Barack Obama has once again invited a compromise of a compromise in order to get a bad deal done, instead of fighting for the principles he announced in his campaign speeches. This time the victim was net neutrality. The FCC's recent decision was discussed by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now and Craig Aaron of Free Press:

There are millions and millions of Americans who have contacted the FCC. Ninety percent of the comments they received were supporting strong net neutrality. Commissioners Copps and Clyburn went across the country, heard from people all across the country about how important net neutrality is. But unfortunately, this is another example where the Obama administration has, you know, put forward a compromise on a compromise on a compromise and asked the American public to swallow it, while the companies really haven’t had to give up very much at all. And that’s where we are today.

AMY GOODMAN: Commissioner Clyburn is the daughter of the House Majority Whip, James Clyburn of South Carolina. And the Republicans are opposed to this, the two Republican appointees?

CRAIG AARON: Well, that’s right. And in the strange politics of Washington these days, the Republicans oppose any kind of regulation whatsoever, so they’re making all sorts of noise that this is some kind of massive overreach, when it couldn’t be further from the truth. But this is the game that the big phone and cable companies are playing. They’ve asked their Republican allies to make a lot of noise, talk about how any kind of regulation is bad, trying to force the FCC chairman and the Democrats on the Commission into this really false middle and trying to portray champions of net neutrality, public interest advocates, as some kind of extremists.

Unfortunately, the only thing we’re left with here is an extremely disappointing order that won’t give the American public the protections they need, that won’t give internet users the protections that they need and, I think, really jeopardizes the internet’s continued growth as an unrivaled source of economic innovation, of democratic participation, of free speech. This is a very big step in the wrong direction by the FCC today and, I think, a very big disappointment to everybody who believed not just President Obama, but Chairman Genachowski, when he, you know, spoke up and said he was going to protect the free and open internet no matter what.

With regard to the Internet, especially the wireless internet, say goodbye to the freedom to use the Internet as you choose. Say hello to an Internet that will increasingly look like cable TV, with its limited choices and price gouging. Today's FCC decision was a despicable decision to curry even more favor with big-money telecoms and to slap down consumer choice. Read the entire article for a description of AT&T's massive power over Obama and Democrats.

In my view, telecoms should be allowed to do only one thing: move data. They shouldn't be able to decide what kind of data they are willing to move. They shouldn't be allowed to decide that some sorts of data are more important than other types of data. They shouldn't be allowed to charge more for some types of data than other data. They shouldn't be allowed to prioritize some types of data at the expense of other types of data. By his silence, Barack Obama has once again decided to allow a big well-monied industry to call the shots, at the expense of you and me. To the growing list that includes private health insurers and Wall Street so-called bankers, we need to add telecoms. Thanks to White House complacency (at a minimum, complacency), the telecoms have now been put in great position to argue, in Orwellian fashion, that they are not going to prioritize what we will see and hear on the Internet, and it will be done in the name of "net neutrality." This is all coming up for a vote before the FCC while President Obama says nothing. As Josh Silver of Free Press indicates to Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales of Democracy Now, this is a huge issue that will affect all of us, and this new set of rules will be devastating to progressives:

What most people don’t understand when they hear "net neutrality," their eyes gloss over, and they say, "How does that affect me?" What’s going on right now is we’re in the middle of a major transition from one media technology to another media technology: the internet, the first two-way experience. And with the internet brings this possibility that any website could act as a television network, a radio network. It is the ultimate game changer in the future of how Americans access information and learn about the world. Now, what we’re seeing is, since the internet started about 40 years ago, there’s this principle called "net neutrality." And it essentially says that the companies that bring you the internet into your home or business cannot indiscriminately say, "This is going to move fast, this is going to move slow, and that’s our decision," in order to make more money or for political gain or what have you. So what we’re seeing is, as the internet becomes more ubiquitous, the companies that deliver the internet—Comcast, AT&T, Verizon—they enjoy monopoly or duopoly control of connections, and they want to monetize the internet by getting rid of rules that prevent them from creating fast lanes and slow lanes. The President, as you may recall, when he was campaigning, said, "I will take a backseat to no one in protecting net neutrality." It was a huge moment for everybody who cares about this issue. The FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, also a big proponent. But what’s been alarming is what’s happened since President Obama has taken office. Just like in so many other issues, there’s been this big debate amongst the industry players, like Verizon and Google. The public interest community has been left out of the ring, so to speak. The FCC chairman has done nothing major in those two years since Obama took office. And what we’re seeing right now is, finally, after five, six years of debate over this issue at the FCC, the FCC chairman has introduced a set of rules, last Wednesday, that will be voted on December 21st, that are wrought with loopholes, that would essentially be the end of the internet as we know it. It allows these companies to prioritize content at will, essentially because of definitions and legal terms, and it doesn’t apply at all to wireless connections, which is the future of the internet . . . The problem here is, you can’t put this genie back in the bottle. If you fundamentally change how the internet works, the internet will become like cable television, where Comcast and Verizon and AT&T decide what’s on, how fast it goes.