When we talk about "buying" elections, we only talk about the "buyers." Who's doing the selling?

it's abundantly clear that seats for our elected officials are being bought... this isn't news... it's been happening for a long time but never more visibly than in this week's wisconsin recall election... what often gets left out in the buying and selling discussion is where all that money is going... yes, it's easy enough to say it's being spent on political advertising... that's a no-brainer... but just as we're coming to find out just exactly who is doing the "buying," we need to know just exactly who all that money is going to... besides the source, it would be very useful to know how much media outlets and advertising firms are making and the details of the majority ownership - by name - of those outlets and firms... my hunch, which is also undoubtedly a no-brainer - is that we would see a maze of interlocking interests, back-scratching and mutual hand-washing... 

from the huffpo via the republic report...

For decades, broadcasters have kept the public in the dark about their massive election-year windfalls.

Those that own news outlets prefer silence on this issue. (See Disney, which owns eight ABC stations reaching 24 percent of the U.S. population, CBS Corp., which owns and operates 28 stations, Comcast, which provides news programming to more than 200 NBC affiliates, and News Corp., which owns and operates 27 local affiliates) Covering this story exposes their conflict of interest, in which profit-taking trumps the news media’s duty to educate viewers about the forces behind modern-day elections.

In the two years since Citizens United took effect, Super PACs and independent third-party groups have spent hundreds of millions to inundate the airwaves with political ads. That amount is projected to double before viewers become voters in November.

 The FCC’s response was an obvious solution: Require stations, which already archive this information for public view in paper files, to post ad spending data on the Internet, where anyone can see it. As viewers are being hammered by deceptive political ads we need a full accounting of the billionaires and corporate slush funds that stand behind this misinformation. 

but... 

But as with any hard-won reform in the age of big-money politics, this positive change can be undone by a generous application of corporate lawyers, lobbyists and campaign contributions.

the cardinal rule, "follow the money," is anathema to our super-rich elites and their bought-and-paid-for elected puppets... god forbid we should shine a light on their shell game...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

In today's editorial on the internet, the NYT actually makes sense

all i can say to this is "amen"...

With the Internet fast becoming the most important communications channel, it is untenable for the United States not to have a regulator to ensure nondiscriminatory access, guarantee interconnectivity among rival networks and protect consumers from potential abuse.

Yet that’s exactly where the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit left us all when it said this month that the Federal Communications Commission didn’t have the authority to regulate the Internet — and specifically, could not force the cable giant Comcast to stop blocking peer-to-peer sites.

The decision, in the words of the F.C.C.’s general counsel, Austin Schlick, undermines the agency’s ability to serve as “the cop on the beat for 21st-century communications networks.” It also puts at risk big chunks of the F.C.C.’s strategy for increasing the reach of broadband Internet to all corners of the country and fostering more competition among providers.

Chairman Julius Genachowski said the commission is not planning to appeal the decision, and is studying its options. The F.C.C. could try to forge ahead with its broadband plan despite the court’s decision. Or Congress could give the F.C.C. specific authority to regulate broadband access.

But the court tightly circumscribed the F.C.C.’s actions. And with Republicans determined to oppose pretty much anything the administration wants, the odds of a rational debate on the issues are slim.

Fortunately, the commission has the tools to fix this problem. It can reverse the Bush administration’s predictably antiregulatory decision to define broadband Internet access as an information service, like Google or Amazon, over which it has little regulatory power. Instead, it can define broadband as a communications service, like a phone company, over which the commission has indisputable authority.

the nyt correctly argues that, since everything is moving into a single pipe, it requires robust regulation... there's no question that the internet is way more than just an information resource... it's my primary communication medium, a medium without which i simply couldn't live my life the way i do now and i know lots of folks who would say the very same thing...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

B-A-A-A-A-AAAD news for the internet

the goddam supreme court... just another bunch of stooges that don't have a clue about what serving the common good means... i'm sure there's dancing in the halls of the executive suites at both comcast and verizon...

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

Tuesday’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a big victory for the Comcast Corporation, the nation’s largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC’s authority to impose so called “net neutrality” obligations.

It marks a serious setback for the F.C.C., which needs authority to regulate the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its national broadband plan.

why is it that corporations in the u.s. get all the breaks and us poor slob private citizens get absolutely none...? who, may i ask, is looking out for us...? no-fucking-body, that's who...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 2 comments

The big telecoms and ISP's really do care for the common good? HA!

in an editorial dated 21 march, the wapo opined that...

