i called my senators today about it, again. still "no position." this time, i threatened them. "i've got a blog, and lots of readers. i don't want to have to make you out to be the bad guys." one staffer seemed to grok the word blog, the other not so much.

keep up the good work, matt. obviously, it's rather easy to slap down the paid shills, but then again, that's why they're paid shills. it's work best left to the stupid and lazy.

Your original post was ironically titled "Please Lie to me about Net Neutrality" and you did.

You wrote: "There's a pervasive myth that there has been no discrimination on the internet against content companies.  That is simply untrue.  For one, Craigslist has been blocked for three months from Cox customers because of security software malfunctions...

The telcos are of course lying about this, claiming that no web sites have been blocked.  And gullible reporters are falling for the lies."

When you used the word "discrimination" you charged something was taking place far more nefarious than a simple software bug in an optional piece of software running on some of Cox Cable customers' PC's (and one that can be easily de-installed.) You charged an intentional act on the part of Cox Cable.

And by the time you made this charge, the problem had be identified and resolved for three months.

You lied, Matt, and you were found out. The only way to get the egg off your face now is to confess, apologize, admit you're a know-nothing and promise to enter counseling.

Matt - you did say "welcome to a non-neutral net" as a tag line for the story about Cox.  

Whether you outright SAID Cox was blocking Craigs List, IMPLIED they were blocking Craigs List or just SUGGESTED this activity might lead to nefarious conduct, it was pretty clear the point you were trying to get across.  I'm not going to suggest you outright lied, but c'mon Matt, you attempted to exploit the situation to make your political point.

You're having a field day going after the telecom and posters like myself who support the Hands Off the Internet side of the debate, but all the examples you have cited of sites being blocked were either in Canada, or due to technical reasons, none of them were out-and-out violations of net neutrality.

Ironically enough, we may have our first legitimate case of a blatent violation of net neutrality...and it's NOT by a telecom company, but by a CONTENT provider:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1 149

Matt:

I've e-mailed you twice now.  I am working on a story about the "netroots" serving as frontgroups for astroturf campaigns; Net Neutrality chief among them.  You have commented about this quite a bit and I wonder if you have any further comment, particularly in light of the alleged scandal re: Jerome and this website.

I e-mailed your yahoo account, so maybe you haven't read my requests yet.  Please check your e-mail and let me know.

I've already written a little about it here:

http://channelchanger.typepad.com/my_web log/2006/06/the_flip_side_o.html

And "The Plank" has a blog post up that says you are following Kos' orders to avoid talking about the scandal.  I hope that isn't true, but here's the post anyway:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=215 74

Look forward to hearing from you.

The right is mounting a concerted and vicious attempt to "swiftboat" all these sites in particuliar this site and it's owner and KOS. Karl Rove and his merry band of thugs have decided it's time to put the screws to the INTERNET. When their done it will be another Corp. shopping mall cleansed of any distractions ( Porn & File Sharing) and politically correct ( right wing blogs, chatrooms and news sites only.) Their using the Chinese model and the attacks are just beginning. Isn't Fascism fun?

You make a point about lying itself that maybe you didn't notice.  Only the whole truth is not a lie.  All else is lying.  I'm sure there is at least partial truth somewhere in there.  Successful lies force people to think beyond their means.  That's what prophaganda is.  Tell the truth in a way that deceives.

As far as censoring the content of web sites by providers I think there are legal remedies in place already.  Not only that forcing the use of law to maintain a web site is perhaps the best cheap advertising possible.  Case in point.  There's a web site that claims to have proof the Bible is a hoax.  It's refused advertising by the mainstream advertisers.  Those who accept it do so under threat of leagal action.  Then they apply rules that negate it's effect.  They're not about to get involved in a "suppression of information" class action suit and let everyone in the country know what they don't want known.  The playing field isn't all that tilted.  The web must stay free to keep it that way of course.

They might decide to shut you down if you keep noticing their lies.  Who are they anyhow?

Accuse Matt Stoller of lying! Smear Matt Stoller! Post some random responses that attempt to contradict the previous commenter! Attack Jerome Armstrong for something or other!

