Comcast Executives Give Big to Biden

(Click to enlarge)

by Thomas Neuburger

It's easy to make the obvious connection between MSNBC's owner Comcast and the deplorable (yes, that word again) behavior of its hosts and invited guests. It beggars thought not to make it.

Still, details — tangible connections — are sometimes lacking. Yes, there was the financing of the 2016 Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. But what about this cycle?

Here to help inform us is Sludge (yes, a real name and a good site):

MSNBC’s Owners Shower Biden With Campaign Cash

94% of Comcast executives’ and vice presidents’ contributions to Democratic presidential candidates have gone to Joe Biden, a Sludge review of FEC records finds.

The most influential cable news channel among liberals, MSNBC, has a habit of taking cheap shots against one of the leading Democratic presidential contenders.

According to prime time host Chris Matthews, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) is not the type of person who would help you if you were lying on the side of the road injured. A self-proclaimed body language expert who was a guest of weekend host Joy Reid speculated that Sanders lied during the most recent debate because of the 78-year-old candidate’s slouched posture. “He turtles,” the guest said. “His eye level is below his shoulders. This is trying to hide in plain sight.”

The prime-time hosts have done much worse since this piece was written in January. But can we draw a line between the behavior of MSNBC and the behavior of its owner?

Yes, we can:

A Sludge review of Federal Election Commission records shows Biden is the preferred candidate of the station’s owners, the behemoth Comcast Corporation.

Biden has received 17 large campaign contributions from executives and vice presidents at Comcast, including eight for the legal maximum of $2,800. Of all the other candidates still in the race, only South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg has received any Comcast executive contributions—Buttigieg received a single contribution from Comcast Managing Director Amy Banse.

In addition, Comcast’s top lobbyist, David Cohen, co-hosted Biden’s kick-off fundraiser in April and he is listed as a bundler for the campaign, meaning that he has collected at least $25,000 in contributions from others for Biden.

The chart at the top shows the full list of Comcast's executives' financial support of Biden's campaign as of the date of publication, excluding super PAC and dark money support, of course.

The reason for this all-for-Biden teamwork should also be obvious. Aside from the usual corporate animus (actually hatred) for Sanders and his policies, there's an issue dear to Comcast's cold corporate heart that Biden is particularly good on and Sanders is particularly bad on — net neutrality. Read the rest of the Sludge piece for the details.

All in all, Comcast love is a sweet deal for Biden and his campaign. He may have his own network again. All he needs now to do is look viable after the next few races and he's back in business.
 

Deadline: Friday-- Net Neutraility Is On The Line... Who To Call NOW

On Friday, the House goes home for the year and this Congress is over. The Resolution for "Restoring Net Neutrality" (H.R. 873) will die. On May 7, Paul Ryan sent it to die in the Rules Committee, where it has languished ever since. Ten days later, Mike Doyle (D-PA), backed by Jerry McNerney (D-CA), moved to discharge the Rules Committee from consideration of the bill and just move it right to the floor of the House for a vote ("Restoring Internet Freedom"). Democrats started signing onto the discharge petition in droves. By the following day, 90 had signed on. By the end of May, the number was 124.

In the last few days, I talked about this quite a bit with Ro Khanna, who represents much of the Silicon Valley, and who is pushing very hard for the discharge petition and the urgent issues behind it. He seemed frustrated that some of his colleagues don't seem interested in helping. "This is such a fundamental issue," he told me yesterday. "To support net neutrality is to support the freedom of expression for everyone on the internet and to prevent the internet from being hijacked by monopolies and oligarchs. Every Democrat should be for this principle."

It's important to remember that by this point, the Senate passed-- with the help of 3 Republicans (Collins of Maine, Murkowski of Alaska and Kennedy of Louisiana)-- legislation to repeal the FCC’s dismantling of net neutrality regulations and reinstate net neutrality, 52-47.

By the end of June it was 175 signatures (all Democrats). Finally on July 17th, Doyle got his first Republican-- Mike Coffman of Colorado, the 177th member to sign. In November there were special elections to fill seats of Republicans who've already left the House. Unlike other freshmen, they can vote and they can sign discharge petitions. Joe Morelle (D-NY), Susan Wild (D-PA) and Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) signed on. There are now 182 of the 218 votes needed to save Net Neutrailty. 36 to go. Do you want to help? It rarely happens that just plain ole citizens can make the difference, but this time is different.

First, keep in mind, this is about the outgoing Congress, not the newly elected one that starts in January. If, for example, you live in AZ-09-- Mesa, Chandler, Tempe, or the Camelback East section of Phoenix-- you might think, oh, this will be easy; I can just call Greg Stanton and ask him to sign... Unfortunately, even though vicious reactionary psychopath Kyrsten Sinema was elected to the Senate, you still have to get the vicious reactionary psychopath to change her mind on this. That's right... it's still Sinema, not Stanton whose signature is needed. So far she's refused. (She's a monster. Schumer should be tarred and feathered for engineering her rise to the Senate, but that's another story.)

As far as I can tell, aside from the vicious reactionary psychopath there are 11 other Democrats needed to save this-- and some Republicans. Let's start with the Democrats. These are the ones who could save net neutrality but who have refused. for one reason or another. In a few cases money has changed hands, but all of the Democrats need to hear from their constituents starting today and for every day until the end of the week:

• California Blue Dog Jim Costa-- Fresno, Merced, Madera, Chowchilla, Los Banos, Atwater
• Illinois Blue Dog Brad Schneider-- North Shore Chicagoland from Glencoe and Northbrook all the way past Highland Park and Waukegan to Zion and the Wisconsin border and island to Niles, Mundelein, Vernon Hills, Lindenhurst, Deerfield and Wheeling
• Indiana Democrat Pete Visclosky-- Gary, Hammond, Portage, Michigan City, Valparaiso, Cedar Lake, Winfield
• New Jersey Blue Dog Josh Gottheimer-- northern Bergen County from Hackensack, Paramus and Bergenfield, across Passaic, Sussex and down into Warren County.
• North Carolina Democrat G.K. Butterfield-- Durham, Greenville, Rocky Mount, Tarboro, Littleton, Lasker, Henderson
• Pennsylvania Democrat Matt Cartwright- Lackawanna, Wayne, Pike counties and most of Monroe and Luzerne counties (Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Milford, Honesdale)*
• Pennsylvania New Dem Brendan Boyle- Philadelphia (northern and eastern)
• retiring Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Brady- Philadelphia
• Pennsylvania Democrat Dwight Evans- Philadelphia (southern and western)
• retiring Texas Democrat Gene Green- east Houston, Pasadena, South Houston, Galena Park
• Texas Blue Dog Filemon Vela-- Brownsville, east McAllen, Harlingen, Weslaco, San Benito, Kingsville, Alice, Goliad, Beeville, Cuero

