It sounds a lot like he's calling for their support of the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act now being championed by Rupert Murdoch and the News Media Alliance, but he doesn't mention it specifically in his letter. Either way, this should be a non-starter for anyone who genuinely cares about the future of journalism.
If you go to Google News and search for "Utility and Neutrality and FCC," you'll see hundreds of stories where reporters refer to Net Neutrality rules as a "public utility regulation." This includes journalists from some of the most credible news organizations in the country. The echo chamber on this is stunning.
O'Reilly hates regulations except for those that threaten phone and cable monopolies over Internet access. Those are regulations this anti-regulatory commissioner can really get behind.
"If the FCC successfully reclassifies broadband under Title II, private investment and important innovation would come to a standstill."
It's often repeated by the shilling class, even though we have shown the opposite to be true historically: Internet service providers invested more in network improvement and build out when they were classified under Title II.
Mike -- This isn't really worth wasting any more of our time on. The main focus of your post is spot on. There's even a follow up work to be done exposing the DC-based PR firms that hire out people to do this sort of comment trolling and review rating. Sadly, this is just another part of Washington's shady influence industry.
Briefly, my point is this: Free Press legitimacy as a defender of Internet users rests on our NOT being tainted by any of the industry money that's behind so many of the other voices in these broadband debates. We're not the "flip side" of the same coin that created the likes of Scott Cleland and Richard Bennett. We're not even cast from the same metal.
When we formed Free Press 10 years ago we deliberately decided not to pursue that funding model. As a result we have had to turn away millions in direct and in-kind contributions from the tech and communications industry. We've never regretted that decision.
Perhaps I did misread your post but it comes across pretty clearly as a discounting of my review as the product of just another DC-based wonk with skin in the game. I object to that characterization. That's all.
And for the record: 1. I'm not based in DC 2. I'm not a policy analyst and 3. Free Press is not a think tank.
Mike, I'm usually a fan. This time, however, you're completely off the mark. My review of Susan's book does not represent the same problem as the astroturfing attacks of paid corporate shills. Free Press receives no money from any entity that has a financial stake in the outcome of the internet policy issues Susan writes about. In fact, my colleagues and I make considerable financial sacrifices to represent the public interest in policy debates that have been overrun by well-heeled sock puppets on the companies' payroll. I happen to believe that Americans need more affordable access to fast and open networks. I believe that Susan's offers a very important critique of a U.S. policy making regime that has failed to represent Internet users and push for those objectives. I don't hide my identity or misrepresent the work that Free Press does. Nor do I come by my opinions dishonestly or out of a desire to spin an issue in service of a hidden agenda. Frankly I'm surprised that you would suggest some sort of immoral equivalence. A correction would be the right move.
Believe it or not, the much maligned 1996 Telecommunications Act was designed to foster consumer choice among many competing Internet services. But in the 13 years since it was passed, the FCC and the courts have torn down the Act’s basic competitive framework, as a powerful phone and cable lobby pressured regulators to pass rules that handed them control of the marketplace.
And as America blindly followed this path of so-called “deregulation,” our foreign counterparts maintained their commitment to the very pro-competitive policies pioneered in the 1996 Act.
We see the results today. Their broadband Internet markets have blossom, while ours have withered. At the turn of the century, the United States was ranked fifth among the world’s nations in broadband penetration. But just a few short years later, we had dropped precipitously to 22nd place. Consumers in countries that maintained policies that were committed to competition, such as South Korea and Japan, are today able to access broadband with symmetrical speeds reaching 1 Gigabit per second (Gbps) for less than the monthly price a U.S. consumer would pay for service that’s 100 times slower.
The FCC turned its back on the 1996 Act and ordered up a future of digital mediocrity – sticking American consumers with the bill. Nowhere is this digital shortfall more evident than in the state of competition in our broadband markets.