Such incredibly typical bullshit corporatist tactics. It pretty much IS swift boating. It's the tired routine of attacking the messengers just to score a point by disproving something they said, no matter how trivial:

"You said AT&T's logo is white, but it's actually blue! You are BUSTED!!!!!"

Notice they don't address the main point of this debate, the supposed benefits of non-neutrality. (Big surprise.) They just go off on little tangents and try to discredit anyone who speaks against their interests.

So, telco trolls and other assorted underminers, enlighten us. No really, please. Tell us about the wondrous pleasures of further de-regulation. We'd love to hear it.

Lucas, I'm sorry but you are misinformed on this.  The site was never blocked by Cox.  Some tech bloggers have dug into this and discovered that it was a technical problem caused largely by Craigs List themselves.

"the truth is that Craigslist is equally at fault and could have fixed the issue themselves long ago if they were simply following the RFCs for TCP/IP.  Many people have verified this to be the case and I took the time to verify it myself."

"Craig Newmark could have corrected the problem for everyone globally on his own servers months ago"

The link below has more details on what exactly he technical problem was.  Hope this helps clarify for you what actually happened.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=250

Must be fun to gang up on Matt.  He can be annoying and does like to provoke.  

But whether what Matt said was perfectly accurate or not is NOT the issue here and it disgusts me to see it become so...especially on the day of the Senate mark-up, when sausage-making at its worst is underway--sausage-making that could have big impacts on this country's future.

Yesterday I was reading about the so called "astroturf" groups that revolve around Sam Simon's Issue Dynamics, which came up while  reading parts of this new book, by Bruce Kushnick (free downloads this week only) about how the Bells have lied and ripped off consumers for the past decade or so (Bruce may seem shrill and overstated at times, but I think he's correct in the essence of his claims).

When I was in grad school in the early 80s, I did an internship with a group headed up by Sam, when it really was a consumer-advocacy group.  I helped write a handbook for creating local community cable "cooperatives." About a dozen years later, Sam apparently now stands as king of the "grassroots for hire" movement and, I'd guess, makes a pretty penny creating the illusion of grassroots support for corporate propaganda and lobbying campaigns.  And, I'd guess that Mike McCurry made out pretty well slinging the same superficial anti-NN sh*t day after day in the past few months.

My point here is that people like Matt (who I noticed on his MySpace site graduated from Harvard) clearly have the political skills to become high-paid, amoral "hacks for hire".  But they chose not to and, I'd guess, make significantly less money for their choice.

I know what its like to try to be an entrepreneur, a professional, a father and husband (and decent human being) while also trying to carve out some (unpaid) time to participate in the ugliness of politics because you care about this country and its future.  And I'm pretty sure that's what motivates people like Matt, Jerome, Markos, etc.  

No, none of them are perfect. But they're working in an arena where the deck has long been stacked against them, and I salute them for standing up to the big-money interests whose only view of the "public interest" is what's good for their stock price (please don't insult my intelligence by arguing otherwise).

Others, like Sam Simon and Matt McCurry, strike me as folks that have become comfortable swimming in the toxic sea of amorality and immorality that is Washington and getting paid handsomely for plying their craft on behalf of the city's paymasters.

And, on the issue of ESPN raised in this thread...I haven't carefully read the article cited, but it strikes me as just another symptom of the "future Internet" favored by incumbents.  It sounds an awful lot like the battles that have raged for years with ESPN and other cable programmers on one side and cable operators on the other...the giants battling among themselves for incremental market power. Nothing new here.

The real issue at stake here is not about this market power struggle among giants (though some opponents of NN claim incorrectly that it is).  It's about the little guys without ESPN's clout (or Google's), and the citizens who want to use the Internet to engage in political dialog and organizing.  

Pipe-owners would love to have ESPN as the greedy content owner (and I'm by no means saying they're not), or even better, swift-boated bloggers, become the issue that captures the public's attention.  

But the real issue is whether our country needs a high-capacity ubiquitous neutral Internet and how best to create it.  

It disgusts me, but doesn't surprise me, to see another important issue get buried in distracting sh*t.  

And that, once again, underscores the need for a high-capacity, ubiquitous Internet, to help level the playing field and wash away the rot in our political and economic systems.

I believe Craig himself said that the issue has nothing to do with net neutrality, Lucas.

