home

Net Neutrality

You will see an ad on TalkLeft for the next week that makes you angry. It opposes net neutrality. Personally, I support net neutrality. But TalkLeft does not accept or reject ads based on ideology. If the NRA wants to advertise here, they are welcome. Are there some ads I would reject? Yes, I'd refuse an ad for the she-pundit's book, the KKK, a radical right, fundamentalist organization or one that raves about the death penalty -- ads that made me cringe.

The issue of internet regulaton just doesn't fall in those gut, emotional categories for me. It takes money to spend the amount of time that I do on this site. I'd rather have ad revenue than continually ask readers for donations.

If you'd like to know how I feel about net neutrality, check out Save the Internet. Read both sides and make up your own mind. Then let your Senators know how you feel.

< Dan Abrams Named General Manager of MSNBC | No Charges for Rove in PlameGate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:01:26 AM EST
    CNN has been playing ads for Glenn Beck in Air America Radio. Frankly I am happy to see Air America Radio get their money. But Air America Phoenix has been playing a wonderful promo completely gutting Glenn Beck and telling their listeners they are appalled with Beck and with his damn commercial. But you, you sold out TL! No, no, I'm just kidding. I hope you do well with TL, I actually view it more as a resource than as blogotainment. If you want a few minutes of a taste of what we have to deal with in Phoenix, visit the promos page of AAR Phoenix. The best promo is "Bless my SUV" which I think is a Capital Steps piece. But "Takin My Country Back" is a hot second. Also wonderful are "The Decider", "Bloody Sunday", and "Bush Imagine". Sadly, very sadly, their Glenn Beck promo can't be found there.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 04:42:53 AM EST
    I have a different view of net neutrality - I worry far more about what the government will do once they have their regulatory claws on the net. Think the FCC and TV/Radio. Think content restrictions and campaign finance "reform".

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 06:43:25 AM EST
    A question. Who is the sponsor?

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 06:58:28 AM EST
    I don't know that many of the Feingold fans here mind such restrictions, JR.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:36:44 AM EST
    If you do not accept or reject ads based on ideology, how can you reject ads from the KKK or a radical right fundamentalist organization? I am certainly not encouraging you to do so, but those certainly would seem to qualify as ideological rejections. How do they differ from your NRA example?

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:52:54 AM EST
    I agree with robberbaron. I feel you certainly retain the ability to select what ads (if any) you chose to run on your website. But to say in the same breath that you do not reject ads because of ideology and that you would not run KKK or "radical right" ads seems highly contradictory. Why not just say "TL won't run ads we find personally or ideologically offensive, based upon critera we chose"? If the KKK (or other like-minded organizations) wants to send you a check and run their little ad for this audience, why not take their money and laugh all the way to the bank?

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#7)
    by roy on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:13:44 AM EST
    It's kind of funny that TL discusses her right to control how her assets are used by others while advocating that others be stripped of that right. That said, I'm reluctantly in favor of Congress imposing broad Neutrality rules with teeth. I'd like to let the market decide, but telecom providers have recieved too much tax money over the years in subsidies and bailouts. Maybe if they'd reimbuse the taxpayers for past handouts and use of genuinely public resources, I'd advocate letting them have full control of their own property. 'Till then, I say we take our cut.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:40:31 AM EST
    justpaul, It's not just the Feingold restrictions - consider all the content restrictions the FCC enforces on radio and TV. Do you want those? For that matter, do you think TL would be a better site if it had to file FEC reports every election season, or stop making endorsements?

