Internet Nationalization (Why is GOP abetting the likes of MoveOn.org/Google Gives $1Mln to MoveOn)

"This is how poisonous it's gotten in Washington," says consulting lobbyist for a broadcast network. "You have Republicans taking money from companies and firms working to end their control of Congress, and even worse, working with outfits like MoveOn.org. And they are taking this money to not only help groups dedicated to defeating Republicans, but also for legislation that would regulate the Internet."

The highest profile Republican among those the lobbyist is referring to is Vin Weber, former House member and close ally to both former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Americans for Tax Reform leader Grover Norquist (who is on the opposite side of Weber's current fight). Weber is a leader of a coalition that supports legislation introduced by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass) and pending legislation backed by Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.). Sources say that Internet companies Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Microsoft, eBay, and others ponied up $330,000 each to build the coalition that Weber is using to influence conservative groups, most recently the Christian Coalition, to join.

"Word is that some of these groups are taking as much as $50,000 to sign on to support Internet regulation," says a House Energy Committee staffer. "It's remarkable that these groups are supporting legislation that would actually do more harm to them. That and the groups they are helping are actually working against them and many of the candidates they are supporting."

The Internet regulation that is under consideration is called "Internet Neutrality," and it would essentially bar all high-speed network operators such as Comcast and ATT to offer additional services such as video downloads, online video-gaming, or enhanced email that compete with companies like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft that already offer them. "Markey and Snowe want to basically ensure that Google and Microsoft and other big, established companies have their market share protected. They claim this is about protecting consumers, but how is making sure Google has no competition good for consumers?" says the House committee staffer.

The legislation, say some Senate Republican staffers, would lead to a "Nationalized Internet," because the companies that are wholly financing broadband deployment, telecom and cable and wireless companies, would most likely stop investing in the technology, forcing the federal government to perhaps foot the bill and regulate the Internet even more.

"If a company is told, 'Build this network, but you can't make any money off of it because it will create too much competition,' what do expect a company to do? That is what this legislation is going to do, and Google and Micrososft are more than happy to see it happen, because they make money off of the Internet in different ways from the networks' operators. Their business model is safe," says a Senate Commerce Committee staffer.

What makes Weber's cynical support of the legislation even worse, say Republican Hill staffers, is that his activities also aid MoveOn.org, the extremist, left-wing organization, which is now being financially backed by Google so that MoveOn can help Google with "Net Neutrality." Google has become the single largest private corporate underwriter of MoveOn. According to sources in the Democrat National Committee, MoveOn has received more than $1 million from Google and its lobbyists in Washington to create grassroots support for the Internet regulation legislation. Some of that money has gone to an online petition drive and a letter-writing campaign, but the majority of that money is being used to fund their activities against Republicans out in the states.

For example, MoveOn is said by one DNC source to have funneled at least $100,000 "Net Neutrality" money to its operations in Pennsylvania (where MoveOn is organizing against Sen. Rick Santorum). It has also sent funds to Florida, Ohio, and Missouri.

MoveOn is also using the funds to help Democrats, including House minority leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington state. "A month ago, Representative Pelosi didn't know what Net Neutrality was, then she heard that Google and other Silicon Valley firms wanted it. Now it's one of her top issues. What Silicon Valley wants, Silicon Valley gets," says a House Democrat leadership staffer.

"You have to wonder when conservatives will wake up and realize what is happening here," says a House Republican leadership aide. "You have this unholy alliance between Google and MoveOn and groups like the Christian Coalition. I mean how is it the Christian Coalition can help a company like Google, which makes money off of online pornography? Conservatives ought to be very concerned about this situation, but they don't seem to get it. And perhaps by the time they do, it will be too late."

LOOKING GOOD White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove was looking chipper at his appearance before the Council on National Policy's 25th anniversary meeting in Virginia late last week. Rove appeared before the group for an off-the-record briefing, Without getting into too many specifics, Rove told the largely conservative group of business people that he was confident Republicans would hold both houses of Congress and that President would be more focused in the coming months on putting forward issues and policies that base conservatives could get behind.

The words were good, but better was Rove's demeanor, which indicated he was confident he would be around to help the President achieve his goals.

This issue ultimately boils down to ownership: do the networks actually own their networks, or don't they? If they own them, then they have a right to impose whatever price schedule they want. Google and content providers should battle the networks out in the market, not with government edicts. They can do this by:

1. uniting against any attempt to price discriminate between different types of traffic by threatening blackouts against individual networks

2. investing in parallel infrastructure that could compete with the existing networks. Google has already started doing this by buying up loads of dark fiber and supposedly building its own Internet.

I agree with you. How the networks choose to bill for the usage is a business decision they are and should be free to make. If they choose to impose their double billing and bandwidth throttle plan I hope that the market makes them regret it terribly, but it should be the market, not the government.