In the aftermath of the 1996 Act, the average American consumer had access to more than a dozen ISPs; today, our broadband market is a stagnant duopoly. Nationwide, incumbent phone and cable companies control 97 percent of the fixed-line residential broadband market. When complementary (and slow and expensive) mobile data connections are factored in, the incumbent phone and cable companies’ nationwide market share stands at 95 percent.
This situation is essentially unchanged since 2005, when the FCC took its final step to destroy the last vestige of the 1996 Act’s competitive framework.
Believe it or not, the much maligned 1996 Telecommunications Act was designed to foster consumer choice among many competing Internet services. But in the 13 years since it was passed, the FCC and the courts have torn down the Act’s basic competitive framework, as a powerful phone and cable lobby pressured regulators to pass rules that handed them control of the marketplace.
And as America blindly followed this path of so-called “deregulation,” our foreign counterparts maintained their commitment to the very pro-competitive policies pioneered in the 1996 Act.
We see the results today. Their broadband Internet markets have blossom, while ours have withered. At the turn of the century, the United States was ranked fifth among the world’s nations in broadband penetration. But just a few short years later, we had dropped precipitously to 22nd place. Consumers in countries that maintained policies that were committed to competition, such as South Korea and Japan, are today able to access broadband with symmetrical speeds reaching 1 Gigabit per second (Gbps) for less than the monthly price a U.S. consumer would pay for service that’s 100 times slower.
The FCC turned its back on the 1996 Act and ordered up a future of digital mediocrity – sticking American consumers with the bill. Nowhere is this digital shortfall more evident than in the state of competition in our broadband markets.
In the aftermath of the 1996 Act, the average American consumer had access to more than a dozen ISPs; today, our broadband market is a stagnant duopoly. Nationwide, incumbent phone and cable companies control 97 percent of the fixed-line residential broadband market. When complementary (and slow and expensive) mobile data connections are factored in, the incumbent phone and cable companies’ nationwide market share stands at 95 percent.
This situation is essentially unchanged since 2005, when the FCC took its final step to destroy the last vestige of the 1996 Act’s competitive framework.
The assumption you're making is that all reporters will cover a story in the same way. Sure newspapers need to be more efficient, and reporters need to strive to be more than stenographers (many are despite Ana Marie's glib assessment) . But this idea that it's redundant to have a number of different reporters covering a similar region or beat isn't valid. Each reporter comes to the task with his/her own perspectives, hunches and interests. The resulting diversity of news and analysis is the lifeblood of healthy democratic debate. Rather than trying to pare down journalism -- and depopulate press galleries -- to some efficient ideal, we should be exploring new models that allow for more reporters to get into the mix.
Mike. We may only disagree on a few things here, especially the extent to which this was clearly a parody.
The blog post in question features three prominent links to the cartoon and graphic all at the top of the page. The source cited "Big Ed" turns out to be a cartoon character. The lead graf teases the "exclusive" video.
There's a point at which a parody becomes too obvious to have any value as such. Had we given away too much up front we would have lost the hook -- which was to get people to watch the video in question and say "a ha."
No one who watched the video could possibly be fooled beyond that. That was the goal. Get people to watch a funny video. Set them up with a faux news story. Deliver the punch line and hope they 1.enjoy the joke and 2. become more engaged with the issue.
You may call that "intellectual dishonesty." I disagree wholeheartedly. Others may think the video wasn't funny. That's their prerogative. While others still may enjoy it.
That some picked this up and fed it out as legitimate news was a surprise to me. In comment threads on C&L and Slashdot others quickly pointed it out as parody. After it got 'Slashdotted' as legitimate, I posted a comment on my blog to clarify further.
The "Big Ed" quotes are so ludicrous of themselves; and the cartoon proves beyond a doubt that we're dealing in farce.
Do these tactics damage our case for Net Neutrality? Not at all. Our campaign work ranges from the research, scholarship and advocacy work we do at the highest levels of government and academia to “grasstops” and grassroots organizing to viral web tactics involving YouTube, MySpace, Facebook and other popular social networks.