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:54:44 AM EST
    It's your site. The watered down COPE bill that's going to come through the Senate is going to mark a paradigm shift in the content on the Internet. Even Christian Right zealots understand the ramifications of this bill. Prepare for a U.S. Corporate sanitized "worldwide" Internet, coming soon via Fiber Optic connection to a television near you. Government tracking of your browsing/viewing habits happily provided to the NSA courtesy of Ma Bell, paid for via an additional mandatory fee for the consumer. AKA "Federal Security Tax" on your monthly Phone/Internet/Television bill. But hey, at least you'll enjoy the FREEDOM to choose which company to pay to collect and wantonly disseminate information about your lifestyle.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 11:58:01 AM EST
    J.R - Explain to me how media consolidation, which has been one of the side effects of deregulation, ISNT restrictive of content. And while you're at it, please explain how "unrestricted markets" are concerned with protecting democracy, aspire to morality and common decency, or any of the other marvelous things that you want to "spread" to the rest of the world.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:03:58 PM EST
    The hell with checks and balances as long as I get my piece of the pie. Thats the "vibrant democracy" that all those countries in the M.E have been longing for. They just dont know it yet.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:21:35 PM EST
    We want our thousand year Reagan.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#13)
    by peacrevol on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:49:03 PM EST
    That said, I'm reluctantly in favor of Congress imposing broad Neutrality rules with teeth.
    i'm tired of them making a bunch of bunk, bs laws like telling people who they can let run adds on their websites. i dont care if TL is for net neutrality or not. i dont care if they have a stupid kkk add on their site or not. i'll look at what i want to look at and pass up stupid $h#t like kkk websites and what have you. to me it seems that the lawmakers of this country are really overstepping their bounds in what they can and cant control about the lifestyles of the American people. and it's only going to get worse if we let them keep making a bunch of baloney bs laws.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#14)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:54:17 PM EST
    the lawmakers of this country are really overstepping their bounds in what they can and cant control about the lifestyles of the American people. and it's only going to get worse if we let them keep making a bunch of baloney bs laws.
    Oh PR, you really are naive. They don't want to control the kkk and lifestyles, they want to sell product. This is like everything else. It is all about controlling the market and limiting access to it.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#15)
    by swingvote on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 03:32:17 PM EST
    James, My point was that mosty of the people here support restrictions on our free speech (or, at the very least, the seem to do so when they proclaim in favor of Feingold), so anything the FCC might do along those lines is probably quite kosher with them. You have to remember that from their point of view Hillary will be President in less than 3 years and her FCC will know just who to police and who not to police.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 04:45:33 PM EST
    jeepster - Who here has expressed the view that Hillary will be President in 3 years, or that they want her to be President in three years? You're gonna have to back that up, and I dont think you can, which means that you're talking out of a less conventional oriface again.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#17)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 04:47:10 PM EST
    "You have to remember.." lol

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 04:53:31 PM EST
    And while you're supplying all your voluminous evidence that imaginary "people here" think Hillary will be President in 3 years, maybe you can explain how money = speech dosnt restrict the speech of those who cant or refuse to pay extra for representation.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#19)
    by JT on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:57:57 PM EST
    Why fix (a dynamic, exponetially growing and constantly changing) thing that is not broke?

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 05:01:29 AM EST
    JT - That is the nature of politics. Conversely, they won't fix the illegal alien problem.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#21)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:12:31 AM EST
    Who is the sponsor?
    the telecom association, a trade group representing telecom companies. they also pay for lobbyists to go to d.c. and push their agenda. the last thing i need is the FCC controlling content on the net, it (the internet) represents the last unfettered bastion of truly free speech. well, as free as speech can be, anyway.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peaches on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:31:43 AM EST
    Jim & JT, That is the nature of profit-seeking.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#23)
    by peacrevol on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:21:58 AM EST
    It is all about controlling the market and limiting access to it.
    and the end result is congress flexing their muscles over the little guy. they can take payment, indirect or direct, for their lawmaking decisions and the fat cat corporations with the most money come out ahead. hence the govt controlling american people. he who has the gold rules right?

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#24)
    by JT on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:56:43 AM EST
    Peaches, No, I think that this is more related to the nature of rent seeking. JT

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#25)
    by Peaches on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 12:06:00 PM EST
    JT Factors of Production: Land, Labor and Capital Profits: Rent, Wages and interest Different way of saying the same thing. Rent is a form of profit.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#26)
    by Peaches on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 12:10:00 PM EST
    But, You are correct. I was making a general description of the motivation for this legislation. The telecommunications industry sees an opportunity for large profits through charging rents for access to different sites on the internet.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#27)
    by Johnny on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:12:29 PM EST
    net neutrality, endorsed by such companies as Ebay, Google, and Microsoft, would ensure that ISP's do not add a surcharge to access sites that eat a lot of bandwidth. Such as Microsoft.com. Imagine, if you will, your ISP determines that since so many people are accessing microsofts website, they tack on an extra $0.50/hr to access! People will refuse to download critical updates (a constant in the windows world). This is a bad, bad idea voted for by most republicans and a few democraps. If you voted republican in the last election year, this is your fault.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#28)
    by JT on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 04:36:13 PM EST
    Peaches, You are absolutley correct. I was thinking only of the reduction in competition, but that, of course, leads to more profits for the rent seeking entity(s). Not that I mind profits at all, just would like to see them made in a competative environment. JT

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:03:13 PM EST
    Jondee: Forget media consolidation. Merely consider how the feds treat the parts of the media that they've regulated into "public facilities" - TV and radio. Forget the partisan warcries for a moment, and ponder the various content restrictions on those mediums - is that what you want on the net? Do you want the "7 bad words" banished, for instance, backed up by enormous fines? Do you want the net to have "for the children" regulations. This shouldn't be a left/right issue.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#30)
    by Al on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:04:00 PM EST
    TL, net neutrality ensures that websites like this don't have to use the "country roads" while the big corporate websites use the "superhighways". It sounds to me like you're shooting yourself in the foot for a little ad revenue.

