They're trying to take away another freedom.

[OperaTenor]

Here's a link to support opposition to the upcoming House bill taking away "net neutrality":

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

Still haven't gotten that degree in Computer Science yet, so no title.

[Catmando]

That's horrible! I can't vote since I'm not an American, but I certainly hope that does not go through. And I hope Canada does not try the same!

[bignaf]

yeah there was a petition circulating for it, but I think the bill passed without the neutrality ammendemnt. bad news, in other words. does it still need to pass in the senate?

[Shapley]

Interesting take from Google, given the manner in which they allowed the Chinese government to censor their search engine. Has anyone actually read the bill to see what it does? I'm not quite ready to take Google's word for it.

From what I hear, "Net Neutrality" has other problems which need to be resolved, or the concept needs to be scrapped. As I understand it, it's the government's 'foot in the door' for internet control, which is bad news if true. But I'm not sure if it's true. Google is not an unbiased source.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

I would have to get a bit more information on the exact bill that's being discussed, but here in DC we get a lot of TV ads aimed at congress, so perhaps this is the same bill, or maybe it's not.

There's a bill in congress (passed by the House already) that opens up cable TV to competition - it will no longer be treated as a monopolistic regulated utility. This means several things, some of which some people will like and others won't. For example, it means that the telephone company doesn't have to let an ISP use its switches for DSL. I recall when I was with Prodigy, I had DSL over Verizon's lines. This was only possible because the law required Verizon to allow ISPs to use Verizon's equipment in a way that didn't make Verizon as much profit as they could. Yes, it's competition, but is it fair to make one company's infrastructure support a competitor? Tough question.

As it sits now, the cable companies can provide telephone service through VOIP, but in most areas the telephone companies cannot provide cable TV service. Is this fair competition?

Google is not a provider of infrastructure as far as I know. They don't own any wires or cables that go to your house, so they are dependent on companies that do, such as cable TV, telephone, or power companies. So google has an interest in keeping laws requiring those providers of infrastructure under a law giving them the same access to the infrastructure as the owners of it. It's a bit like saying your neighbor can use your car whenever he wants to, even if you don't want him to, as I see it.

[Haggis@wk]

The Examiner

”Something almost without precedent in America will happen Thursday. That’s the day when McCain-Feingold — aka the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 — will officially silence broadcast advertising that contains criticism of members of Congress seeking re-election in November. Before 2006, American election campaigns traditionally began in earnest after Labor Day. Unless McCain-Feingold is repealed, Labor Day will henceforth mark the point in the campaign when congressional incumbents can sit back and cruise, free of those pesky negative TV and radio spots. It is the most effective incumbent protection act possible, short of abolishing the elections themselves.”

This is un-American and voters should remember that when Feingold or McCain run for president.

[analog]

.........bans all broadcast political advocacy advertising that mentions candidates by name, beginning 60 days before the election. President Bush signed and the U.S. Supreme Court shockingly upheld McCain-Feingold three years ago. Earlier this week, the Federal Election Commission, decided against allowing an exemption to the ban that would have allowed some highly restricted advocacy ads by groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO.

Hmmm - defuse mudslinging by denying it a target?

I tried to find a lighter side to this but couldn't.

I guess it's a natural reaction to an increasingly hostile press - abuse a freedom and somebody will try to take it away.

This'll probably just incite civil disobedience. Surely it'll be temporary like the sedition act.

Maybe, just maybe - it'll show that all the mudslinging is unnecessary and detrimental. If it raises the level of campaign discourse then some good effect could come this apparent evil. Like a crack from a ruler across the knuckles of an unruly schoolboy.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

It says "political advocacy advertising" - that's paid political ads, right? Campaign ads? It does sound like an anti-mud attempt. We'll have to see how it plays out.

If that's an accurate description in the article, it shouldn't affect news or editorial content at all. They can still criticize to their hearts' content.

[analog]

Net Neutrality might be a spin on it.


Asimov says "Any change will be opposed by those who stand to lose something by it."


The senate bill is here.... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c ... 109wmKrnZ::

...don't expect privacy;

(1) NETWORK TRAFFIC IDENTIFICATION STANDARDS- A provider of voice communications services (including an IP-enabled voice service provider) shall ensure that all traffic that originates on its network contains sufficient information to allow for traffic identification by other communications service providers that transport, transit, or terminate such traffic, including information on the identity of the originating provider, the calling and called parties, and such other information as the Commission deems appropriate.

Hmmmm... I pay extra now for DSL, would I pay a little more for something without popups and and spam and 'Here's Bob' " commercials? You bet.

I need to know more before signing their petition.

[barfle]

While I am as disgusted by political advertising as the next guy (maybe more so, since I almost never vote for a candidate with enough money for a TV ad), McCain/Feingold seems to me to be in violation of the first amendment's "freedom of speech shal not be abriged" admonishment.

And I do believe you should be allowed to say anything political you want to, as long as I don't have to pay for it (which is why I NEVER check the box on my tax form). You're allowed to disgust me. That goes for OT, Shap, and Haggis.

[GreatCarouser]

”Something almost without precedent in America will happen Thursday. That’s the day when McCain-Feingold — aka the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 — will officially silence broadcast advertising that contains criticism of members of Congress seeking re-election in November. Before 2006, American election campaigns traditionally began in earnest after Labor Day. Unless McCain-Feingold is repealed, Labor Day will henceforth mark the point in the campaign when congressional incumbents can sit back and cruise, free of those pesky negative TV and radio spots. It is the most effective incumbent protection act possible, short of abolishing the elections themselves.”

I would agree with them except that isn't what the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 can or will do. Any person or group that can afford to do so may finance the same types of political ads we've come to know and love but now many ads that were formerly exempt from certain campaign finance limits have now been defined as being endorsements to vote for/against a certain candidate and will now be required to 'count' against that candidate's spending limit and that donor's donation limits.

This link is from Public Citizen's website

If that group's politics or interpretations don't suit you feel free to choose from these...

[OperaTenor]

You're allowed to disgust me. That goes for OT, Shap, and Haggis.

[Haggis@wk]

Selma,

"If that's an accurate description in the article, it shouldn't affect news or editorial content at all. They can still criticize to their hearts' content."

Which is exactly why the "dead tree" press has been almost totally silent on this. They will be the only MSM media that can say anything about a candidate during that period of time giving them unprecedented influence during the time most voters make up their minds.

I'm curious what Olbermann and O'Rilly will do.

[analog]

Selma,

"If that's an accurate description in the article, it shouldn't affect news or editorial content at all. They can still criticize to their hearts' content."

Which is exactly why the "dead tree" press has been almost totally silent on this. They will be the only MSM media that can say anything about a candidate during that period of time giving them unprecedented influence during the time most voters make up their minds.

I'm curious what Olbermann and O'Rilly will do.

From GC's link ;

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act provides a new definition of campaign ad versus issue ad. The law retains the magic words standard as well as the concept that any advertisement sponsored by a candidate is a campaign ad. But it also imposes a "bright-line standard" in which any broadcast advertisement that depicts a candidate within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election, and is targeted to the voting constituency of that candidate, constitutes an electioneering communication, subject to federal campaign laws.

It may then apply only to advertisements leaving O & O' free to editorialize so long as they're not paid to do it.

Those annoying campaign ads drive me to holler at the TV voiceover "OH JUST SHUT UPPP!!". Taken at face value that's what this law does. Of course we're all worried about its unintended consequences.


It'll be interesting to see how the ad-writers weasel word to get around this law. Maybe it'll reduce the quantity and raise the quality. I for one am sick of saturation advertising, it's treating me like a calf in a feeder lot.

[piqaboo]

Holy cow, the people who read will be those who get influenced??
And not just the sound-bite swallowers?
(your candidate in 20 seconds or less)

[barfle]

One thing about living where I do is that I get to see lots of ads that aren't directed at me. There's a Senate race in Maryland that has one very typical ad for a guy who claims he's not a politician, but has lots of pictures of him doing politician things like talking to people who all look different from each other, yet he says he's not afraid to try new things. There's another one that's by a career politician who actually has an ad that's different. But I don't live in Maryland, so I'm not eligible to vote there.

I also get ads directed at congress, telling them (at least recently) to vote for or against the Internet Freedom Act (or whatever it's called).

Ahhh, liberty! Sometimes it's just fun to watch.

[GreatCarouser]

I found this pdf report from The Brookings Institute interesting:
[url=http://www.brook.edu/gs/cf/BCRAMyth.pdf]Myths and Realities about
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002[/url]

[barfle]

As if there weren't real problems to deal with, the house just passed this piece of foolishness and intervention into people's lives.

[piqaboo]

Way dumb. I really dont understand how a horse differs from a sheep. They are both cute, dumb, used for something other than food, and taste good.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Stupid. Rule is, if you name it, it's your pet and you can't eat it. If you don't know its name, it's livestock.

Horses, like other herbivores, are fit for human consumption. I find the idea of eating horse meat personally distasteful, but I'd have no problem feeding it to my dog. There are vegetarians and vegans who find the idea of eating any meat distasteful - I have no intention from giving up my omnivore habits just because it grosses somebody else out. Why should horse be different from rabbit or turkey?