So what about Republicans? Maybe some of the ones who are not coming back in January? Anyone living in Arizona could try persuading Martha McSally since she was just appointed to the Senate but can still sign the discharge petition, something that would probably help her with independents and moderates in the special election she's going to have to face. Approachable Republicans who lost and might be persuadable:

• Jeff Denham (CA-10)- Modesto, Turlock, Tracy, Mateca, Patterson
• David Valadao (CA-21)- Bakersfield, Fresno, Wasco, Delano, Hanford, Coalinga, Kerman
• Ed Royce (CA-39)- Hacienda Heights, Rowland Heights, La Habra, Diamond Bar, Buena Park, Yorba Linda, Fullerton, Placentia, Chino Hills
• Mimi Walters (CA-45)- Irvine, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, Lake Forest, Villa Park, Anaheim Hills, Lake Forest
• Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)- Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach
• Darrell Issa (CA-49)- San Diego, San Clemente, Oceanside, Vista, Escondido, Encinitas
• Carlos Curbelo (FL-26)- South Florida
• Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27)- South Florida
• Pete Roskam (IL-06)- Chicago collar counties Lake, DuPage, Kane, McHenry
• Randy Hultgren (IL-14)- further out Chicago collar counties McHenry, Kane, DeKalb, Will, Kendall
• David Young (IA-03)- Des Moines, Indianola, Winterset, Clarinda, Omaha suburbs
• Kevin Yoder (KS-03)- Johnson and Wyandotte counties (Kansas City and suburbs)
• Bruce Poliquin (ME-02)- Lewiston, Bangor, Farmington, Caribou, Presque Isle, Millinocket, Ellsworth, Skowhegan, Rumford, Bar Harbor
• Mike Bishop (MI-08)- Lansing and all of Ingraham and Livingston counties
• Dave Trott MI-11)- Detroit's western suburbs- central Oakland and northern Wayne counties
• Erik Paulsen (MN-03)- Minneapolis suburbs- Bloomington, Minnetonka, Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove, Eden Prairie
• Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)- south Jersey including Atlantic City, Millville and Wilmington suburbs
• Leonard Lance (NJ-07)- Somerset, Union, Hunterdon counties
• Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ-11)- Essex and Morris counties
• Dan Donovan (NY-11)- Staten Island and South Brooklyn (from Ave P and E ast15th Street through Gravesend, Bensonhurst, Bath Beach, Ft Hamilton, Dyker Heights and Bay Ridge
• John Faso (NY-19)- Central Hudson Valley and the Catskills-- Oneonta, Fallsburg, northern and western Poughkeepsie suburbs, Kingston, Brunswick
• Steve Russell (OK-05)- Oklahoma City
• Ryan Costello (PA-06)- suburbs west of Philly
• John Culberson (TX-07)- west Houston
• Mia Love (UT-04)- suburbs south of Salt Lake City and southwest of Provo
• Barbara Comstock (VA-10)- Loudon and Fairfax counties-- Manassas, Chantilly, McLean, Leesburg, Winchester
• Dave Reichert (WA-08)- outer suburbs of Seattle and Tacoma, Ellensburg, Wenatchee, Leavensworth

Each pitch has got to be tailored to the member leaving the House. Some might want to run again (like Mimi Walters in her old district or Darrell Issa in a neighboring district); some might want too run statewide; some are just sick of it and hate Trump and the GOP. Some might just want to do the right thing for people so they don't get spat on in the grocery store. Anyone who took big bribes from Comcast, might pose a special, though not insurmountable, problem.




* Since I used to live in the district and because Matt is a friend and because Blue America helped him win his primary against a reactionary Blue Dog, I followed up on this one myself. This is what he told me: "I support net neutrality 100%. What I do not support is the use of the Congressional Review Act. The CRA, which was enacted as part of Newt Gingrich‘s Contract on America, was designed to be a tool to do nothing but benefit corporations and attack the rights and safety of ordinary Americans. In practice, that is exactly what the CRA has been used exclusively for-- to remove environmental protections, stymie investors’ rights, damage labor rights, eviscerate consumer product safety safeguards and repeal all sorts of regulations that were properly enacted and in place to benefit the people of this nation. I am a proud cosponsor of the House version of Sen. Booker’s bill, the SCRAP Act, which would end the use of this pernicious anti-regulatory device. My own view is that we should not sully our efforts to ensure net neutrality by becoming complicit in the use this terrible thing, the Congressional Review Act."

Verizon Throttled Firefighters' Data As Mendocino Wildfire Burned

Thomas Middleditch, actor and star of the hit series Silicon Valley, taking "sellout money" (his phrase) and shilling for Verizon, the company most strongly associated with killing net neutrality

by Gaius Publius

There's no way to sugarcoat this. As one commenter noted, this is "pure evil."

It looks like Verizon, already the greedy face of the death of net neutrality, throttled the data speed of California fire-fighting equipment during a 300-arce wildfire in an attempt to force them to upgrade to a more expensive data plan.

During a 300-acre wildfire.

Sounds like blackmail for money to me, with lives and homes held hostage. ArsTechnica tells the story. Since their focus in on the net neutrality angle, I'll present what they present in a little different order (emphasis mine throughout).

Start here:

"County Fire has experienced throttling by its ISP, Verizon," Santa Clara County Fire Chief Anthony Bowden wrote in a declaration. "This throttling has had a significant impact on our ability to provide emergency services. Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services."

[...]

"In the midst of our response to the Mendocino Complex Fire, County Fire discovered the data connection for OES 5262 [the county's command-and-control vehicle for in-the-field firefighting] was being throttled by Verizon, and data rates had been reduced to 1/200, or less, than the previous speeds," Bowden wrote. "These reduced speeds severely interfered with the OES 5262's ability to function effectively. My Information Technology staff communicated directly with Verizon via email about the throttling, requesting it be immediately lifted for public safety purposes."

Verizon did not immediately restore full speeds to the device, however.

"Verizon representatives confirmed the throttling, but rather than restoring us to an essential data transfer speed, they indicated that County Fire would have to switch to a new data plan at more than twice the cost, and they would only remove throttling after we contacted the Department that handles billing and switched to the new data plan," Bowden wrote.

All "in the midst of our response to the Mendocino Complex Fire."

This is not the first time Verizon has done this to the Santa Clara County Fire department, and the department anticipates it won't be the last:

Verizon throttling also affected the department in a response to previous fires in December and June, emails show.

Bowden argued that Verizon is likely to keep taking advantage of emergencies in order to push public safety agencies onto more expensive plans.