That said, the level and dishonesty of the propaganda the networks are putting out against "Net Neutrality" almost makes me want go against my libertarian leanings just to spite them.

do the networks actually own their networks, or don't they?

I say they do not in this regard because it interferes with free speech, interstate commerce and a whole bunch of things. Without neutrality, the RNC (or Soros or whoever) could pay to have democrat or republican internet traffic screech to a halt. This also could interfere with interstate commerce, another big constitutional no no.

The networks can charge whatever they want per megabyte but should not discriminate between megabytes.

the telecom effort to cast net neutrality as some kind of assault on free enterprise is impressive in its effectiveness. Diabolical, but effective. If net neutrality fails, and Freepers find access to their favorite sites--including perhaps this one--is blocked or so slow as to be unusable, they'll have their ISP to blame, not the government. They'll have no recourse, and they'll realize, too late, that they got snookered by a crafty lobbying campaign.

This is not about government censorship. It's about whether your ISP will have veto power over what you see over the internet. That should be every bit as objectionable as the government telling you what you can view.

I'm confused by your argument. "Interfering with interstate commerce" is a federal prerogative, yes, but I'm not sure what that has to do with private telecommunications networks. The issue is *not* that telcos would differentiate political traffic - this would be a prohibitive cost not even Soros could afford. The issue *is* (if you read the article) that telcos want to offer their own next-gen services like VoIP and give them Quality-of-Service (QoS) guarantees.

Also, your argument about free speech makes no more sense than the idea that I'm restricting your free speech by not allowing you in my house. These are private networks we're talking about, unless you can show otherwise.

White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove was looking chipper at his appearance before the Council on National Policy's 25th anniversary meeting in Virginia late last week. Rove appeared before the group for an off-the-record briefing, Without getting into too many specifics, Rove told the largely conservative group of business people that he was confident Republicans would hold both houses of Congress and that President would be more focused in the coming months on putting forward issues and policies that base conservatives could get behind. The words were good, but better was Rove's demeanor, which indicated he was confident he would be around to help the President achieve his goals.

Great news here!

"do the networks actually own their networks"

Sure no argument that they own their own networks.
However they don't own my network nor do they own the other networks they connect me too.
At present they are a "Common Carrier" and their job is to ship the information in a non discriminatory fashion .
What they are trying to do is to change the rules so they become gatekeepers to the WEB .If they get their way Someone will have finally succeeded in charging admission to the Internet.

Where is this "job" defined?

In the Law Books

Common Carrier

A government-regulated organization that provides telecommunications services for public use, such as AT&T, the telephone companies, MCI and Western Union. Contrast with private carrier.

An individual or business that advertises to the public that it is available for hire to transport people or property in exchange for a fee.

A common carrier is legally bound to carry all passengers or freight as long as there is enough space, the fee is paid, and no reasonable grounds to refuse to do so exist. A common carrier that unjustifiably refuses to carry a particular person or cargo may be sued for damages.

The states regulate common carriers engaged in business within their borders. When interstate or foreign transportation is involved, the federal government, by virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, regulates the activities of such carriers. A common carrier may establish reasonable regulations for the efficient operation and maintenance of its business.

"Do you also believe TV news channels, such as Fox News, should carry political views in a "non-discriminatory fashion", a la The Fairness Doctrine?"

God Forbid .
Bite your tongue.

That is exactly why I am against this legislation if enacted Comcast and Verizon will be allowed to discriminate on whose signals they allow through.
It will be possible for them to let CNN traffic thru easily while blocking Fox News

Google is giving $1M to MoveOn.org?

Whatever one thinks of the "net neutrality" issue (for which the money ostensibly is to be used), do I really want to use a search engine that gives 2-comma figures of money to MoveOn.org?

Hell no.

What is a non-leftist alternative to Google?

Well, I'd say Yahoo, but they are deeply indebted to this fight as well. When can we stop pretending that some folks are simply trying to influence government "for the good of the people". Everything is money, be it the free market or governmental regulation. The only difference is that the free market is beholden to consumers while the government is beholden to the special interests.

What’s the big deal? If Google wants to be given top billing by Verizon ISPs, they need to pay for it. If they don’t want to pay, Verizon won’t just ignore them or cut them off, they just wont be the top dog. The 1996 Telecom Act set out to destroy corporate monopolies and give consumers the FREEDOM to select which company/which services they want. Why should the government dictate what a certain internet provider should provide to their own customers? Nothing neutral about that!

I am against any legislation that gets the government more involved in the internet. Net Neutrality would slow down the innovation on the rapidly evovling internet. Let the market decide what companies win this battle, then we can see if there are any adverse effects to deal with.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.