These are aimed to engage more people with the issue and hope that they become the best and most informed champions of Net Neutrality.
Our campaign is built upon intellectual rigor and public passion for a better, more open and democratic Internet.
Some campaign tactics have succeeded others have failed. But in none do we seek to deceive people about this important issue.
My beef with Techdirt is your tendency to suggest that the lack of honesty in the land of phone and cable Astroturf is somehow equaled by deception among supporters of Net Neutrality.
Carlo uses this spoof as an example. I think he overstated the case to take a couple of cheap shots. I have tried in the past to engage you in a constructive conversation about making the Internet more open and affordable to all.
Instead I get this broadside. I think you guys can do better.
Carlo. It must be easy calling a group "propagandists" when you clearly haven't read any of our research or congressional and FCC filings on the issue we advocate.
If you want a cogent argument in favor of Net Neutrality you need go no further than the reams of work we have done to that end. Sadly, you seemed to have missed all of that in favor of hasty judgments and sloppy blog posts. Take the time to read up before you attempt to "elucidate a position" again.
Nor do you seem aware of our history of successful Web activism and grass- and netroots organizing, which involves engaging more than 1.5 million people in our policymaking process. Our successful grassroots organizing has provided a people-powered counterweight to phone and company lobbyists who -- until we arrived -- largely dictated communications policy to Congress.
Many of our successful organizing tactics involve humor and parody. It's difficult to engage people in the arcane issue of Internet legislation. Humor is often a good portal to the issue (Thank god for Sen. Stevens Tubes and the Daily Show).
AT&T is fair target of this humor. They have been acting in bad faith. Their legions of lobbyists have hi-jacked telecom policy in this country to the benefit of no-one except themselves.
I'm sorry you don't get this and instead trot out hackneyed arguments and attempt to stake out high ground by accusing others of underhanded tactics. Did you actually read your own post? Did you read mine?
When we want make fun of the issue we use a cartoon character to play a real person. AT&T uses real people to play cartoon characters. For evidence of that look no further than Mike McCurry, whom they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to stand in front of cameras and parrot their propaganda.
There's a difference.
So you didn't think our spoof was funny. I can accept that. But don't confuse an obvious parody with flat-out lying.
It is indeed sad that some have missed what's so obvious. But you couldn't be more wrong in you attempt to draw some sort of immoral equivalence between our coalition and phone company operatives -- or to suggest that our intention was purely to mislead about Whitacre.
"Big Ed's" problems with the public are the result of his own dishonesty and indiscretion. Our group has built its case against him and the phone companies on a solid foundation of research and history of public interest advocacy. We receive no corporate money or political party support but are acting on behalf of the more than 800 organizations and 1.5 million people who care enough about this issue to write Congress in defense of Net Neutrality. We have used creative tactics to engage grassroots activists. And been inspired by the imagination of others (Ask A Ninja, Tron Guy, etc.) who have used the Internet to make this cause their own.
Your attempt to tar us with the same brush used against the shills and their cohorts is an insult. As I have asked mike more than once, rather than taking pot shots from the sidelines, why not weigh in on the issue? You need to elevate your argument beyond these swipes at supposedly opposing sides, take a look at what's going on and help us build an internet that's more accessible, open and affordable to everyone.
Carlo. My post is a spoof. Anyone who spends more than 30 seconds on it -- or bothers to download the video -- will see that. We give every indication that the quotes are tied to the "exclusive" (wink wink) video, which is itself a cartoon. We make the video prominently available to watch.
As you probably know, humor often involves a set up and then a punch line. Any reporter/blogger/etc worth his or her salt will read the post, click to watch the video and (we hope) enjoy the joke.
You have every right to critique the video for its content, but to claim that spoofing Ed Whitacre (who personifies one of the biggest threats to the Internet's democratic nature) constitutes "intellectual dishonesty" falls way off the mark.
