"Money well timed, and properly applied, will do anything." – John Gay, The Beggar's Opera, II xii
My e-mail queue is like a little grocery store parking lot -- filled with card tables holding petitions to sign -- but it's a
good grocery (maybe a co-op), because I want to sign. I just have to ensure that sign only once. If I sign the People for the American Way petition on fracking, I can't sign the DailyKos one or the Credo petitions on the same House bill. If I sign the Credo petition for an increase in minimum wage, I can't sign the same petition from one of the others. For Net Neutrality, I signed the Daily Kos petition, and I personalized my message.
You see, I'm in Georgia. Personalizing the petition is mandatory.
John Barrow, who was a reliable Republican vote, was replaced by a three dimensional camo swatch named Rick Allen. My senators are Johnny Isakson and David Perdue (R-Dollar General). The first of these senators has the remarkable achievement of not being noticed within or without the senate by anybody in a score of years, and the second of them is remarkable for saying that as CEO of Dollar General he outsourced "only" a few thousand jobs. As for Rick Allen, he was known for getting rich with government contracts while screaming about how evil gummunt is.
You can imagine that I had low hopes for sending the petitions. I personalized them, therefore, with,
"Sir, equal access on the Internet is vital for free expression for conservatives as well as progressives, for education as well as invention. Whether the website is Red State or Daily Kos, and whether the site manager is publishing poetry or novel ideas on agriculture, the future of innovation and the health of our national discussion and democracy depends upon equal access to Internet visitors. Do not sell the public's resources to corporations and silence the voices of America."
It was a flowery bullet, and I expected it to have about as much force as one. I was surprised, therefore, when I got an envelope in the mail from Rick Allen containing his response. Follow me below for what he said, and for my reply.
It began with "Dear Mr. The Geogre." That's "doctor" The Geogre to you, Bunky. That's the title I gave your office, and the demotion is not appreciated, as I'm not sure we're actually endeared. Perhaps we will be, but let's not get grabby with vocatives.
A full page of Congressional franking privilege was then lost to a summary of "net neutrality, the history." It was as if someone on staff had had to find the Cliff's Notes to brief him- or herself and then decided, to show how engaged the Congressman is, that she would cram that summary into every response. The page is accurate. It's just professional eye glaze.
Then, on the second page, we get to the Congressman's planned votes and why.
I personally believe the FCCs current net neutrality proposal could harm our free enterprise system. The telecommunications market is extremely competitive, and federal regulation would suppress the innovation that has led to its rapid and successful development.
First, let me point out that the
Saxon genitive is easy to understand. For nigh unto a thousand years, we have used an
apostrophe and an "s" to indicate a possessive. It's a rather easy rule to remember. The FCC's net neutrality proposal, Rick Allen believes, could harm the "free enterprise
system." This is not only an empty string of words, but a logical impossibility. "Free enterprise" and "system" are near antonyms. Furthermore, Allen implies that he believes that current profits for telecommunications companies are proof that
it is working well. What is working well? What is it? Is "it" the "free enterprise system?" Is "it" "telecommunications" companies?
The one "it" "it" cannot be is the Internet. The profits and increasing usage rates of telecommunications companies have nothing to do with the growth and success of the Internet. Despite what his lobbyist friends will tell him, the Internet is not a smartphone app. Verizon can see a billion new phone users, and that won't mean that broadband is doing well or poorly -- it'll mean that Verizon is getting richer.
The Scribe of Rick Allen goes on:
"Telecommunications companies invest significant capital in building broadband infrastructure to give American consumers fast and reliable access to the internet. Net neutrality could limit these companies' ability to manage their networks and could remove incentives for continuing to build and improve upon the infrastructre that they own, on which many Americans rely."
Ah, there's the apostrophe! Unfortunately, there is also "internet," but never mind that. This argument sounds familiar. In fact, this portion of the paragraph is so familiar that I believe I have both heard and read it before. It is exact language from AT&T, Verizon, and T-mobile. The argument is, "We spent money, so we get to do whatever we want!"
The problem with this is that the public spent money, too. In fact, while telecoms have laid "infrastructure" for cell phone towers and their own servers, the public not only laid the original "infrastructure" for the Internet but continues to protect and maintain the backbone (there's that pesky distinction between "telecoms" and "Internet" again; it just won't stop butting in). Now telecommunications companies made business decisions based upon their own projections of profits, and "the free enterprise system" means that companies sometimes guess wrong. When they do, they suffer.
That's the "free enterprise system" that America proclaims. However, if corporations are in an oligopoly and can change laws to allow unlimited charges to consumers and preclude access to competitors, then we do not have a free market at all, but rather a public support for private corporations. That is otherwise known as corruption.
The other argument is, "If we don't let them do whatever they want, however they want, then they might not do better!" This argument used to be the argument against all forms of social obligation ("If you don't get paid more for your work, why would you do any work at all? You wouldn't! You'd sit there all day!" except that people like to work and actually care for each other, and money is the worst motivator). Given the studies that show that the telecommunication companies of the USA have, with their generous, public spirited "investment" in "infrastructure" provided American consumers with the slowest, spottiest broadband connections in the developed world, I fail to see how we are supposed to tremble in fear at the loss of the immense good will they have for consumers now.
Notice also that the Metatron of Allen says that "they own" the infrastructure. What, one wonders, in the expanded environs of Hell is he, she, or it talking about? What "infrastructure" is this? Has Rick Allen's amanuensis been watching the AT&T commercials with the annoying nerd stereotypes and mistaking them for documentaries? Does the Scribe believe that net neutrality will collectivize Verizon's routers and send Lily from AT&T to a re-education camp? Does the scribe not realize that this is a discussion about preferential throughput rates for commercial sites?
It appears that Rick Allen's office is very afraid of the coming Soviet of the Internet, for the Voice of Rick ends with:
Instead of encouraging additional regulations and giving Washington bureaucrat's control over the Internet, President Obama and the FCC should encourage more competition in the broadband market to ensure that the internet is open, available, fast, and reliable for all Americans."
May I first say "sic." (We get to see Internet and internet, and the apostrophe shows up in a contorted position. Perhaps there is one person in the state of Washington called "bureaucrat," and it is she who controls things?)
This last sounds like it came either from the man who campaigned against John Barrow or a Victorian malaria ward. The President should encourage more competition among broadband providers, he spake. Verily, the President should do that. Congress should do it, too. Governors might even get in on the act. The local chambers of commerce could even do it, as I am not sure this is a matter solely for the chief executive. The problem is that when three to five corporations lock up all the towers (the "infrastructure" that Rick Allen points out "they own" and that they paid a lot of money for), and when Internet providers have to taxi on one of those three or four major carriers for Internet access points, this platitude is even more foolish than the usual sort. If my town had fifty broadband services, they'd all be running off of a pipe owned by one of the major corporations. If they throttle access, it won't matter what Steve and Louise's Home Internet wants to offer.
Finally, of course, net neutrality is not a "Washington regulation." It is, in fact, the opposite. It is a prohibition. That is what you call a "law." What is being proposed is not a "bureaucrat," but simply a consistent treatment of the Internet as a public utility so that it may not become an avenue for media monopoly.
At present, we have a choice of who will control access to the Internet. Either "Washington bureaucrat's" say that access must be the same for all, or corporations will set speeds at the ability of a consumer to pay. I can vote to change the officials in Washington -- will vote to replace ones who show themselves to be unthinking, unaware, and unconscious -- but I will not be able to undo the damage done from corporate marketing executives. There is, therefore, only one side to this issue, and it isn't the one the telco lobbyists represent.