"...it is curious that the FCC's newly released National Broadband Plan faults the market for failing to 'bring the power and promise of broadband to us all'..."

i responded that i didn't find it "curious" at all, given that the massive telecom and isp providers in the u.s. have been milking their customers for many years, charging higher and higher access fees with precious little increases in speed with the result that the u.s. ranks a humiliating #29 in the world in download speeds...

choosing to not cite such statistics, the wapo went on to make the false claim that...

[B]roadband networks have been built with billions of dollars from companies in the private sector with a legitimate right to extract profit from well-placed investments. These initiatives -- and yes, the profit motive -- have resulted in remarkable leaps in a few short years.

and then added this disclaimer...

It is useful to continue to mark America's standing in these matters in comparison to that of other nations. But it is hard to see in this field the signs of gross market failure.

now i notice that, since i read the editorial, the wapo has deigned to add a bit of disclosure to the piece...

(Disclosure: The Washington Post Co. has interests in broadcast and cable television and businesses that depend on the Internet, all of which could be affected by FCC action.)

woo-hoo...

i don't think the washington post has ever met a greedy corporation it didn't like... taking precious op-ed space to attempt to convince the citizenry that u.s. corporations have our best interests at heart, particularly with the slow-motion financial train wreck that's still in progress, is disingenuous at best...

fortunately, we now have this to show us just how much of a shit for the common good these large corporations really do give...

One of the nation's biggest telecommunications providers urged the Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday not to assert its authority over Internet services, a challenge that comes as the agency embarks on a 10-year effort to greatly expand broadband access across the country.

Verizon Communications said that the FCC's power over high-speed Internet services is "at best murky" and offered recommendations to Congress that could take away much of the agency's power.

ya gotta love verizon... they don't want anybody tellin' 'em what to do or interfering in any way with their ability to suck the last dime out of their customers' pockets...

i can't speak for the advantages and disadvantages of re-classifying the internet as a common carrier... i do know that, for all practical purposes, at least where i'm concerned, it already is... i rarely use any other means of communication and that's not to mention the myriad other functions my laptop serves... in my view, the internet should be treated as the primary means of communication and as an inherent right, much as telephones and television are, both technologies that have already been largely subsumed by internet technology...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Follow-up to the FCC's "Broadband Plan"

i posted the other day on the fcc's proposed plan to increase broadband internet access in the u.s... bruce kushnick, writing in nieman watchdog, has a few strong opinions...

The new national broadband policy is tailored to reward telcom behemoths AT&T and Verizon, the very same corporate interests that got us into this mess in the first place. Meanwhile, the hard questions that need to be asked are being ignored.

How badly off are we right now? Well, while you sit on the web reading this, the current average US broadband speed, according to speedmatters.org, is 5mbps down and 1mbps upload. That’s 1/20th the download speed you can get in, say, Hong Kong, or Japan or France, and 1/100th the upload speed. Today in Hong Kong 100mbps in both directions costs about $20 -- cheaper than US broadband by leaps and bounds.

AT&T and Verizon claim there’s plenty of competition, but you can’t select your own Internet provider over the broadband networks and local phone prices have gone up -- 90% in New York and New Jersey, for example -- over the last 5 years. If there was competition, prices couldn’t increase like that. The absence of competition has also raised Net Neutrality issues, as a provider’s ability to block or degrade or favor its own service over others wouldn’t be a problem if you could simply leave and go somewhere else.

But the real kicker is this: By 2010, America should already have been rewired. Taxpayers have spent about $320 billion for fiber-based networks since the 1990s but have nothing to show for it. In fact, in many states, all schools, libraries and hospitals should have been rewired with fiber optic service as part of changes to state laws that gave AT&T and Verizon billions per state to remove the old copper wiring with new fiber optic wiring. Worse, the money is still being collected today in the form of rate increases, tax breaks and other perks the companies got.

So what now? The FCC’s plan is to increase your taxes yet again, by adding broadband to the Universal Service Fund Tax -- rewarding the same companies that harmed you by giving them more of your money and a free pass.

And to make sure that America has broadband, the FCC proposes to have the deployment by 2020. As FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski put it last month: “A ‘100 Squared’ initiative -- 100 million households at 100 megabits per second -- to unleash American ingenuity and ensure that businesses, large and small, are created here, move here, and stay here.” So what is already being offered in many other countries -- very high speed broadband -- should reach America in a decade, leaving us farther behind. This means fewer jobs and more expensive broadband and it harms our economy as many of the newest applications will be developed in other countries.

i find it stunning that the u.s. is so far behind so many other countries in internet access, upload and download speeds... there's no reason for it, unless of course you consider the providers' insatiable greed, in which case it all makes perfect sense...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 1 comments

In planning for universal broad-band access, why does the FCC have to "tread carefully"?

it makes a pathetic statement about our country when a government agency which, in this case, is clearly working for the common good, has to walk on eggshells with corporations that only have their profits in mind...