Perhaps you should be more concerned about journalists who run with the "Big Ed" quote without double checking their sources. Or, more so, with those who print phone company talking points, or cite phony data from AT&T funded think tanks and Astroturf groups, without disclosing the clear conflicts of interest.
"Big Ed" may be out of the picture but his threat to a more open and accessible Internet is his continuing legacy.
Seeing as how you work for broadband companies (pity you forgot to mention that once again), it's little surprise to see you rushing to their defense.
They ARE disserving of scrutiny and scorn, but I wouldn't expect a paid apologist like you to adopt any other tone but praise. Don't take it from me, read Cory Doctorow's take on the damaging influence companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have had on the U.S. broadband market.
Then go to Richard Hoffman's report over at InformationWeek, which decisively skewers a lot of the industry spin that you hold so dear.
I'm sure you have read these but, again, I don't expect you to admit that the marketplace failures they report on have resulted from a regulatory climate controlled by phone and cable lobbyists -- you know, those same companies that pay your bills.
Again, it's easier for you to turn a blind eye and regurgitate FCC data that has been widely disparaged by almost every independent technology analyst in the business – including Mike here at Techdirt.
Good work Scott. Stick to the party line. The check's in the mail.
And then try to imagine how the Internet could be even better than it is today. I think it would be better if it were faster, more open and accessible to everyone.
It sounds a lot like he's calling for their support of the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act now being championed by Rupert Murdoch and the News Media Alliance, but he doesn't mention it specifically in his letter. Either way, this should be a non-starter for anyone who genuinely cares about the future of journalism.
Lurking in the background
Still lurking in the background, despite recent news reports:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sprint-corp-m-a-t-mobile-comcast/comcast-says-no-interest-in-acquiring-divested-spectrum-from-sprint-t-mobile-deal-idUSKCN1T1206
Google it
If you go to Google News and search for "Utility and Neutrality and FCC," you'll see hundreds of stories where reporters refer to Net Neutrality rules as a "public utility regulation." This includes journalists from some of the most credible news organizations in the country. The echo chamber on this is stunning.
Commissioner O'Reilly doesn't like it
He issues a statement blasting the very idea of communities having the right to create their own local networks:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-oriellys-statement-municipal-broadband
O'Reilly hates regulations except for those that threaten phone and cable monopolies over Internet access. Those are regulations this anti-regulatory commissioner can really get behind.
Re:
Lines like this should be the tip off:
"If the FCC successfully reclassifies broadband under Title II, private
investment and important innovation would come to a standstill."
It's often repeated by the shilling class, even though we have shown the opposite to be true historically: Internet service providers invested more in network improvement and build out when they were classified under Title II.
Re: Sarcasm
Worked for me.
Re: Re: Playing Masnick for a Fool
Drat!
And our plan would have worked if it wasn't for that meddling Bennett and his dog Scooby.
Re: Re: No immoral equivalence
Mike -- This isn't really worth wasting any more of our time on. The main focus of your post is spot on. There's even a follow up work to be done exposing the DC-based PR firms that hire out people to do this sort of comment trolling and review rating. Sadly, this is just another part of Washington's shady influence industry.
Briefly, my point is this: Free Press legitimacy as a defender of Internet users rests on our NOT being tainted by any of the industry money that's behind so many of the other voices in these broadband debates. We're not the "flip side" of the same coin that created the likes of Scott Cleland and Richard Bennett. We're not even cast from the same metal.
When we formed Free Press 10 years ago we deliberately decided not to pursue that funding model. As a result we have had to turn away millions in direct and in-kind contributions from the tech and communications industry. We've never regretted that decision.
Perhaps I did misread your post but it comes across pretty clearly as a discounting of my review as the product of just another DC-based wonk with skin in the game. I object to that characterization. That's all.
And for the record: 1. I'm not based in DC 2. I'm not a policy analyst and 3. Free Press is not a think tank.
Moving on ...
