have a few errands I need to run. I am offering you an opportunity to gain the respect and attention that you so seek and yet so evades you. It is a great opportunity for you if you can handle it. What do you say K Street Whore?
The Right’s new Talking Point that “Net Neutrality would allow the government to control the Internet” is almost no different than the idiots that complained “Keep the government away from my Medicare!”
Just as big business would LOVE to “privatize” Medicare, restrict access and turn it into a commodity, so are the people opposing “Net Neutrality”, arguing in favor of allowing Big Business to restrict and redirect the flow of information so that corporate websites receive priority over “small businesses” (which the Right claim to be all about “protecting“.)
October 31st, 2009 at 12:49 pmK, let’s use Plan Nine on the liberals! It’s perfect; they’ll be so busy trick or treating they won’t see it coming.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:52 pmIt must be the Halloween thing. I have this mental image of trollies as being like the Renfield character in Dracula. (The following would be in a Peter Lorre voice. Even though he didn’t play Renfield, he had such a great obsequious voice.)
“Yes, my master is a blood sucking monster but he gives me flies! Such wonderful tasty flies. Sorry, Master. Yes, Master. Back to talking points. Noooo, don’t take my flies away.”
October 31st, 2009 at 12:59 pmMaybe yopu should just go with a Y if you are up for it and a N if you can’t handle it…. Why are you so afriad?
October 31st, 2009 at 1:33 pmFor at LEAST the past decade, CorpoRat Murka has been striving heroically, spending billions of dollars on hundreds of THOUSANDS of man-hours devoted to fonding ways to protect the profitability of the Net, while disabling its potentially revolutionary possibilities in democratizing the flow of information, which the Corporats had devoted previously unmatched numbers of dollars and hours to monopolize.
The abandonment of net-neutrality as a principle seems aimed at the very heart of democratic information creation and distribution, but it can be camouflaged behind a rhetoric of ‘profit/entrepeneur/ownership.’
It htis effort for some unpredictable reason fails to muzzle the voices on the Web, the next expedient will probably be in the form of “mandating” some kind of libel insurance for those who wish to participate in the “public sphere.” Say a million-dollar libel bond for access to blogger or any of the other platforms?
October 31st, 2009 at 1:40 pmK Street Whore says:
Lie much?
Project much patsy?
October 31st, 2009 at 2:14 pmK Street Whore says:
The only death panels are in the obamacare plan.
Because he permits private insurance to continue having death panels? LOL!
You’re as dumb and whiny as you are a liar – and that says a lot my little d**chebag! LOL! ;)
October 31st, 2009 at 2:15 pmPeople who don’t understand what “Net Neutrality” means, have no business opposing it.
John McCain’s arguments on why he opposes NN are all arguments FOR NN. Not surprising that a 70+ year old Septuagenarian would have about as much a grasp of technology issues as my 70+ year old grandmother.
Then we have Glenn Beck, who has been waging a Jihad against NN for two weeks now despite believing NN has something to do with “giving everyone FREE INTERNET ACCESS.” That’s what Beck asked the guest on his show as to what NN is. Which brings up a bigger point: IF YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT NN IS, SHOULDN’T YOU BOTHER TO FIND OUT BEFORE TAKING SUCH A STRONG POSITION AGAINST IT???
If you get rid of NN, the next Google or YouTube won’t be an American company. They’ll start their business overseas where NN still exists. You can’t be “pro small business” and “against Net Neutrality”.
The average tech-savvy 13 year old understands NN better than the average Republican Fox viewer, which bodes well for the future, as the younger generation sees how clueless these Republican are on an issue they are rabidly opposing for all the reasons they should be for it. Morons.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:52 pmThe GOP is going to find “net neutrality as government takeover” difficult to sell.
In this technological age, most Americans are internet-savvy. They understand giving the tech companies control over what we can and can not do on the internet is not a good thing.