"In light of our experience, County Fire believes it is likely that Verizon will continue to use the exigent nature of public safety emergencies and catastrophic events to coerce public agencies into higher-cost plans, ultimately paying significantly more for mission-critical service—even if that means risking harm to public safety during negotiations," Bowden wrote.

In other words, this is part of the plan — disaster capitalism, county by county.

Psychopathic Corporate Capitalism

It's difficult to use a word like "psychopathic" to describe this behavior and still be taken seriously, but it's hard not to use it too. Among the characteristics of psychopathic behavior are these: "antisocial violence, a selfish world view that precludes the welfare of others, a lack of remorse or guilt, and blame externalization."

Verizon's "antisocial violence" is clear, as is their world view, which "precludes the welfare of others." As for "blame externalization," this was their initial response:

Verizon also noted that the fire department purchased a data service plan that is slowed down after a data usage threshold is reached. But Verizon said it "made a mistake" in communicating with the department about the terms of the plan.

"We made a mistake in how we communicated with our customer about the terms of its plan," Verizon said. "Like all customers, fire departments choose service plans that are best for them. This customer purchased a government contract plan for a high-speed wireless data allotment at a set monthly cost. Under this plan, users get an unlimited amount of data but speeds are reduced when they exceed their allotment until the next billing cycle."

In the meantime, here's what their serial "mistakes" make worse:

Ranch fire takes another 4,000 acres for new acreage total of 361,562 

The Mendocino Complex fires now are at 410,482 acres, having added about 4,000 acres to the total Tuesday night into Wednesday.

The newly burned acreage, part of the gargantuan Ranch fire, is an incremental increase to the combined totals of the Ranch and River fires. The two fires took off in late July and raced east into and across Lake County, threatening numerous towns and communities and burning at least 157 homes. One firefighter has been killed.

Cal Fire officials early Wednesday reported the added acreage came in the Ranch fire’s north and northeastern sections. Some of the growth came from backfiring operations by firefighters. More backfiring was slated for Wednesday if weather allowed.

Containment on the Ranch fire, which is at 361,562 acres, remained at 67 percent. Cal Fire officials still are looking at Sept. 1 for full containment.

By the way, human beings at Verizon did this; corporations are just buildings and paperwork. I don't think a legal construct, acting alone and in secret, pulled those switches and shut down their data feeds. Policy start with a person saying yes.

As I said, it's hard not to use "that word" for this behavior. Ask yourself how the law would react if a living person had acted in this way. Then ask what the newspapers would call him.

The Net Neutrality Angle

Now the net neutrality angle, which ArsTechnica featured up front in the story:

Bowden's declaration was submitted in an addendum to a brief filed by 22 state attorneys general, the District of Columbia, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, and the California Public Utilities Commission. The government agencies are seeking to overturn the recent repeal of net neutrality rules in a lawsuit they filed against the Federal Communications Commission in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Verizon did say something about whether the throttling had anything to do with net neutrality. They said it didn't:

Update: The Santa Clara fire department has responded to Verizon's claim that the throttling was just a customer service error and "has nothing to do with net neutrality." To the contrary, "Verizon's throttling has everything to do with net neutrality," a county official said.

The death of net neutrality — which Verizon and its former counsel (and now FCC chair) Ajit Pai want desperately to bring about — is all about money, very large piles of it. And while this (that word) industry successfully killed net neutrality at the federal level, the issue is very much alive in California:

California’s net neutrality bill is back and as tough as ever

California lawmakers will be moving forward with tough provisions in a legislative proposal that could turn into one of the most ambitious net neutrality laws in the country. [...]

“This will be the most comprehensive and the strongest net neutrality protection in the United States, where we are restoring what we lost when Donald Trump’s FCC obliterated net neutrality,” [state Sen. Scott] Wiener told reporters Thursday, referring to the Federal Communications Commission’s decision last year to repeal its national-level regulations for Internet service providers.

The California proposal goes further than the defunct federal rules. The revised bill will contain tougher language that not only bans Internet service providers from blocking and slowing websites, but, for example, it will also ban “abusive” forms of a practice known as zero-rating, the lawmakers said. Zero-rating occurs when an ISP exempts its own apps and services from customer data caps but counts other app usage against those monthly limits.

Which takes us back to Thomas Middleditch, the cool new Verizon spokesman. You probably love him if you like the cool series Silicon Valley. Verizon bought his services so his cool lovable persona would rub off on them, and he happily sold his services to them. 

Interestingly, Middleditch called their cash "sellout money" in this glowing interview with the New York Times:

Did you ever expect that playing [Richard on Silicon Valley] would also land you a Verizon endorsement deal?

Ten, 15 years ago, if you were on a successful TV show or in a movie, and you did a commercial, everyone would go, “Oh, his career’s over.” But now, it’s the opposite. Studios look at it and go, this major corporation put a ton of money behind this person — he must be marketable. You get your sellout money and a nod from studios.

I don't for a minute think his is behavior could be characterized by ... that word. He just sounds clueless. Dangerous, of course, given the rest of this story, but clueless in that Hollywood way.

Maybe someone should talk with him about his choices. Yes, the cash is good, but cash isn't everything — unless you're (that word) Verizon, who pays him to cover for their crimes. Which he does.

GP
 

Net Neutrality Takes A Hit In California-- An Object Lesson About Why We've Got To Get Bribery Out Of Politics

Kevin Jang vs Miguel Santiago

Do you recall when California's state Senate president, Kevin de León, successfully piloted a Medicare-for-All bill through his chamber of the legislature just to see the more conservative-- Democratic controlled but conservative-- Assembly kill it? The Assembly just did the same thing to net neutrality. De León got a model net neutrality bill through the state Senate, just to watch the Assembly destroy it. How does that happen in such a blue state? Oh, yes... glad you asked. So did Marguerite Reardon and Roger Cheng after they came to the conclusion that California will not be the poster child for the nation's strongest set of net neutrality protections." A crooked bribe-taking Democrat from Los Angeles, Miguel Santiago, chairman of the Assembly's Communications and Conveyance Committee, is the primary culprit here. Content providers-- with AT&T and Comcast leading the way-- have spent $60,000 bribing Santiago. Santiago's district is so blue that Republicans don't even run there. Last cycle he was up against another Democrat, Sandra Mendoza, who he beat 50,958 (58.2%) to 36,583 (41.8%)-- but that was before he made a spectacle of himself by killing genuine net neutrality. His changes to the Senate bill create loopholes through which broadband providers could charge fees to content providers while exempting their own content from any data caps.