Matt--It's important to note that the blogs at ZD are essentially editorials, not reporting. George is wrong and looking to demonize anyone who is pro-net neutrality, but it's his opinion.

I blog there, as well, and have been vociferous in my support of net neutrality on the same pages, arguing with George, in particular, across our blogs. Other ZD bloggers are arguing your side, too. So, I don't agree that the site is biased or that it is wrong they have their opinions.

It was never about Cox directly and it was never about neutrality. Craig himself explains it here, and even gives props to Cox. They were a (dare I say) neutral middleman.

It was a beef between third-parties, the customers suffered, but everyone acted in good faith. It happens every day in every industry and no one suggests we go to Congress to resolve it.

Neutrality legislation would have no bearing on this at all. It wasn't about neutrality in the first place, and the neutrality legislation that I've seen makes an exception for security software (the culprit in this case).

It was an obscure end-user software bug and an unusual setup on the Craigslist servers. So what? I had a bad meal in Sacramento the other day, too. It ain't a federal case...

I just got a call from Sam Simon, who I hadn't spoken to for about 25 years (I miscalculated when I said 12 earlier).  The conversation reminded me that, as tempting as it is to "go after" people based on something you hear or read, or because other people are attacking someone else you agree with, and you're pissed off about it (which occurred today), it's not a constructive thing to do--on multiple levels.  

In the few minutes we spoke, I didn't learn enough about what Sam's doing to convince me that Issue Dynamics and its related groups have been doing more good than harm with regard to "the public good"--especially in the telecom area--but it did convince me that: 1) Sam believes this is the case and believes the approach he takes is a practical and constructive one and; 2) I don't personally know enough about the facts to suggest he's only or even mostly in it for the money.

So, in publicly apologizing to Sam for publicly suggesting this is the case without any real backing for my comment, let me invite everyone else in this debate to back off from the heat of the moment--and their personal attacks on whomever--and remember that, while we may have very different perspectives on important issues that mean a lot to us--and even different sets of values--we're all still human beings, not caricatures that are either "good guys" or "bad guys," depending on which side of the debate we stand.

This, BTW, doesn't mean that I agree with Sam that his approach is a helpful one (though I will try to find time to do some homework on that question).   And more importantly, it doesn't weaken my belief that one of the greatest dangers facing our society and our world is the excess power of corporate "persons" in our economic, media and political systems, and that a neutral Internet is one of the few vital infrastructure tools that can help us begin to redress this deeply entrenched imbalance and the corruption it breeds in our political system and the inefficiencies and inequities in feeds in our economy and society.

In case I wasn't clear in my earlier comment, the idea that Matt was lying about the Cox-Craiglist issue is ludicrous and seems to be the expression of folks who are either politically motivated to swiftboat a strong NN advocate, who enjoy going after Matt because his posts are often pretty pointed and strongly worded (sorta like taking the smart kid in the class down a notch or two), and/or are trying to make a name for themselves by going after a high-profile blogger who is helping to lead the charge on net neutrality.

In a comment, Matt said:

I wrote that it was a security malfunction, a software problem.  That's what Craig wrote as well.  There was no ill-intent here on Cox's part, and I never wrote that there was.

Didn't he?

asc1 asc2 asc3 asc4 asc5 asc6 asc7 asc8 asc9 asc10 asc11 asc12 asc13 asc14 asc15 asc16 asc17 asc18 asc19 asc20 asc21 asc22 asc23 asc24 asc25 asc26 asc27 asc28 asc29 asc30 asc31 asc32 asc33 asc34 asc35 asc36 asc37 asc38 asc39 asc40 asc41 asc42 asc43 asc44 asc45 asc46 asc47 asc48 asc49 asc50 asc51 asc52 asc53 asc54 asc55 asc56 asc57 asc58 asc59 asc60 asc61 asc62 asc63 asc64 asc65 asc66 asc67 asc68 asc69 asc70 asc71 asc72 asc73 asc74 asc75 asc76 asc77 asc78 asc79 asc80 asc81 asc82 asc83 asc84 asc85 asc86 asc87 asc88 asc89 asc90 asc91 asc92 asc93 asc94 asc95 asc96 asc97 asc98 asc99 asc100