When people realize the GOP is lying about this, maybe they’ll start to wonder what else they’ve lied about.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:53 pmJust wondering; since right wingers don’t like net neutrality, maybe progressives really ought to start pushing a return of the Fairness Doctrine. Seems fair ought to be fair…
October 31st, 2009 at 3:09 pmPerry logan says:
I have no doubt that–if the Republicans had remained in power in 2006–you would not be reading this.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:14 am Add Karma Vote Up | Subtract Karma Vote Down | (9)
I am beginning to seriously wonder if the corporate powers buying off the GNOP and dems in Congress could do some damage in this area. Examples are what a$$holes LIEberman, Baucus, B Nelson,… have become.
We must have campaign finance reform and take our country back from corporate power.
October 31st, 2009 at 3:39 pmK Street Whore says:
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
The only death panels are in the obamacare plan.
SEC. 167. LIMITATIONS ON PREEXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS IN GROUP HEALTH PLANS AND HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE IN THE GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL MARKETS IN ADVANCE OF APPLICABILITY OF NEW PROHIBITION OF PREEXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.
`(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), a health insurance issuer that provides individual health insurance coverage may not impose a preexisting condition exclusion (as defined in subsection (b)(1)(A) of section 2701) with respect to such coverage except to the extent that such exclusion could be imposed consistent with such section if such coverage were group health insurance coverage.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:./temp/~c1116qqCse:e140163:
So Crackwhore… Where is that government death panel you’re sniveling about little pussy?
`
October 31st, 2009 at 5:15 pmGood job of playing “LOOK OVER THERE” K Street CrackWhore. A sign that you and your repiggies are in denial of facts and a sign you criminals are becoming more irrelevant each day.
Go cry a river little pussy.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:17 pmYou hate net neutrality because you’re into total censorship of the internet. A censorship that was ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS in 1997.
Don’t like it CrackWhore… Move to China. It’s censored over there. Much like you repiggies want to censor it over here. So CrackWhore… Are you a Commie pinko now?
October 31st, 2009 at 5:19 pmIt has not yet been discussed, so I will throw a bit of what I know into the mix. Net neutrality exists because some Internet service providers (ISPs) do not like peer to peer (P2P) file sharing. For those who are not Internet savvy, file sharing is how a lot of pornography and pirated games are transmitted from computer to computer cheaply and relatively quickly.
ISPs provide bandwidth to their customers. That bandwidth consists of a download part, and an upload part. The download part is what most of us know about because we use it to get stuff from the Internet. Most Internet users do not heavily use their upload bandwidth except for submitting comments, which is a tiny fraction of the time spent blogging.
P2P file sharing relies much more heavily on the upload bandwidth than normal Internet usage. ISPs tend to give their customers a much faster speed downloading than they do uploading. This can create an upload bandwidth bottleneck where normal users experience long delays when they “submit comment” because the ISP’s bandwidth is being hammered by P2P clients.
I have no links for it, but I recall some ISPs started banning P2P usage of the Internet and hardcore users freaked out. P2P file sharing is often used to pirate software, and to distribute pornography. Based on those two things, ISPs tried to restrict P2P file sharing.
We must win the fight for net neutrality. If ISPs get to decide in what ways I can and cannot use the internet, they might decide I am no longer allowed to view unlimited, free pornography, and this is unacceptable (/snark).
October 31st, 2009 at 6:41 pmA New Scenerio Illustrating What Might Happen If Net Neutrality Disappears
http://www.dump.com/2009/10/30/a-new-scenerio-illustrating-what-might-happen-if-net-neutrality-disappears/
October 31st, 2009 at 7:49 pmi simply can’t believe this crap.
now ‘net neutrality’ is a government take over.. and an attack on free speech.
what the hell is wrong with these people and how do they sleep at night?
October 31st, 2009 at 9:03 pmThe MSM, which is controlled by a few moguls, is afraid of losing the right to control information. The limited control of information in the MSM has led to the hyperreality of knownothingness, that has come to be known as Fox News.
November 1st, 2009 at 1:28 am