"Lawmakers in the state Assembly," wrote Reardon and Cheng, "voted to cut many of the bill's most powerful provisions. The vote on Wednesday in a California Assembly committee hearing advanced a bill that implements some net neutrality protections, but it scaled back all the measures of the bill that had gone beyond the rules outlined in the Federal Communications Commission's 2015 regulation, which was officially taken off the books by the Trump Administration's commission last week. In a surprise move, the vote happened before the hearing officially started, after which the committee listened to public feedback. 

"It is, with the amendments, a fake net neutrality bill," said Sen. Scott Wiener from San Francisco, who introduced the original bill. He said the amendments "mutilated" the rules.

The move is a major blow to Democrats in Congress and in state houses across the country, who were looking to California to set a high standard, as they push to reinstate strong net neutrality protections to replace the Obama-era rules the Republican-led FCC voted to eliminate. 

"It sends exactly the wrong message to other lawmakers across the country," said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future. "And it's an embarrassment for both the Democratic party and the California State Legislature as a whole."

California's bill was considered the "gold standard" in net neutrality protections, because it went beyond the FCC's 2015 net neutrality "bright line" rules by including provisions like a ban on zero-rating, a business practice that allows broadband providers like AT&T to exempt their own services from their monthly wireless data caps, while services from competitors are counted against those limits. The result is a market controlled by internet service providers like AT&T, who can shut out the competition by creating an economic disadvantage for those competitors through its wireless service plans.

Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, a Democrat from Los Angeles, expressed concern that the bill went too far and could have hurt consumers who would benefit in the short term from perks like zero-rated plans. He also worried the strict rules would hurt investment from broadband and wireless companies, which would be prohibited from experimenting with new business models in a changing market.

During the hearing, Santiago compared internet access to a bridge connecting a village, noting that he doesn't see an issue with the bridge operator setting up fast lanes. He added that additional regulations would stymie the creation of new bridges, which he argued would result in lower tolls for everyone.

But critics like Fight For the Future say Santiago caved to pressure from industry lobbyists who had donated thousands of dollars to his campaigns.

Santiago denied those allegations.

"This is the legislative process at work," he said in an email. "Any suggestions of actions taken today somehow being otherwise motivated are irresponsible, at best and insulting beyond that."

In a prepared statement, he said he was concerned by "Trump's rollback" of the net neutrality regulations. He added that, "California should once again stand as a back-stop of 'the resistance' by beating back both Trump's administration and the billion-dollar corporations he's trying to protect." And he explained that's why he supports the amended bill, which he said he is certain will eventually be challenged in court by the industry.

"Make no mistake," he added. "The industry supports Trump's actions and will do everything they can to sue and block implementation of net neutrality in California. When that happens, we will fight back."

An AT&T representative said he opposed the Wiener bill and defended the practice of zero-rated plans. He kicked off his comments during the hearing with the company's vow that it would not degrade high-speed internet service, and argued that the California bill, as it originally stood, went far beyond the Obama-era FCC's 2015 net neutrality order.

"There's no presentation of evidence of an actual problem," he said. "You're not blocked."

Steve Carlson, speaking for the CTIA wireless trade group at the hearing, said he opposed the bill both in its original and amended form, arguing both bills go beyond the 2015 order. He called the fears over the lack of net neutrality laws "alarmist speculation."

Wiener attempted to pull the bill from further consideration, but the committee overrode his decision and opted to continue the process of turning the amended bill into law.

Sen. Kevin de León had introduced a second net neutrality bill, and de León and Wiener had plans to combine the bills. The committee denied amendments that would have linked the bills, so they could be considered together.  Sen. de León wasn't present at Wednesday's hearing and his bill was never mentioned during the proceeding. A spokesman for the senator offered this statement: "I am very disappointed in the outcome of today's hearing in the Assembly Communications Committee. However, Senator Wiener and I are committed to continue working with all parties to protect consumers and Net Neutrality in California."

Sen. de León withdrew his bill when the committee indicated they would add the same amendments as Wiener's bill, according to a person familiar with de León's thinking.

This cycle, Santiago came in first in the low-turnout primary-- 15,513 votes (70%)-- and Kevin Jang came in second with 3,551 votes (16%). In 2016 Hillary beat Trump in the district 84.8% to 9.6%. The district, which is 68.32% Latino and 18.25% Asian, includes Boyle Heights, Westlake, Pico-Union, Vernon, Little Tokyo, Huntington Park and much of Downtown and Koreatown. If I lived there I'd vote for Kevin Jang in November. Asked about the net neutrality debacle, Kevin said he doesn't "understand why [Santiago] did it in favor of AT&T and Comcast, not district people. He refused to pass the law that can (1) benefit low-income people, and (2) prevent AT&T and Comcast to control the mass media directly and indirectly. California's State Net Neturality Law (original version) could show California as the most progressive state to pass, and it will give a big sign on a national level. This is not just a local district or state issue, rather it is national. He is totally going against a Democratic movement. I strongly oppose what Miguel Santiago did to the original net neutrality law." There is no other way to teach entrenched, corrupt Democrats a lesson and the fact that Santiago's opponent is a progressive Democrat really makes it a no-brainer.

No More Net Neutrality-- But The Impact Won't Be Felt Until AFTER November To Protect Republicans

But will the issue persuade voters to defeat the GOP?

In 2005 the FCC had a Republican chair, Kathleen Abernathy, a Republican, but not a Trumpist crackpot like Ajit Pai, the current chair. Abernathy's FCC adopted the principles of net neutrality "to preserve and promote the vibrant and open character of the Internet as the telecommunications marketplace enters the broadband age." 18 years later and the Trumpist Republican Party is no longer remotely interested in preserving and promoting the vibrant and open character of the Internet. They're interested in seeing what they can squeeze out of the Internet service providers in bribes.

Between 2005 and 2012, five attempts to pass bills in Congress containing net neutrality provisions failed. Proponents claimed that these bills would preserve the open Internet that consumer groups sought, and to prohibit Internet service providers from using various variable pricing models based upon the user's quality of service level, described as tiered service in the industry and as price discrimination arising from abuse of "local monopolies enshrined in law" by some economists. Opponents claimed that these bills would have benefited industry lobbyists instead of consumers due to the potential of regulatory capture with policies that protect incumbent interests and that the bills were a transparent attempt to establish US government control over the Internet.

Pai's anti-net neutrality agenda went into effect yesterday, despite the fact that recent polling shows that 83% of voters support keeping the rules on net neutrality, including 75% of Republican voters, 89% of Democratic voters, and 86% of independent voters.

The last time there was serious consideration in the House in was Ed Markey's 2009 Internet Freedom Preservation Act (H.R. 3458). Boehner had it buried in Fred Upton's Energy and Commerce Committee so that it would never have to be voted on, and so Republican congressmembers would never be forced to vote against something the GOP base overwhelmingly supported, not to mention 86% of independents.

Last month the Senate voted, 52-47, Susan Collins (ME), John Kennedy (LA) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) voting with every Democrat, to overturn the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which which went into effect yesterday, taking net neutrality rules off the books.

To make it work in the House-- where Paul Ryan opposes net neutrality-- a majority on the House would have to sign a discharge petition. meaning every Democrat (already a stretch in the House) plus 22 Republicans. And then it would have to be signed by Trumpanzee! Mike Doyle (D-PA) is leading the charge. Some of the worst and most corrupt Blue Dogs are dragging their feet, including many of the hardcore members of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party: Henry Cuellar (TX), Filemon Vela (TX), Jim Costa (CA) Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), bribe taking machine Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Tom Halleran (AZ) and Stephanie Murphy (FL). And, of course, no Republican signed on either.

Chuck Schumer, who personally recruited Blue Dog chairman Kyrsten Sinema, who refused to sign the discharge position and votes with the GOP most of the time, is seeking to profit politically from the disaster: "It's now as clear as day to every American that-- with the exception of three Republicans in the Senate-- their Republican representatives in the Congress chose to protect special interests and the biggest corporates over middle-class families, average consumers, entrepreneurs and anyone who relies on the free and open internet. Every Republican who opposed this vote will own any and all of the damaging consequences of the FCC's horribly misguided decision."

Yesterday Levi Tillemann sent this message to residents in suburban Denver where he's sunning for the seat (CO-06) occupied by GOP-tool Mike Coffman. "Today is a sad day for all Americans who care passionately about a free Internet. The Internet was the result of government investments in risky, cutting edge R&D-- investments that the private sector never would have touched. Well, Donald Trump's FCC Chairman Ajit Pai just gave away the internet to special interests by ending 'net neutrality.' Net neutrality protects equal access to the Internet for all Americans-- not just those who can pay extra. When I go to Congress I’ll fight to roll back Ajit Pai’s disastrous policy. Help us fight for the future of the free internet by contributing today. (In case you're interested, here's a speech I gave at a rally for net neutrality from few months back.)"

We asked Mike DeVito, the progressive Democrat running for the Staten Island seat Dan Donovan is currently holding, how this plays out in his district. This is what he told us:

In areas of NY-11 (Staten Island and South Brooklyn), Charter/Spectrum is the only ISP game in town. That's the corporation that is trying to starve 1,800 IBEW Local 3 Union workers to death.  Our brothers and sisters walked out because of unfair labor practices, and have been out on strike for 441 days as of today.  But a huge aspect of the labor practices for which they walked out were about the company's lies to customers about Internet speeds and equipment capacity.

People want what they pay for and what they are promised. Net Neutrality is designed to protect people from deceptive practices like these.

It is no surprise that the sitting GOP Congressman in this district takes money from Charter/Spectrum. But when a Democrat also works against Net Neutrality, it's critical to hold him accountable. The Blue Dog Democrat who is my opponent in this race has an agreement with Joe Crowley and has taken money from the Joe PAC which also includes union busting Charter/Spectrum money.

The Blue Dog PAC which gives money to the establishment Democrat in this race is also funded by the NCTA-- the Internet and Television Association, which is a trade group for telecom companies that promote anti-regulation, oppose net neutrality and used an Alec-written bill to lobby against municipal broadband.

As a progressive, I believe we need to move swiftly to municipal broadband. We live in an age where it is impossible to participate in society without regular, reliable access to the internet. Having to pay for access to vital information directly affects the economic stability and mobility of everyone who cannot afford it, perpetuating cycles of struggle and poverty.

Of course these huge conglomerates are not going to simply relinquish control, and there is only one way to take them out. That's to vote them out. Vote out anyone who can be confirmed to have taken a dime from a corporation, and put a stop to the election of any candidate who does likewise before they rise to make consequential decisions for the rest of us.

It is time to stop the hypocrisy and obstruction of progress. It's time to be better, and demand better.

GOP Congressional Rank And File Starting To Crack On Popular Democratic Initiatives

It looks like Republican congressional leaders are starting to lose control of their nervous caucuses.

Yesterday the Senate passed a Democratic pro-net neutrality bill. All 49 Democrats plus three Republicans-- Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK) and John Kennedy (LA)-- voted for the very popular bill, while McConnell and 46 other Republicans voted against it. Dean Heller (R-NV), who will face Nevada voters in November and was wavering, decided to vote against it at the last minute. He's a notorious coward.

Meanwhile, over in the House, Ryan is getting frantic about the threat of the House passing a discharge petition in order two move popular DACA legislation that he's been blocking. He called a GOP conference meeting to warn his members not to vote for it as two more members-- John Katko of Syracuse and Dave Trott from the suburbs north of Detroit added their names to the petition, bringing the total to 20, just 5 away from the 25 needed.

As The Hill pointed out, "Discharge petitions are almost never successful, since they require members of the majority party to buck their own party brass and force votes on legislation that leaders would prefer to keep off the floor. And Ryan on Wednesday warned his troops against the discharge petition strategy, arguing that it empowers the minority Democrats.

“We do not agree with discharge petitions; we think they are a mistake. They dis-unify our majority,” Ryan said during his own press conference in the Capitol. “Members of our majority fall into different camps, and they want a solution on DACA, and they want a solution on the border and the security issues, so we want to accommodate all of that.”

Katko and Trott responded to Ryan's mealy-mouthed whining by signing on. As we noted last week, the Republicans leading the charge-- Carlos Curbelo (FL), Jeff Denham (CA), David Valadao (CA) and Will Hurd (TX)-- are in Hispanic-majority or plurality districts. Valadao, for example, represents a district where 75.6% of the population is Hispanic. Curbelo's is 74.0% and Hurd's is 72.2%. The only reason any of them are in Congress is sheer incompetence from the DCCC. At that time, the discharge petition had been signed by the 4 of them plus Mario Diaz-Balart (FL), Mia Love (UT), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Charlie Dent (PA), Fred Upton (MI), Dave Reichert (WA), Mike Coffman (CO), Chris Collins (NY), John Faso (NY), Mark Amodei (NV), Elise Stefanik (NY), Leonard Lance (NJ) and Ryan Costello (PA). Yesterday, Pelosi noted that there are already the 25 requisite numbers but that "But in order to save face for the Speaker, [they want to] let him have it his discretion to bring it up."

Later Wednesday Ryan called a meeting of the whole Republican conference and warned them not to move ahead with a discharge petition to force an immigration vote, saying the effort would effectively hand over power to the Democrats, according to lawmakers who attended the closed-door meeting.

“They said it’s a lot better to stick together as team than a few guys trying to do their own thing with a bill that simply switches the power over to the other party,” Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) told The Hill. “It turns the floor over to them.”

Leaders also said that the “the governing majority should be able to accomplish its agenda without resorting to discharge,” said Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR). “That’s fundamental to governing.”

After the meeting, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) reiterated his opposition to the discharge petition.

"Obviously, we do not agree with discharge petitions. We think they are a mistake. They disunify our majority," Ryan told reporters during his weekly press conference. "There are members of our majority [who] fall into different camps, and they want a solution on [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals], and they want a solution on the border and the security issues, so we want to accommodate all of that."

"We don't want to advance something that won't become law and just get vetoed even if it made it to the president's desk. We want to advance something that has a chance of going into law that the president supports. That's why we met with the president [yesterday]."

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) pushed back against the notion that the move would empower the minority, pointing out that Ryan would be able to bring up an immigration bill of his choosing under the petition.

“It takes away the argument that the majority loses control of the floor. The Speaker is allowed to bring up whatever bill he wants,” Upton said after the meeting. “You don’t really lose control of the floor, because you’re allowed to bring up whatever proposal you want, and you let the chips fall where they may.”

Ryan and his top lieutenants are facing intense pressure from members to bring immigration legislation to the floor.

Early this morning, Politico noted that Ryan, McCarthy and Scalise are "in the middle of an immigration nightmare" and losing control of their own conference. The 3 bozos "spent this week trying to get Republicans to not sign a discharge petition that would open the House floor to a wide-ranging immigration debate. As of now, it's been a failure... [That Republicans] are openly defying their own leadership is relatively stunning. McCarthy has made the argument that an immigration vote could cost Republicans the majority. That clearly isn’t resonating... The people signing the petition-- McCarthy’s close friend Jeff Denham of California, among them-- have waited years for a bill, and frankly have no incentive to believe any leadership-backed effort until it’s imminent.

Ryan and his leadership team are in search of a deal to get around the discharge petition. The only way they can do that is to find another compromise which has 218-- and that compromise can also do away with the discharge petition. We're not sure what that deal would look like, since Republicans have whiffed on immigration for nearly a decade. But any deal would have to be a White House-backed effort, and would have to be a middle-of-the-road compromise since Ryan says he wants any bill he puts on the floor to get signed into law. MAKE NO MISTAKE this is a mess for the GOP.

One last point: Because of Ryan’s mid-year retirement announcement, McCarthy and Scalise both have to play this immigration situation really carefully. They are both effectively in the middle of a leadership election, whether they’d care to admit it or not.

Democratic congressional candidates are pointing out this anarchy and the inability of the Republicans to get anything done. In the crowded Democratic primary in northeast Orange County (CA-39), Sam Jammal is the only non-self-funding-multimillionaire and the only candidate who lives in the district. He told us that "It's great to see that rank and file Republicans are seeing that their agenda is failing and they need to support common sense policies like net neutrality and DACA. It seems that when it comes to House Republicans, they are either retiring or grasping for any sort of lifeline. It won't be enough in November, but it is good to see that the clear public consensus on DACA is breaking through. For net neutrality, it's a huge sign of progress that the Senate passed net neutrality legislation. It shows that Democrats and a handful of Republicans are willing to say no to the telecoms when it comes to protecting a free and open internet. This is huge progress, though we have work ahead to actually codify this bill."

Ricardo Franco is also running for Congress in California, but in a Central Valley district (CA-22)-- and against national arch-villain Devin Nunes. "Net neutrality and DACA," he told us this morning, "go to the heart of our rural communities in our district. Many of our constituents lack access to high speed internet and many communities are afraid of law enforcement due to rumors ICE is arresting everyone during their raids. This is costing people needless stress and businesses money. This district is almost half Latino and our progressive message of restoring the middle class is getting a great response with voters. At this point, the GOP and Nunes could go the way of elevator operators." Please consider clicking on the Bluer California thermometer above and take a look at who the progressive candidates are in the Golden State. None of these are DCCC candidates and they can use some netroots help.

Tomorrow-- Big Vote On Net Neutrality

As you probably know, Senate Democrats are going to force a vote of new neutrality tomorrow> The goal is to repeal anti-neutrality changes recently adopted by the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission. CNN reported that the repeal is backed by all 49 Democrats and Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and that it's expected to pass in the Senate tomorrow. The problem, of course, is in the GOP-led House. And even if it were to pass the House, Trump would never sign it.

Democrats argue the new rules give too much power to Internet service providers, whom they fear will throttle down Internet speeds for some websites and services while ramping it up for others who pay more for faster speeds.

"The internet should be kept free and open like our highways, accessible and affordable to every American, regardless of ability to pay" said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, in a statement announcing Democrats would force the vote, utilizing a rarely-used discharge petition. "The repeal of net neutrality is not only a blow to the average consumer, but it is a blow to public schools, rural Americans, communities of color and small businesses. A vote against this resolution will be a vote to protect large corporations and special interests, leaving the American public to pay the price."

Democrats are employing the Congressional Review Act, a law that allows Congress to repeal agency rules and regulations on a simple majority vote-- instead of a 60-vote threshold needed to break procedural hurdles on most legislation-- if lawmakers act within a narrow timeframe after an agency puts a rule into place. Republicans have used the same technique to reverse several Obama-era regulations.

While Democrats recognize they are unlikely to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's rule, they see the issue as a key policy desire that also galvanizes their base voters, a top priority ahead of the midterm elections.

Democrats running against House incumbents will have a perfect issue to clobber their opponents with in November. But even Democratic challengers in open seats are already gearing up to campaign on the issue. This is a memo Randy Bryce sent out yesterday in southeast Wisconsin which will be, since he frightened Paul Ryan into retiring, an empty seat. "83% of Americans from both sides of the aisle support Net Neutrality," he wrote, meaning this should not be a partisan issue– but Trump, Ryan, and their allies are making it one. Once the recent Net Neutrality decision goes into effect in June, there will be nothing to stop the handful of companies that control a majority of Americans’ access to the internet from slowing down content or blocking political opinions they disagree with,' said Communications Director Julia Savel. 'The free exchange of ideas on the internet is in jeopardy, and Ryan’s hand-picked replacement Bryan Steil has yet to figure out his position on this clear-cut issue. Tomorrow, senators will cast their vote to keep Net Neutrality or to side with corporate special interests. The people of Wisconsin’s 1st district deserve to know where Bryan Steil stands on Net Neutrality.'"

Sam Jammal is also running in an open seat-- Orange Couny's CA-39, where the right-wing incumbent decided to retire-- and the primary is crowded with rich self-finders from other districts. Sam feels strongly about the issue and said this morning that "If we really are going to build an economy that competes globally and fosters innovation, then we need net neutrality. We have created so many jobs because of a free and open internet. Its reckless that the Trump Administration sought to eliminate net neutrality and goes to show just how bought off his Administration and Congressional Republicans are. They would rather help a few big telecoms over the thousands of small businesses and entrepreneurs who made the internet what it is today. Given our real challenges we will soon face with regards to jobs as a result of automation and artificial intelligence, our elected officials should be doing all they can to supporting innovation. This starts with supporting net neutrality."

Public Broadband-- Will Michigan Lead The Way For America?

Blue America endorsed Michigan gubernatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed for many reasons and he reconfirmed our faith in him this week with a stunning and common-sense new policy proposal to create a state-level public internet service provider for Michigan, similar to the proposal state Rep Kaniela Ing has proposed for Hawaii and is running on in his race for Congress.

El-Sayed is eager to build on the recent successes of municipal broadband networks and his "MiFi" proposal would facilitate partnerships between state and local government to build infrastructure and provide access to affordable and high-quality internet for all Michiganders.

He pointed out in an e-mail to Michigan voters yesterday that "1.2 million Michiganders, both urban and rural, currently lack high-speed internet access and live in areas that the major corporate ISPs deem not profitable enough to service with broadband. MiFi will deliver broadband access to those areas, and introduce real competition to an industry that has been dominated by de facto monopolies. Households that choose public broadband will also benefit from a provider that will enforce net neutrality, and won’t sell their personal data for profit. "We are,' he said 'so excited about this proposal to make internet faster, cheaper, and available to everybody!'"

Abdul's full policy proposal, which you can read here, outlines his plan to:

1- Implement net neutrality through an executive order or by supporting legislation to prohibit network discrimination.
2- Establish the Michigan Internet Office (MIO) to coordinate and manage state investments in broadband projects, secure funding for broadband initiatives, and oversee mapping and planning processes related to internet access. The MIO will also administer the public ISP. All communities that establish networks through a public-public partnership will have the option to provide their own retail service. The MIO-run ISP will only serve communities that opt to have the state provide service instead. This option for local control is important in Michigan, where the state has in recent years stripped local governments of power through the emergency manager law, lack of revenue-sharing, and more.
3- Create a commission to develop a broadband access plan that outlines how we can both fully connect Michigan through municipally-owned and community-owned broadband networks and contain costs by leveraging public resources (ex. partnering with locally-owned utility companies, developing regional collaborations, etc.)
4- Develop publicly-owned broadband networks at the state and local levels. First, through the MIO, the El-Sayed Administration will issue an RFP to solicit local governments interested in either building or expanding community-owned fiber networks, with priority given to underserved and unserved communities. All accepted localities will then partner with the state (again through the MIO) to draft plans to build and finance these networks. Second, the Administration will establish a state-owned ISP managed by the Michigan Internet Office. The ISP will provide retail service for partners that install broadband infrastructure, but do not have the capacity or desire to provide retail service.
5- Invest in fiber-to-the-home networks and fiber optic technology by mandating that at least 75 percent of all new broadband infrastructure financed by the state are fiber networks and require that all cable laid as part of our proposed public-public partnerships be fiber optic cable, and that all such fiber be open access-- meaning that all competitors, public or private, can use the lines to provide service.
6- Sponsor legislation that encourages public provision of broadband. Michigan is one of 20 states with laws that restrict the development and expansion of publicly-owned broadband networks. The El-Sayed Administration will lobby to change these laws and provide a level-playing field for all internet providers.

Alex Shephard, writing about the proposal for the New Republic, dubbed it a public option for the internet. "American politicians of every stripe," he wrote yesterday, "have long bemoaned the lack of high speed internet access across the country. Despite being the center of technological innovation for the past 60 years, average internet speeds in the United States lag behind those in South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and a host of European Union countries. Outside of big cities, high-speed internet access is often unavailable, which slows economic development and affects education." This is especially true in rural areas. And this is serious problem of economic concentration and monopoly. The industry "is highly concentrated-- many areas only have one internet service provider-- meaning that companies are not competing for customers in ways that push them to expand their networks. These companies have not, moreover, been incentivized by the federal government to expand their networks." Señor Trumpanzee signed an executive order that "ostensibly aimed to make it easier for internet companies to connect rural communities, but didn’t actually accomplish much of anything." Abdul El-Sayed is far better.

Without shareholders or the profit motive, research suggests that this public internet would result in lower costs for consumers. El-Sayed’s plan, moreover, would create a series of smaller internet companies-- rather than a large state monopoly-- so there is little reason to believe that another behemoth, which would in turn create costs to support its expansive overhead, would be created.

El-Sayed’s plan doesn’t just focus on rural communities-- although it’s likely they would benefit the most from such a plan. In Michigan, 40 percent of urban residents don’t have access to high-speed internet and the plan outlined on Monday includes funding to expand internet access in cities, where many last-mile connections have not been made.

Similar plans have worked in other places, albeit on a smaller scale. Chattanooga built its own municipal broadband service and subsequently experienced an economic boom. Unemployment dropped, wages grew, and manufacturers-- notably Volkswagen-- moved to the city. “We know that the wage rise is linked to internet jobs and particularly the technology sector,” the city’s mayor told The Tennessean in 2016.

“The internet is the highway of the 21st century,” El-Sayed said in a statement. “But too few have access because internet service monopolies have held universal internet hostage to their own profits. MI-Fi is our solution; publicly-owned broadband infrastructure can ensure that every household in rural and urban Michigan has the access they need to protect net neutrality in our state.”

Aside from being sensible, a public option for the internet has the added benefit of being politically beneficial for Democrats. Telecom companies have used their expanding market power to gouge consumers and provide subpar service for years. Running on providing better, cheaper internet access is also running against corporate concentration and monopoly power-- which is what congressional Democrats are aiming to do in 2018 in their “Better Deal.”

Paul Clements is running for Congress in southwest Michigan. He likes the idea-- a lot. "High speed internet is the telephone of the 21st century. Everyone needs it. In my discussions across the district this is a common demand from voters, and I've been saying for a long time that government needs to make sure everyone can get broadband service at a fair price. In Congress I will be happy to work with new Michigan Governor El-Sayed to help to implement his plan to break up monopoly providers and make public broadband available to everyone in Michigan."

Burger King Patrons May Understand Net Neutrality Better Than You Do

I live in a part of L.A. where the cable TV/internet provider, Spectrum, has been running ads that amount to this: they're slowing down the internet BUT if you pay them, they'll speed it up for you. It's kind of like what Amazon did with Whole Foods when they bought it. They raised all the (already high) prices but if you buy an Amazon Prime card, they'll let you buy their not very organic fake health food for what it used to cost. What a deal! Meanwhile... who knew Burger King was so progressive. This ad (above) is really brilliant in exposing the net neutrality scam for what it is. PLEASE what it and pass it along to your friends so they watch it too.

AdWeek recognized how brilliant Burger King's advertising department is too. Nor was this the first time "On the heels of its brilliant anti-bullying spot last year," wrote Tim Nudd, "Burger King has found another cause it can get behind, and promote with a clever in-store stunt-- net neutrality. Net neutrality is a complicated topic to explain, which is where Burger King came in with a meaty metaphor. It set up a social experiment at a BK location-- with a hidden-camera setup not unlike that of the anti-bullying spot-- and taught Whopper buyers a memorable lesson. In the video below, see how real customers reacted to being charged more for the same quick-serve Whopper-- or, for the regular price, having to wait longer for a Whopper as BK employees intentionally, and seemingly pointlessly, slow down their service.

In December, you’ll recall, the FCC repealed net neutrality rules that regulated businesses that provide internet access to consumers-- opening the door for broadband providers to potentially charge more for better internet speed or higher-quality service.

David Miami, the agency behind so many clever BK campaigns in recent years, made the new spot. It’s very different than the “Bullying Jr.” PSA, but in some ways works similarly.

In place of the more emotional and poignant ending of that earlier spot, here we get a more plainly hostile vibe from the patrons-- which fits the issue at hand better. If you were served a mashed-up burger, you’d be mostly confused; if you’re openly denied good service, you’d probably get annoyed pretty quickly.

There’s plenty of cursing in between the baffled looks; a few patrons even make a move to snatch their Whopper away from the BK employees. There’s a dose of “Whopper Freakout” in here, and you get the sense that the stunt could easily have turned violent-- thankfully, it didn’t.

The pricing board that they showed customers is great, too-- with MBPS, referring to megabits per second in webspeak, changed to mean “making burgers per second.”

...“We believe the internet should be like Burger King restaurants, a place that doesn’t prioritize and welcomes everyone,” says Fernando Machado, Burger King’s global chief marketing officer. “That is why we created this experiment, to call attention to the potential effects of net neutrality.”

I got a very informal note from Maine progressive Jared Golden after I sent him the ad and when I asked him if I could use it in this post, he said sure: "Love the ad, Howie, but here’s the problem with it. If Burger King did this to me, I’d go to their competitor across the street and get a fast burger at no extra charge. In a lot of rural areas though, there’s only one internet service provider. It’s a monopoly and people have gotta take it or leave it. Slow internet, fast internet or no internet. That’s why getting rid of net neutrality is such a raw deal for the poor, the working middle class and small businesses. We can’t afford to pay to play and so the wealthy and corporations get fast access and we are at an even greater disadvantage. Thanks, to Bruce Poliquin and his boss Paul Ryan."

If we're lucky Austin Frerick will be representing Des Moines and southwest Iowa starting in 2019."This Burger King video is brilliant," he told us this morning. "The sad thing about it, many aspects of our economy are moving in this pure unregulated maximum profit extraction mode. College cost works in a similar way with the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form. Essentially families disclose all of their financial information in the FAFSA so a college is able to charge them what they think is the highest possible price that they can pay. A group of students at a college dining hall are all consuming the same product (college) yet each are likely paying a different price. We need to end this way of seeing everything in our society as if we were Ebenezer Scrooge."

Progressive reformer Tim Canova is running for the south Florida seat occupied by crooked New Dem Debbie Wasserman Schultz, long a part of the problem, never a part of the solution. She doesn't seem especially interested in net neutrality. Canova is. This is what he told us today: "Net neutrality has served us well. It has provided open access to the internet for all users regardless of income or wealth, thereby facilitating commerce as well as grassroots political organizing. However, Verizon and other large broadband companies have spent millions of dollars lobbying against net neutrality and its top lawyer, Ajit Pai went through the so-called 'revolving door' to become chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) where he engineered a 3 to 2 vote to overturn Obama-era net neutrality rules. If allowed to stand, this will create a high speed lane on the web for wealthy corporations and a slow lane for the rest of us. The web will become like cable TV, with expensive packages that limit consumer choice for those with low incomes. It will hamper grassroots organizing. We should see the web, and many of its social media platforms, as natural monopolies that require consumer regulation and antitrust enforcement to protect the public's interests. The only alternative is this creeping privatization of the web that allows huge corporations to limit our speech and exploit consumers for ever higher profits."

Paul Clements, a savvy professor rin Kalamazoo unning for Congress in southwest Michigan, using net neutrality as an issue in his campaign. Yesterday he sent this very thorough report to his supporters:

With billions in new corporate tax cuts, giant internet providers Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T are planning a blitz of spending on new infrastructure. However, without Net Neutrality, new broadband services and speeds will simply be fruit of a poisoned tree.

Long before Tim Wu coined the term Net Neutrality in 2003, internet experts had the concept of “dumb pipes,” which would carry data over the internet without judging its content. Today, with 4k TV over the internet, online gaming, and other resource-intensive uses of the web, carriers rightfully must be judicious in how they prioritize and route traffic. However, we MUST not allow these companies to decide what lawful content we can access, to favor their own content or content of financial partners, or to continue to sell off user data as a condition of using their “pipes.”

When elected, I will author or co-sponsor an “Internet Users’ Bill of Rights.” (And no, I don't think the companies that have spent millions lobbying against Net Neutrality are suitable sponsors for this effort!)

This legislation will include these three principles:

1 No paid prioritization of traffic
2 No blocking of lawful content
3 No resale of user data without express and revocable consent

My opponent, Rep. Fred Upton, is one of Comcast’s best friends in Congress. The amount of lobbying that goes into fighting Net Neutrality is obscene, and hundreds of lobbyists are employed by Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and their trade association. You can learn more from Open Secrets here.

...Don’t trust the promises of these companies that they won’t throttle or discriminate. Their track record assures us that they will

• In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage.
• In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network.
• From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
• In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, admitted to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.
• In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.
• In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.
• From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
• In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.
• In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.
• During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

These examples are shocking-- and things are only going to get worse now that the FCC has sided with the mega-carriers. I’d like to hear from you-- what must be included in a federal “Internet Users’ Bill of Rights”?

You can contribute to Jared Golden's, Austin Frerick's, Tim Canova's and Paul Clement's very grassroots campaigns by tapping on the ActBlue congressional thermometer on the right. Paul's and Jared's opponents both include extremely wealthy politicians. In Paul's case one is also a crooked careerist-- George Franklin, a corrupt lobbyist who calls himself a Democrat but who has been giving the Republican incumbent, Upton, large sums of money for many years. Now he's a "Democrat?" Only in the minds of lunatic establishment freak shows like Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Ben Ray Lujan.