Link: California Gains Clout With Earlier Primary
"In their travels the [presidential candidates] heard about, and talked about, issues that are dominating the politics of this polyglot state: immigration, stem-cell research, protecting public lands and — reflecting the acute concern of the influential Silicon Valley software industry — the Net neutrality debate over the allocation of Internet bandwidth."
It’s true: amazingly, California isn’t just about tree hugging; its quaint, simple folk are actually interested in many of the same political issues that people in the rest of country care about. Also, all Californians speak multiple languages, apparently.
Related posts:
“Net neutrality debate over the allocation of Internet bandwidth”
I work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition — we’re skeptical of net neutrality and certainly opposed to the Dorgan-Snowe bill most of its supporters are behind.
And I’d say, the way the NY Times phrases it certainly doesn’t get to the heart of the issue, though I can understand they wouldn’t want to wade into the issue in a story about something else.
Still, the law “neutrality” activists propose is one that would disallow ISPs from offering guaranteed, on-time delivery of packets. “Allocation” is pretty euphemistic — what it would really mean is barrign ISPs from allocating space on their pipes.
Um… I thought I was pretty up front about the fact that I work in a professional capacity with a coalition, ergo, not an astroturfer.
You can check out the site for yourself — among our members include AT&T, Alcatel, but they also include the Communications Workers of America and the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
What’s bogus about that? Would we have to represent Google, eBay and Amazon to be “legit”?
Once again, let me repeat: Our website is very clear about who is part of our coalition — it’s on the front page. Do we represent Internet users as well? Of course! All of them? Of course not! And nor does Save the Internet represent everybody, either.
Funny, you calling me the intellectually dishonest one, when I showed up to make a point about the issue, and all you do is hurl back insults. What is inconsistent about supporting deregulation and representing the interests of stakeholders in the process, including telecommunications firms?
That said, I appreciate you responding. We don’t see eye to eye, that much is clear, but we should still be able to have a conversation about it.
So tell me, who funds this alleged “coalition” — the cable companies or the telecoms?
Your organization is completely bogus. You’re a lobbying firm. No astroturfing on my blog, please.
You belong to an organization that purports to represent users but in actuality represents industry. So yes, you are absolutely an astroturfer.
To the extent that your organization purports to stand for “deregulation” when in fact you really stand for the telcos and cable companies making internet policy, what you’re doing is intellectually dishonest and utterly reprehensible.