No immoral equivalence
Mike, I'm usually a fan. This time, however, you're completely off the mark. My review of Susan's book does not represent the same problem as the astroturfing attacks of paid corporate shills. Free Press receives no money from any entity that has a financial stake in the outcome of the internet policy issues Susan writes about. In fact, my colleagues and I make considerable financial sacrifices to represent the public interest in policy debates that have been overrun by well-heeled sock puppets on the companies' payroll. I happen to believe that Americans need more affordable access to fast and open networks. I believe that Susan's offers a very important critique of a U.S. policy making regime that has failed to represent Internet users and push for those objectives. I don't hide my identity or misrepresent the work that Free Press does. Nor do I come by my opinions dishonestly or out of a desire to spin an issue in service of a hidden agenda. Frankly I'm surprised that you would suggest some sort of immoral equivalence. A correction would be the right move.
Abandoning Pro-Competition Policies
Believe it or not, the much maligned 1996 Telecommunications Act was designed to foster consumer choice among many competing Internet services. But in the 13 years since it was passed, the FCC and the courts have torn down the Act’s basic competitive framework, as a powerful phone and cable lobby pressured regulators to pass rules that handed them control of the marketplace.
And as America blindly followed this path of so-called “deregulation,” our foreign counterparts maintained their commitment to the very pro-competitive policies pioneered in the 1996 Act.
We see the results today. Their broadband Internet markets have blossom, while ours have withered. At the turn of the century, the United States was ranked fifth among the world’s nations in broadband penetration. But just a few short years later, we had dropped precipitously to 22nd place. Consumers in countries that maintained policies that were committed to competition, such as South Korea and Japan, are today able to access broadband with symmetrical speeds reaching 1 Gigabit per second (Gbps) for less than the monthly price a U.S. consumer would pay for service that’s 100 times slower.
The FCC turned its back on the 1996 Act and ordered up a future of digital mediocrity – sticking American consumers with the bill. Nowhere is this digital shortfall more evident than in the state of competition in our broadband markets.
In the aftermath of the 1996 Act, the average American consumer had access to more than a dozen ISPs; today, our broadband market is a stagnant duopoly. Nationwide, incumbent phone and cable companies control 97 percent of the fixed-line residential broadband market. When complementary (and slow and expensive) mobile data connections are factored in, the incumbent phone and cable companies’ nationwide market share stands at 95 percent.
This situation is essentially unchanged since 2005, when the FCC took its final step to destroy the last vestige of the 1996 Act’s competitive framework.
Abandoning Pro-Competition Policies
Believe it or not, the much maligned 1996 Telecommunications Act was designed to foster consumer choice among many competing Internet services. But in the 13 years since it was passed, the FCC and the courts have torn down the Act’s basic competitive framework, as a powerful phone and cable lobby pressured regulators to pass rules that handed them control of the marketplace.
And as America blindly followed this path of so-called “deregulation,” our foreign counterparts maintained their commitment to the very pro-competitive policies pioneered in the 1996 Act.
We see the results today. Their broadband Internet markets have blossom, while ours have withered. At the turn of the century, the United States was ranked fifth among the world’s nations in broadband penetration. But just a few short years later, we had dropped precipitously to 22nd place. Consumers in countries that maintained policies that were committed to competition, such as South Korea and Japan, are today able to access broadband with symmetrical speeds reaching 1 Gigabit per second (Gbps) for less than the monthly price a U.S. consumer would pay for service that’s 100 times slower.
The FCC turned its back on the 1996 Act and ordered up a future of digital mediocrity – sticking American consumers with the bill. Nowhere is this digital shortfall more evident than in the state of competition in our broadband markets.
In the aftermath of the 1996 Act, the average American consumer had access to more than a dozen ISPs; today, our broadband market is a stagnant duopoly. Nationwide, incumbent phone and cable companies control 97 percent of the fixed-line residential broadband market. When complementary (and slow and expensive) mobile data connections are factored in, the incumbent phone and cable companies’ nationwide market share stands at 95 percent.
This situation is essentially unchanged since 2005, when the FCC took its final step to destroy the last vestige of the 1996 Act’s competitive framework.
