This one is just amusing. Scott Cleland, who works for the big broadband companies as a professional propagandist, and has a long history of making absolutely ridiculous claims
in order to support their positions, apparently got a bit of traction from the non-thinking press, after he started pushing the message that all
of the Democrats who signed a "pledge" to support network neutrality from the group the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) lost in the recent election. So, suddenly, it sounds like a referendum on net neutrality with the people saying they're against it. Verizon was so excited about this that it even Tweeted about it
and various folks in the press parroted the claim
without really looking into the details. Even CNN wrote an article about it
, suggesting this was the "final nail in the coffin for net neutrality."
While I doubt any net neutrality legislation is going to get passed anyway (and, that's a good thing, because after the telcos got done with it, it wouldn't be what you wanted anyway), to suggest in any way that this election was a referendum on net neutrality is pure folly. What the "press" left out is that the PCCC's net neutrality pledge was hardly the only such thing out there. Also, the PCCC pledges were not
from existing Representatives, but those trying to get elected to Congress against incumbents -- and nearly every one came from historically Republican districts
. In other words, nearly every one of those Democrats who "lost," were guaranteed to lose no matter what. On top of that, Broadband Reports took a look at a couple of other "net neutrality" pledges
by folks actually
in Congress, and noted that a bunch of Democratic Representatives who signed an anti
-Net Neutrality pledge still lost their races, and of those who signed on to a pro-net neutrality list, not a single Democrat on that list lost their re-election bid
. So, uh, it sorta suggests that a politician's stance on net neutrality had nothing to do with this election, and if you want to make up fake headlines that don't really mean anything, why would the press not mention any of the relevant
facts, and simply parrot the fake story by a guy paid for propaganda?