If you have "no place to go," come here!

Ds to destroy net neutrality?


Waxman goes in for the kill.

This is something the Ds don't "have to do," the way that so many Opologists will say "He has to say that." Destroying Net Neutrality -- to make life harder for little blogs like this, and make life easier for "infotainment" companies to charge you rent ("over 60 websites!") -- isn't something Obama has to "move toward the center" on, to try to peel off a few tea partiers. Nope. This is just something that the Ds want because their owners want it.

NOTE Via Susie.

No votes yet


Submitted by Hugh on

Waxman did some good work when he chaired the committee on investigations but as soon as he moved to Energy he has been a louse. Waxman-Markey, the House climate change bill with its cap and trade, offsets, and delayed timelines, was a dreadful monstrosity. Now he's doing this. It just goes to show the bankruptcy of the notion of "more and better Democrats". There are no good Democrats. Healthcare taught us that. I mean I knew independent Bernie Sanders was a wimp and would cave the first time anyone said, "Boo!" around him. But when even Kucinich folded like a cheap lawn chair, it became obvious that out of the 535 members of Congress there wasn't one worth keeping, not one. Add in a Supreme Court dominated by radical conservatives and a President doing his best to emulate George Bush, and you see what we are up against.

So Waxman selling out the net is completely and absolutely predictable. Not so much the man but the idea. If it wasn't Waxman, it would be just another Democratic corporatist stooge who would do it.

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

in response, to the proliferation of... extra-legal ISPs that provided unlimited services. Or perhaps underground internet cafes with unlimited access, if the restrictions became draconian enough. Kind of like speakeasies for the internet.

Submitted by lambert on

Because I don't.

I mean, if the POTB want to hijack the internet for high speed video on demand (pr0n) then God love 'em, but what's our alternative on a technical level? Packet radio? Microbroadcasting with repeaters? p2p? What?

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

I might know people who know such things, or know people who know people who know, but I've never really asked them much about it, what with the whole holy-shit-I-could-go-to-prison aspect of it.

wuming's picture
Submitted by wuming on

There are only a couple of companies that run the backbones of the internet in the USA. So, even if you have packet radio, p2p , etc, you still have to go through hardware (routers/switches/lines) owned by only a few firms if you want to get out to the wider internet.

This is really analogous to the situation with railroads in the 19th century, where they offered rebates to the big customers and then squeezed farmers. Railroads were the big communications provider, with applications like shipping, or mail. It took TR and the Progressives to change that and force the railroads to give the same rates to small free holders as it did to everyone else.

100 years later, and here we are again.

pmj6's picture
Submitted by pmj6 on

These days it is not religion but the internet that is the opium of the people, particularly the younger people. Maybe when the price of opium goes up we'll see some genuine interest in politics on part most of the youth cohort instead of Obama cheerleading.

Valley Girl's picture
Submitted by Valley Girl on

I'm a boomer and I love the internet. So, if someone talks about this as if it's opium for the youngers, well, that's silly. And, more silly to say it's opium.

For myself, having the wonders of the internet available haven't so much changed my political views, but given me access to what I need to back up my "gut feelings" with information. So, your point is great.