Here's a start...
Our testimony before Congress during yesterday's judiciary subcommittee hearing on the future of newspapers:
http://www.freepress.net/files/Ben_Scott_Testimony_4_21_09.pdf
More reporters, not fewer
The assumption you're making is that all reporters will cover a story in the same way. Sure newspapers need to be more efficient, and reporters need to strive to be more than stenographers (many are despite Ana Marie's glib assessment) . But this idea that it's redundant to have a number of different reporters covering a similar region or beat isn't valid. Each reporter comes to the task with his/her own perspectives, hunches and interests. The resulting diversity of news and analysis is the lifeblood of healthy democratic debate. Rather than trying to pare down journalism -- and depopulate press galleries -- to some efficient ideal, we should be exploring new models that allow for more reporters to get into the mix.
'Big Ed' and the Real Whitacre
Mike. We may only disagree on a few things here, especially the extent to which this was clearly a parody.
The blog post in question features three prominent links to the cartoon and graphic all at the top of the page. The source cited "Big Ed" turns out to be a cartoon character. The lead graf teases the "exclusive" video.
There's a point at which a parody becomes too obvious to have any value as such. Had we given away too much up front we would have lost the hook -- which was to get people to watch the video in question and say "a ha."
No one who watched the video could possibly be fooled beyond that. That was the goal. Get people to watch a funny video. Set them up with a faux news story. Deliver the punch line and hope they 1.enjoy the joke and 2. become more engaged with the issue.
You may call that "intellectual dishonesty." I disagree wholeheartedly. Others may think the video wasn't funny. That's their prerogative. While others still may enjoy it.
That some picked this up and fed it out as legitimate news was a surprise to me. In comment threads on C&L and Slashdot others quickly pointed it out as parody. After it got 'Slashdotted' as legitimate, I posted a comment on my blog to clarify further.
The "Big Ed" quotes are so ludicrous of themselves; and the cartoon proves beyond a doubt that we're dealing in farce.
Do these tactics damage our case for Net Neutrality? Not at all. Our campaign work ranges from the research, scholarship and advocacy work we do at the highest levels of government and academia to “grasstops” and grassroots organizing to viral web tactics involving YouTube, MySpace, Facebook and other popular social networks.
These are aimed to engage more people with the issue and hope that they become the best and most informed champions of Net Neutrality.
Our campaign is built upon intellectual rigor and public passion for a better, more open and democratic Internet.
Some campaign tactics have succeeded others have failed. But in none do we seek to deceive people about this important issue.
My beef with Techdirt is your tendency to suggest that the lack of honesty in the land of phone and cable Astroturf is somehow equaled by deception among supporters of Net Neutrality.
Carlo uses this spoof as an example. I think he overstated the case to take a couple of cheap shots. I have tried in the past to engage you in a constructive conversation about making the Internet more open and affordable to all.
Instead I get this broadside. I think you guys can do better.
Lighten Up Carlo
Carlo. It must be easy calling a group "propagandists" when you clearly haven't read any of our research or congressional and FCC filings on the issue we advocate.
If you want a cogent argument in favor of Net Neutrality you need go no further than the reams of work we have done to that end. Sadly, you seemed to have missed all of that in favor of hasty judgments and sloppy blog posts. Take the time to read up before you attempt to "elucidate a position" again.
Nor do you seem aware of our history of successful Web activism and grass- and netroots organizing, which involves engaging more than 1.5 million people in our policymaking process. Our successful grassroots organizing has provided a people-powered counterweight to phone and company lobbyists who -- until we arrived -- largely dictated communications policy to Congress.
Many of our successful organizing tactics involve humor and parody. It's difficult to engage people in the arcane issue of Internet legislation. Humor is often a good portal to the issue (Thank god for Sen. Stevens Tubes and the Daily Show).
AT&T is fair target of this humor. They have been acting in bad faith. Their legions of lobbyists have hi-jacked telecom policy in this country to the benefit of no-one except themselves.