    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 11:54:32 PM EST
    Skippy posted this on a different thread today, since it belongs here, I'm reprinting it: hi talkleft, right back atcha with the love, and i'm sorry to take so long getting back to you, but it's been a busy week. but as to your question about my taking blogads...

    i have to say i don't remember criticizing blogs for taking ads...i do remember criticizing bloggers for asking for contributions, but that was three and a half years ago. however, penn-elayne has said the same thing about me, so i will concede that i may have expressed that sentiment at one time or another.

    two things come to mind: can't a guy change his mind? and, is your question a response to my original post about not taking ads that are diametrically opposed to the values one espouses on one's blog? if so, i'd respectfully submit that that your question is not germaine to my point, and i'll get into that a bit later.

    but, the truth is, when i told mrs. skippy how much kevin drum told me he made from blogads, suddenly her attitude about my hours of blogging changed.

    it seems that if i can bring in an income (however small) with blogging, she doesn't mind the time i spend at it (or if she does, she doesn't tell me about it, which is just as good for me).

    anyway, i've used your hypothetical case of taking an nra ad to admit that this issue is about more specific than just blogs accepting ads which tout positions opposite what the blogs espouse. that is the sort of thing i would write off to, each blog to their own.

    but as i told matt stoller on mydd, accepting the watertower ad (and others) against net neutrality, to me, seems to be taking short term profit over long term problem solving. the telco's are trying to limit our audience's access to our work, and helping them do that, however small, just seems to me to be shooting ourselves in our collective foot.

    i get deeper into my reasonings in my conversation with matt on this mydd thread.

    again, i apologize for monopolizing this thread with an off-topic hi-jacking. but i feel very strongly about preserving net neutrality, and i did want to address your concerns.

    as i told matt, i will continue to support and read your blog in spite of our differences of opinion, and i hope you will do the same.

    at least, until the telco's start charging for access.



    Re: Net Neutrality (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 02:23:03 PM EST
    Thanks for your great site! Visit my sites, please: Valtrex [url=http://buyflomax.batcave.net/valtrex/Valtrex.html]Valtrex[/url] Valtrex side effects [url=http://buyflomax.batcave.net/valtrex/Valtrex_side_effects.html]Valtrex side effects[/url] Valtrex overnight [url=http://buyflomax.batcave.net/valtrex/Valtrex_overnight.html]Valtrex overnight[/url] Valtrex herpes [url=http://buyflomax.batcave.net/valtrex/Valtrex_herpes.html]Valtrex herpes[/url] [url=]Buy valtrex[/url] Generic valtrex [url=http://buyflomax.batcave.net/valtrex/Generic_valtrex.html]Generic valtrex[/url] Valtrex 1gm [url=http://buyflomax.batcave.net/valtrex/Valtrex_1gm.html]Valtrex 1gm[/url] Valtrex and pregnancy [url=http://buyflomax.batcave.net/valtrex/Valtrex_and_pregnancy.html]Valtrex and pregnancy[/url] Valtrex dosage [url=http://buyflomax.batcave.net/valtrex/Valtrex_dosage.html]Valtrex dosage[/url] Buy valtrex online [url=http://buyflomax.batcave.net/valtrex/Buy_valtrex_online.html]Buy valtrex online[/url] Valtrex online [url=http://buyflomax.batcave.net/valtrex/Valtrex_online.html]Valtrex online[/url] Valtrex shingles [url=http://buyflomax.batcave.net/valtrex/Valtrex_shingles.html]Valtrex shingles[/url] Valtrex medication [url=http://buyflomax.batcave.net/valtrex/Valtrex_medication.html]Valtrex medication[/url] Cheap valtrex [url=http://buyflomax.batcave.net/valtrex/Cheap_valtrex.html]Cheap valtrex[/url] Side effects of valtrex medication [url=http://buyflomax.batcave.net/valtrex/Side_effects_of_valtrex_medication.html]Side effects of valtrex medication[/url]