Telecommunications industry working overtime to misrepresent net neutrality

I don’t believe that money is speech, but I’ve repeatedly seen that money motivates dishonest speech, much of it uttered by paid “experts.” This money-motivated dishonesty is a recurring problem regarding many issues, including the topic of this article, net neutrality. On August 8, 2011, I was pleased to see that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published my letter to the editor on the topic of net neutrality.  Here’s the full text of my letter:

Maintain neutrality We pay Internet service providers to move data from point to point. We don't pay them to steer us to selected sites (by speeding up access times) or to discourage us from using other sites (by slowing down or blocking access). Nor do we pay them to decide what applications we can use over the Internet. I should be free to use Skype even if it competes with the phone company's own telephone service. Giving Internet users this unimpeded choice of content and applications is the essence of "net neutrality," and it has inspired unceasing innovation over the Internet. The Senate soon may vote on a "resolution of disapproval" that would strip the Federal Communications Commission of its authority to protect Americans from potential abuses. If it passes, net neutrality would be at serious risk. Congress is under big pressure (and receiving big money) from companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, who want to become the gatekeepers of the Internet. They would like to carve up the Internet so that it would become like cable TV, with tiered plans and limited menus of content that they would dictate. Phone companies should not be allowed to dictate how we use the Internet. I urge Sens. Claire McCaskill and Roy Blunt to support net neutrality by voting against the resolution of disapproval. Erich Vieth • St. Louis
I wrote this letter as a concerned citizen.  I have long been concerned about net neutrality.  I have seen ample evidence that increasingly monopolistic telecommunications companies have no qualms about forcibly assuming the role of Internet gate-keeper.  As for-profit entities, their instinct is to limit our Internet choices if it would make them ever greater piles of money. Call me a pragmatist based on America’s television experience; telecommunications companies want to control how we use the Internet much like cable TV companies shove users into programming packages in order to maximize profit. On August 18, 2011, I noticed that the Post-Dispatch published an anti-net-neutrality letter. Here is the text of that letter: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingTelecommunications industry working overtime to misrepresent net neutrality

Corporate Communism

I've sometimes referred to the telecom industry as "communist." After all, if the AT&T and T-Mobile merge is approved, that bigger version of AT&T would have 80% of the wireless market. That means one player would dominate an industry.   If you don't like the phone service you're getting, don't have a phone.   Communism, whether the Soviet or the Capitalist version, stifles innovation and causes customer service to stagnate.  It also forces consumers to pay artificially high bills because there is no competition.  Dylan Ratigan has picked up on this comparison too:

Lately I have been using the phrase “Corporate Communism” on my television show. I think it is an especially fitting term when discussing the current landscape in both our banking and health care systems. As Americans, I believe we reject communism because it historically has allowed a tiny group of people to consolidate complete control over national resources (including people), in the process stifling competition, freedom and choice. It leaves its citizens stagnating under the perpetual broken systems with no natural motivation to innovate, improve services or reduce costs.
Ergo, we need to stamp out communism everywhere we find it, even when it exists in a capitalist system like the United States.

Continue ReadingCorporate Communism

Obama = Corrupt

Glenn Greenwald has written a blistering article describing the decision of the Obama Administration to put pressure on the New York Attorney General to sign on to a deal to immunize big mortgage banks from criminal prosecution in return for meager civil fines. This is a terrible position for the President to take, but it's not surprising given Obama's track record:

[Yves Smith's] entire analysis should be read.  The President -- who kicked off his campaign vowing to put an end to "the era of Scooter Libby justice" -- will stand before the electorate in 2012 having done everything in his power to shield top Bush officials from all accountability for their crimes and will have done the same for Wall Street banks, all while continuing to preside over the planet's largest Prison State . . . for ordinary Americans convicted even of trivial offenses, particularly (though not only) from the War on Drugs he continues steadfastly to defend.  And as Sam Seder noted this morning, none of this has anything to do with Congress and cannot be blamed on the Weak Presidency, the need to compromise, or the "crazy" GOP.

The lack of decent compensation for victims is the tip of the iceberg. The problem is the the Obama Administration has decided to shield the banks from being investigated at all. No bank executives will face prison time despite immense damage that they've done to the U.S. economy.  In short, Obama is helping to sweep this entire sordid economy-crushing scandal under the rug.
Aside from robosigning, which was all over the funny papers last year, the Administration and the AGs have made sure they have no facts. A member of the Administration who was involved in the settlement talks confirmed what we have long said on this blog: there was no investigation of any kind, despite Iowa attorney general Tom MIller’s lies claims to the contrary. They didn’t even bother getting to first base, namely making document requests.
Greenwald cites to Joseph Stilitz in his article. I followed that link to this sobering paragraph:
Growing inequality, combined with a flawed system of campaign finance, risks turning America’s legal system into a travesty of justice. Some may still call it the “rule of law,” but it would not be a rule of law that protects the weak against the powerful. Rather, it would enable the powerful to exploit the weak.

Continue ReadingObama = Corrupt