The plan envisions a fully Web-connected world with split-second access to health care information and online classrooms, delivered through wireless devices yet to be dreamed up in Silicon Valley. But to get there, analysts say the F.C.C. must tread carefully with companies like Comcast and AT&T that largely control Internet pricing and speeds. Already, there are questions about the extent to which the F.C.C. has jurisdiction over Internet providers.

one of my biggest beefs about our government and its leaders is how rarely they seem to work on behalf of the good of the commons... now, here's the fcc, with a plan to not only eliminate the internet class divide and bring the u.s. up to a par with the 28 other countries who have faster internet access than the u.s., and it's worrying about stepping on corporate toes... what a crock o'shit...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 3 comments

FCC employees to stage silent protest tomorrow against FCC Chairman Kevin Martin

ars technica's matthew lasar...

It appears that a critical mass of FCC grunts are sick of what they experience as a super-politicized work life in which just about anything that they want to do has to get the go-ahead from the top, that being Kevin Martin. "Nothing happens in the Commission without the approval of the Chairman's office," my source told me [Lasar]. "It is incredible. We have become so political."

Do you have any sense of the logic of these directives from the Chair? I asked. "Nope," came the reply. "It seems as random as he got up this morning and ate his breakfast and just decided to do it."

Why are FCC employees upset about this? Not because they disagree with Kevin Martin's perspective on this or that FCC issue, but because, according to my source, he and his top subordinates demand that staff skip proper procedures and leapfrog various rules, even Congressional mandated rules, on a day-to-day level.

"In the past I may or may not have agreed with the outcome, but at least the proper procedures were followed. Now they tell us 'what are the media reform groups going to do: file a class action lawsuit? Just do it.' But ethically I have to sleep at night. It's not the decision, it's how the decision is reached. The situation has become arbitrary and capricious."

[...]

"I am not a disgruntled employee," I was told. "I love my job. But this situation has become unbearable. We will not play this game. I have to sleep at night."

why would anybody doubt this...? the fcc is just another executive branch agency made over to serve the most partisan, nay ideological, bush administration interests...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Why the traditional media marginalizes and trivializes Edwards, Huckabee, and Paul

glenn, as usual, boils it down...

[Traditional media journalists] perceive attacks on the establishment to be attacks on them. And thus, most journalists are instinctively hostile to candidates which are outside and critical of that establishment. Journalists just don't believe that the system on which they depend and which gives them their access and purpose can possibly be fundamentally broken or corrupt. They are, after all, the establishment press.

so, john edwards, mike huckabee, and ron paul are clearly anti-establishment candidates - edwards for his audacity in pointing out that corporations rule the country, huckabee for daring to suggest that the r's have abandoned the party's middle and lower-class, and paul for pointing out our nation's constitutional crisis, financial unsustainability, and delusions of empire...

there's one point, however, that glenn neglects to make... our traditional media, handily reinforced by yesterday's fcc ruling, has been consolidated so completely under the ownership of powerful and wealthy establishment elites, and the relationship among corporations, government, and media outlets has become so interlocking, that journalists, rather than insuring that america's citizens are well-informed, instead play the role of p.r. flacks and spinmeisters to their masters' agendas... and their masters REQUIRE elected officials who will CONTINUE to serve that agenda, and to see candidates emerge who clearly WON'T serve that agenda scares the crap out of them, and therefore must be stopped...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

FCC votes to let newspapers buy broadcast media outlets in their own communities

kevin martin is a bush stooge... you don't have to go back very far to figure it out either... in october he refused to investigate telecom collusion with the nsa (see here), and in the public hearings on this latest outrage, revealingly documented by bill moyers (see here), he shows himself clearly for what he is - a tool...

so, after all the crap heaped on kevin martin's head in public and congressional hearings about this move, after hearing repeatedly in the strongest terms possible NOT to do it, he does it anyway... george must be so proud...

The Federal Communications Commission, overturning a 32-year-old ban, voted Tuesday to allow broadcasters in the nation's 20 largest media markets to also own a newspaper.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin was joined by his two Republican colleagues in favor of the proposal, while the commission's two Democrats voted against it.

Martin pushed the vote through despite intense pressure from House and Senate members on Capitol Hill to delay it. The chairman, however, has the support of the White House, which has pledged to turn back any congressional action that seeks to undo the vote.