I'm sorry you don't get this and instead trot out hackneyed arguments and attempt to stake out high ground by accusing others of underhanded tactics. Did you actually read your own post? Did you read mine?
When we want make fun of the issue we use a cartoon character to play a real person. AT&T uses real people to play cartoon characters. For evidence of that look no further than Mike McCurry, whom they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to stand in front of cameras and parrot their propaganda.
There's a difference.
So you didn't think our spoof was funny. I can accept that. But don't confuse an obvious parody with flat-out lying.
Lighten Up Carlo
It is indeed sad that some have missed what's so obvious. But you couldn't be more wrong in you attempt to draw some sort of immoral equivalence between our coalition and phone company operatives -- or to suggest that our intention was purely to mislead about Whitacre.
"Big Ed's" problems with the public are the result of his own dishonesty and indiscretion. Our group has built its case against him and the phone companies on a solid foundation of research and history of public interest advocacy. We receive no corporate money or political party support but are acting on behalf of the more than 800 organizations and 1.5 million people who care enough about this issue to write Congress in defense of Net Neutrality. We have used creative tactics to engage grassroots activists. And been inspired by the imagination of others (Ask A Ninja, Tron Guy, etc.) who have used the Internet to make this cause their own.
Your attempt to tar us with the same brush used against the shills and their cohorts is an insult. As I have asked mike more than once, rather than taking pot shots from the sidelines, why not weigh in on the issue? You need to elevate your argument beyond these swipes at supposedly opposing sides, take a look at what's going on and help us build an internet that's more accessible, open and affordable to everyone.
Lighten Up Carlo
Carlo. My post is a spoof. Anyone who spends more than 30 seconds on it -- or bothers to download the video -- will see that. We give every indication that the quotes are tied to the "exclusive" (wink wink) video, which is itself a cartoon. We make the video prominently available to watch.
As you probably know, humor often involves a set up and then a punch line. Any reporter/blogger/etc worth his or her salt will read the post, click to watch the video and (we hope) enjoy the joke.
You have every right to critique the video for its content, but to claim that spoofing Ed Whitacre (who personifies one of the biggest threats to the Internet's democratic nature) constitutes "intellectual dishonesty" falls way off the mark.
Perhaps you should be more concerned about journalists who run with the "Big Ed" quote without double checking their sources. Or, more so, with those who print phone company talking points, or cite phony data from AT&T funded think tanks and Astroturf groups, without disclosing the clear conflicts of interest.
"Big Ed" may be out of the picture but his threat to a more open and accessible Internet is his continuing legacy.
Blind Eyes and Bank Accounts
Scott.
Seeing as how you work for broadband companies (pity you forgot to mention that once again), it's little surprise to see you rushing to their defense.
They ARE disserving of scrutiny and scorn, but I wouldn't expect a paid apologist like you to adopt any other tone but praise. Don't take it from me, read Cory Doctorow's take on the damaging influence companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have had on the U.S. broadband market.
Then go to Richard Hoffman's report over at InformationWeek, which decisively skewers a lot of the industry spin that you hold so dear.
I'm sure you have read these but, again, I don't expect you to admit that the marketplace failures they report on have resulted from a regulatory climate controlled by phone and cable lobbyists -- you know, those same companies that pay your bills.
Again, it's easier for you to turn a blind eye and regurgitate FCC data that has been widely disparaged by almost every independent technology analyst in the business – including Mike here at Techdirt.
Good work Scott. Stick to the party line. The check's in the mail.
Regulation for whom?
Yes. regulation could limit future innovation.
But it could also foster it. The question isn't: "Wither regulation?" Regulation already exists.
The question is "Regulation for the benefit of whom?"
Read This
Read this (link) and the Information Week report to which it refers.
And then try to imagine how the Internet could be even better than it is today. I think it would be better if it were faster, more open and accessible to everyone.
Then think about ways that we can get there.