At Tuesday's meeting, the chairman described the media ownership proceeding as "the most contentious and divisive issue" to come before the commission.

That proved true as the two Democrats blasted Martin's plan in unusually strong language for the normally sedate agency.

Martin said his proposal represented "a relatively minor loosening" of the cross-ownership rule. He noted concern for the steady decline in revenue for newspaper companies and said his proposal "strikes a balance" between the realities of the changing media marketplace and the preservation of diversity and competition in broadcasting.

preserving diversity and competition, my ass... kevin must be smoking some powerful shit... my feeling is, if the newspapers can't make it financially, tough shit... isn't that the way the markets are supposed to work...? times change... there aren't a lot of buggy-whip manufacturers around these days either...

this is nothing more than a thinly-disguised move to further consolidate our ALREADY pathetically NOT-diverse media into even fewer hands, thus making manipulation of our ALREADY highly manipulated news even easier for the elites... there's no question that it's a great deal more difficult to propagate approved talking points and tailored mind-control messages via multiple diverse media outlets... there'll always be SOMEBODY saying SOMETHING that hasn't been pre-approved, and that's really inconvenient when you're trying to get all the sheeple moving in the same direction...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Bill Moyers on the FCC vs. We, The People

this was put up on moyers' pbs site yesterday... make no mistake... what is described here is part and parcel of the constitutional crisis in the united states where, slowly and very, very surely, we the people are subjected to ever more homogenized, corporate and government-approved propaganda...



the fcc public comment period ends december 11... you can make your views known here...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

breaking up [monopolies] is hard to do

After Downing Street reports: Pelosi Asks for Impeachable Offenses:

[I]n an October 10th interview with Ed Schultz, [Speaker Pelosi] said 'if anyone knows of impeachable offenses that can pass the Congress, then please let me know'.

Ok, lets start here:

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony"

-- from the Sherman Antitrust Act

The very nature of the 5th Estate, that marriage of corporations with the Intelligence Community, (or more generally, with government), is antitrust.

We have seen unrelenting and perpetual consolidations going on under this scheme. We have seen outrageous no bid contracts that continually favor Administration cronies. The entire Department of Defense cannot give an accurate accounting of its money spent. Private Armies are now said to outnumber our government forces. There is little secret that the auspices of the newly created Office of the Director of National Intelligence has been pushing for privatization of the Internet by the telcoms, et al., through the machinations of "immunities" and by packet sniffing.

A recent cover for further expansion of ubiquitous packet sniffing might be this little reported undertaking, under the moniker of "super V-chip". This is likely a cover for not really even a single chip at all, but rather, total spying everywhere.

This just in: AT&T may be getting a windfall. VoIP had threatened their Market Power.

Societies are able to work as well as they do on the planet precisely because of the Internet. Journals that used to take 30 days to circulate amongst professionals in a given field, are available immediately. Responses are available within minutes to new discoveries. Unfettered political ideas now currently generally abound.

Once the Internet becomes privatized, it will be used as simply another technology of political control, and its usefulness to everyday people will be limited. There will surely be a collapse of society as we know it on that day.

Update: fresh comments by Cindy Sheehan re Nanci Pelosi at CounterPunch:

No matter how many times Ms. Pelosi and George Bush share tea and giggles and no matter how often she 'prays' for him, George is not the Decider and she is only the Leader of the House of Representatives not the people. We are the sovereigns in this country and I tried to demonstrate this when I demanded a meeting with another haughty public servant: George Bush"

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Our Congress isn't worth the powder to blow it up

goddam it... goddam it to hell... the fcc is an executive branch entity, so of COURSE they won't investigate telecom collusion with the nsa, another executive branch entity, both of which are under the control of the executive office of the president... congress continues to swat at flies when it's clear the bigger problem is a criminal presidential administration riding roughshod over separation of powers, the constitution, civil liberties, the rule of law and anything else that dares to get in its way, and that forever requesting information only to be stonewalled ain't going to miraculously go away...

The head of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission declined to investigate reports that phone companies turned over customer records to the National Security Agency, citing national security concerns, according to documents released on Friday.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin turned down a congressional request for an investigation as a top intelligence official concluded it would "pose an unnecessary risk of damage to the national security," according to a letter National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell sent to Martin on Tuesday.

Intelligence officials "support your determination not to initiate an investigation," McConnell wrote to Martin.

At issue are reports last year that some big telephone companies allowed the U.S. government access to millions of telephone records for an anti-terrorism program.

i've decided that congress is either full of fools or is deliberately colluding with the white house in the destruction of our country...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments