"Fierce advocate" claims to the contrary, no truly sentient being would ever mistake President Obama for a staunch defender of gay rights. Not after he campaigned with notorious homophobe Donnie McClurkin in South Carolina. What made DADT repeal possible was two things: (1) Gay advocates realized they were being strung along, and decided to do something potentially embarrasing about it. (2) There was no discernible corporate opposition.
Today President Obama's Federal Communications Commission betrayed the fundamental principle of net neutrality and sold us out to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.
This is the culmination of a long struggle, and it's important we discuss frankly what led to this point. So this will be a longer e-mail than we traditionally send, with some recommended action items at the end.
Despite what you may have read in the headlines, the rules passed by the FCC today amount to nothing more than a cynical ploy by Democrats to claim a victory on net neutrality while actually caving on real protections for consumers.
Make no mistake, AT&T lobbyists pre-approved this proposal, which means consumers lost and Big Telecom won.
Net neutrality is a principle that says that Internet users, not Internet service providers (ISPs), should be in control. It ensures that Internet service providers can't speed up, slow down, or block Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination.
Yet today the FCC, let by Obama-appointee Julius Genachowski and cheered on by the White House, voted to adopt rules that will enshrine in federal regulations for the first time the ability of AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and other ISPs to discriminate between sources and types of content. And despite the fact that there is only one Internet, the rules also largely exempt cell phones and wireless devices from what meager protections the rules afford.
It's no exaggeration to say that this decision marks the beginning of the end for the Internet as we know it.
Senator Al Franken laid out what's at stake with this ruling, saying:
"The FCC's action today is simply inadequate to protect consumers or preserve the free and open Internet. I am particularly disappointed to learn that the order will not specifically ban paid prioritization, allowing big companies to pay for a fast lane on the Internet and abandoning the foundation of net neutrality. The rule also contains almost no protections for mobile broadband service, remaining silent on the blocking of content, applications, and devices. Wireless technology is the future of the Internet, and for many rural Minnesotans, it's often the only choice for broadband."
....
Now, I must say that it's not Net Netrality activists fault that haven't threatened Obama with course-altering embarrassment, the way that gay activists such as Lt. Dan Choi did. The potential for doing so was just not there in the same way it was for gay activists. So I'm not blaming anyone here. I'm just trying to point out how clearly these two outcomes define the limits of the possible and the impossible with Obama playing the role of political leader.
It should also be noted, of course, that for all of Obama's claims to be thinking in the long term, this habit of always caving on the economic front is virtually guaranteed to destroy the long-term prospective democraphic edge that's been talked about since The Emerging Democratic Majority in 2002. The trends foreseen in that book are not carved in stone, and the more the Dems cave on economic issues, the more social issues are likely to be vulnerable to culture war attacks. And you think the GOP is going to be shy about that?
(A key piece of the puzzle revealed. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Last Wednesday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed Network Neutrality rules that he claims will save the open Internet.
As another FCC commissioner has attested, these rules will do no such thing. Instead, they will allow the big broadband companies, like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, to erect toll booths on the Internet that will result in segregated online communities where wealthy content and application providers will pay a premium for carriage, with everyone else discarded to a secondary, lower quality tier.
Such a policy would be disastrous for the Black community. Today, the Internet — unlike cable television, broadcast radio, or print — is the sole medium where we can communicate with each other nationally and globally, pushing back on the political and social status quo without the interference of corporate gatekeepers.
If Chairman Genachowski succeeds in letting the big phone and cable players carve up the Internet, the day will come when many in the civil rights community will realize and regret their role in making it happen.
Net neutrality is a core principle that is largely responsible for the Internet being such a powerful and transformative tool. It requires that content gets carried by Internet service providers with the same priority and speed regardless of the sender. It's the way the Internet has worked since the beginning. Those who are arguing for net neutrality are simply trying to maintain the status quo — a status quo that has enabled the Internet to flourish in a way that no other communications technology has.
Without net neutrality, Google, Facebook, the Huffington Post and MoveOn.org would not exist; neither would Barack Obama be President. And it's an open Internet that has made the campaigns that we've run at ColorOfChange possible — everything from holding Fox News accountable for the likes of Glenn Beck, to stripping away Beck's advertisers, to telling the story of the Jena 6, or advocating for the rights of Katrina survivors.
For over a year, several of the most prominent civil rights groups have been aligned with AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast — whether knowingly or not — in those companies' efforts to end net neutrality. But they have not acted alone. In my conversations with many groups and individuals inside the Beltway, one man emerges as the nerve center for much of the action we've seen on the part of the civil rights groups. His name is David Honig.
Imagine trying to visit your favorite website, only to find -- BZZT! -- the site's been blocked by the government. It happens every day in China and Iran, but now the U.S. Senate wants to bring Internet censorship home.
This week the Senate Judiciary Committee is planning to pass a bill called COICA which would let the Attorney General force all American ISPs to block particular websites. It'd be the first time the we'd set up an Internet censorship regime in the US, and yet most senators don't seem to see any problem with it. Can you sign our urgent petition today?
In a year where Democrats are running from their records, I'm excited to report that 95 Bold Democrats together with the PCCC went on offense today announcing they'll fight to protect Net Neutrality.
As PCCC senior online campaigns director Jason Rosenbaum said this morning, this announcement is " the first time ever that congressional candidates have joined together to make net neutrality an election issue."
If Verizon and Google were trying to show support for net neutrality, they sure dropped the ball today. On a conference call with media just a couple hours ago, Verizon CEO, Ivan Seidenberg began explaining how companies might want to use a different network to send information. He took offense when Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land termed it "alternative internet," but his further explanation did little to counter the naming. Here is Mr. Seidenberg's further discussion of the "alternative internet" after questioning from Erick Schonfeld of TechCrunch:
I just got off a media conference call with Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg.
They announced a new policy recommendation that would kill the Internet as we know it, if implemented by FCC Chair Julius Genokowski and other policy makers.
The old "wireline" Internet that will be irrelevant in a few years? We propose a "new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices" on that.
New "wireless services" (aka the entire future of the Internet)? No equivalent nondiscrimination rules for that, but we'll "create enforceable transparency rules." That way, as Americans lose access to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away.
Just in case "wireless services" doesn't encompass the entire future of the Internet, a new class of "new services" is envisioned, which Schmidt and Seidenberg actively differentiated from "the public Internet." Basically, through private contracting, big corporations could deal directly with the Verizons and AT&Ts of the world to create the next YouTube, maybe dangle it without discrimination to the public just long enough for us to be hooked, and then discriminate like hell over it. But don't worry, the FCC will "monitor the development of these services."
Google, a company that I've long admired and currently hold thousands of dollars of stock in, just "went evil."
This letter was launched last week by 5 groups that use the Internet to organize millions of Americans around issues, and are now using the Internet to save the Internet itself -- Free Press, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, MoveOn, Credo Action, and ColorOfChange.
Why did Google cut this absurd deal, one that dramatically hurts its credibility in the online space?
For years, Internet advocates have warned of the doomsday scenario that will play out on Monday: Google and Verizon will announce a deal that the New York Times reports "could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege."
The deal marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as you know it. Since its beginnings, the Net was a level playing field that allowed all content to move at the same speed, whether it's ABC News or your uncle's video blog. That's all about to change, and the result couldn't be more bleak for the future of the Internet, for television, radio and independent voices.
How did this happen? We have a Federal Communications Commission that has been denied authority by the courts to police the activities of Internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast. All because of a bad decision by the Bush-era FCC. We have a pro-industry FCC Chairman who is terrified of making a decision, conducting back room dealmaking, and willing to sit on his hands rather than reassert his agency's authority. We have a president who promised to "take a back seat to no one on Net Neutrality" yet remains silent. We have a congress that is nearly completely captured by industry. Yes, more than half of the US congress will do pretty much whatever the phone and cable companies ask them to. Add the clout of Google, and you have near-complete control of Capitol Hill.----Josh Silver, august 5th, 2010
It would truly be a grotesque irony if the greatest phenomenon in favor of democratized, bottom-up change in history--the network neutral internet--was destroyed under the administration that has consistently sold itself as the most democratized, bottom-up, grassroots-friendly White House in history. But, we are on the brink of seeing exactly that happen.
The Obama administration's endless dithering and insatiable desire to not appear--or be--confrontational toward corporate America and other status-quo institutions is about to allow the Internet to become a top-down, corporate captured medium. The wealthiest corporations will be able to shut out bottom-up, grassroots institutions that are outside their control. And, they will vastly enrich themselves in the process.
The Internet is the most democratized media in the history of the world. It is the largest repository of cultural production ever created. Both of these are only possible because everyone who has access to the Internet has the same production and distribution options as everyone else. This deal between Verizon and Google would end that, once and for all, by allowing the wealthiest, most powerful corporations to have the best channels of production and distribution, while everyone else gets crumbs or worse.
This is going to happen unless the Obama administration and the FCC prevent it. And they CAN prevent it. Unfortunately, they are more interested in not taking any confrontational stance at all, and are working to outline a "third way" on Net Neutrality even as the Google Verizon deal unfolds.
Although, I suppose on the plus side for the Obama administration, they won't have to worry about hearing about complaints from annoying bloggers anymore, since it could become almost impossible to get our websites to load.
It is August of an even-numbered year, and I am trying mightily to shift my attention to the elections. I had planned to do a blog post today about House races, followed by posts about key races most of the rest of the days between here and the election; I have signed on with MoveOn to help them on their exciting new campaign to clean up the corporate corruption in DC; I am beginning to work with BlogPac, CPC PAC, and other progressive PACs on key races; I am keeping in touch with my progressive donor friends to move money into key races. I'm doing all the dutiful things any good Democrat should do as the election season comes upon us.
This is as core an issue as there is for everyone who uses the internet. Letting only the biggest companies and richest individuals have good quality service wreaks havoc with everything that is good about the internet: the freedom of speech, the ability to mobilize people, the entrepreneurial spirit that allows new tech companies to get started, the ability by charities and small business people to create low cost revenue streams. What the Obama administration is about to let happen is a stake in the heart of our democracy and the ability of small businesspeople and not-profits to provide the innovation of the future.
What is most tragic about this was that in the 2008 campaign, this issue of net neutrality and democratic media was where Obama was the most unequivocally good. His platform and speeches on this issue were clear as a bell, and left no room for error: he was on the side of consumers, activists, and entrepreneurs in fighting against the telecoms efforts to make the internet a playground for only those who could afford to pay the big bucks. Then he appointed a strong net neutrality advocate, Julius Genachowski, as the head of the FCC. I met Julius when I worked in the transition, and was delighted by the appointment, because I was under the impression he would be strongly on our side on this issue.
Now the administration seems to be walking away from all their promises. It is a bitter betrayal.
I am still going to help the candidates who are going to fight against these kinds of policies, but now that I have this betrayal to fight against, it sure does make it harder to focus on the work, let alone defend the Obama administration.
The FCC needs to get its act together, and stop the destruction of what's good about the internet.
When President Obama was campaigning for President, his proposals on maintaining and strengthening an open internet were perhaps the most progressive of all his proposed policies. In late 2007, Matt Stoller called these proposals "transformative."
After the campaign, protecting Net Neutrality had been perhaps the Obama administration's most progressive accomplishment. When a reluctant, telecom-controlled Congress refused to act to defend Net Neutrality, the FCC moved forward without them. Go ahead, try to think of other examples where the Obama administration went around Congress to fight corporate power--there might not be any others.
However, this point of light in the Obama administtraion may be fading. Faced with a court decision that requires the FCC to reverse a Bush-era ruling in order to protect Net Neutrality, the FCC appears ready not to reverse the old rule. Mcjoan presents a solid overview:
Last month, a federal appeals court ruled that the FCC had limited authority to regulate broadband services, and that it could not require broadband providers to adhere to network neutrality rules under its general authority to regulate telecommunications.
The ruling is a result, in part, of the FCC's decision in the 2002 Cable Modem Order "to treat broadband providers not as common carriers subject to regulation under Title II of the Federal Communications Act, but rather as 'information services' which would be subject to much less stringent regulations." The most straightforward response to this ruling, and the one that would ensure the ability of the FCC to enforce net neutrality, would be to revisit that 2002 decision, and treat broadband providers as common carriers and thus regulate them under their Title II authority.
But sources within the FCC say that FCC Chair Julius Genachowski is "leaning toward keeping the current regulatory framework for broadband services in place."
These are not idle rumors--a lot of open internet advocates are really freaked out about this.
Just three months ago, President Obama reiterated that he is a "big believer" in Net Neutrality. We will see if those words meant anything depending on what the FCC does, or not not do, in the coming days.
A U.S. appeals court has ruled that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission did not have the authority to order Comcast to stop throttling peer-to-peer traffic in the name of network management.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in an order Tuesday, overturned the FCC's August 2008 ruling forcing Comcast to abandon its network management efforts aimed at users of the BitTorrent p-to-p service and other applications. The FCC lacked "any statutorily mandated responsibility" to enforce network neutrality rules, wrote Judge David Tatel.
This ruling comes at an extremely sensitive time. The FCC was set to implement the national broadband plan, and the public comment period of their new proposed regulations on Net Neutrality will end later this week. You can submit a comment here.
For their part, Comcast says that filing a lawsuit against Net Neutrality actually had nothing to do with Net Neutrality, and was just about clearing their name:
"Our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation," Sena Fitzmaurice, vice president of government communications. "Comcast remains committed to the FCC's existing open Internet principles, and we will continue to work constructively with this FCC as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant Internet."
Comcast likes Net Neutrality! They are just filing federal lawsuits against it. You can trust Comcast.
Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett writes today in response to the ruling "raises grave doubts" about whether the FCC can demand carriers provider an open Internet. He notes, though, that Net Neutrality has been supported by the Obama Administration and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. Moffett things the FCC has three choices on how to proceed:
Ask Congress to pass legislation giving the FCC the needed authority.
Ask Congress to pass Net Neutrality legislation.
Reclassify broadband services to bring them under FCC jurisdiction.
The latter option is what Moffett describes as the "nuclear option," and would involve the reclassification of broadband service to be what's known as a Title II service, or a common carrier. Broadband is now designated as a Title 1 service, which carriers fewer regulatory restrictions.
"The FCC must have the authority to carry out its consumer protection and public interest mission in the 21st-century broadband marketplace. The current Commission did not create this existential crisis, but it now has no choice but to face these tough jurisdictional questions head on, and do what is necessary to protect consumers and promote competition."
The FCC hinted on Tuesday it still planned to take that route, stressing the agency is "firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans."
"Today's court decision invalidated the prior Commission's approach to preserving an open Internet," spokeswoman Jen Howard said in a statement. "But the Court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end."
Markey, a senior member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee and co-author of net neutrality legislation, told the FCC to "take any actions necessary to ensure that consumers and competition are protected on the Internet."
We are not used to aggressive moves from Democrats in Congress, or from the Obama administration, but at this point such an aggressive rulemaking path is essential to preserving an open Internet. Encourage them to do so--you can submit a comment to the FCC on their rule-making process here.
For those not familiar with the term "net neutrality," it describes the rules and practices that currently keep the Internet a free and open communication medium. Net neutrality guarantees that blogs, small businesses, and organizations are on a level playing field with the largest corporations. Whether you're GM or an individual, the content you put online is accessible and delivered in the same way, with the same priority, and nothing is blocked. For communities of color, net neutrality is key. It keeps barriers to Internet entrepreneurship low so that anyone with a good idea and some technical savvy can join the 21st century economy.
Predictably, the major players in the broadband industry have been fighting the FCC's efforts to adopt rules that would solidify net neutrality principles into law, because scrapping net neutrality would enable them to make even more money by creating new revenue streams. Ironically, civil rights leaders and CBC members have joined the dominant players. Their stated reasoning: the belief that net neutrality rules could hurt efforts to close the digital divide. The problem is that, as far as I can see, the argument doesn't hold water. It falls apart whether you approach it from the perspective of business, common sense, or history.
My hope in writing my first post was that it might encourage civil rights leaders who have opposed or questioned net neutrality to publicly explain their positions. Given what's at stake, I think its incumbent on leaders opposing or questioning net neutrality to publicly make clear why. Unfortunately, none have done so.
While leadership remained silent, my post did elicit some responses, which follow the same pattern--uncritically echoing industry talking points while trying to change the subject from the arguments I put on the table. Take, for example, the open letter posted by Navarrow Wright, a former television and Internet executive and current strategic consultant. I gather from Wright's resume that he is an accomplished and intelligent guy, but his criticism of my piece typifies the shoddy argumentation and confusing of issues from the loudest voices against net neutrality. While Wright failed to engage the arguments I put on the table, in the interest of public debate, I want to take on his assumptions one by one.
It's said that politics creates strange bedfellows. I was reminded how true this can be when I traveled to D.C. in recent weeks to figure out why several advocacy groups and legislators with histories of advocating for minority interests are lining up with big telecom companies in opposition to the FCC's efforts to pass "Net Neutrality" rules.
Net Neutrality is the principle that prevents Internet Service Providers from controlling what kind of content or applications you can access online. It sounds wonky, but for Black and other communities, an open Internet offers a transformative opportunity to truly control our own voice and image, while reaching the largest number of people possible. This dynamic is one major reason why Barack Obama was elected president and why organizations like ColorOfChange.org exist.
So I was troubled to learn that several Congressional Black Caucus members were among 72 Democrats to write the FCC last fall questioning the need for Net Neutrality rules. I was further troubled that a number of our nation's leading civil rights groups had also taken positions questioning or against Net Neutrality, using arguments that were in step with those of the big phone and cable companies like AT&T and Comcast, which are determined to water down any new FCC rules.
Most unsettling about their position is the argument that maintaining Net Neutrality could widen the digital divide.
First, let's be clear: the problem of the broadband digital divide is real. Already, getting a job, accessing services, managing one's medical care-just to mention a few examples-are all facilitated online. Those who aren't connected face a huge disadvantage in so many aspects of our society. Broadband access is a big problem -- but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with Net Neutrality.
Yet some in the civil rights community will tell you differently. They claim that if broadband providers can earn greater profits by charging content providers for access to the Internet "fast lane," then they will lower prices to underserved areas. In other words, if Comcast - which already earns 80 percent profit margins on its broadband services - can increase its profits under a system without Net Neutrality, then they'll all of a sudden invest in our communities. You don't have to be a historian or economist to know that this type of trickle-down economics never works and has always failed communities of color.
Let's face it--from a political, economic and ecological perspective, this past decade pretty much sucked ass. Lots of war, lots of economic downturn, lots of legislative failure and the continued onset of a new, ecological, Malthusian trap. Still, looking at the decade from the grand perspective of human history, there was also a huge positive: the continued development and expansion of the Internet.
The Internet is a disruptive technology for our entire species, even if it has a long way to go before it spreads to all humans. The exponential decline in the cost of information brought about by the Internet and mobile phone technology will be, in all likelihood, the top cultural and technological development of our lifetimes. The way this has changed, and will continue to change, our economic, social and mental structures puts it on par with the printing press as an agent of change. The development of the Internet will also be America's greatest national achievement, and that is saying quite a lot given that we landed on the moon and won some pretty important wars.
Protecting the information distributed on the Internet from control by telecoms is also perhaps the greatest achievement of the Obama administration to date. In October, the President Obama's newly appointed FCC commissioners moved to start a rule-making process on Net Neutrality. Essentially, this means that the telecoms which provide access to the Internet access cannot control, or otherwise discriminate against, what information is produced, consumed and distributed on the Internet.
This happened in spite of a massive astroturf push by telecom companies, and also a letter sent to the FCC by 72 Democratic members of Congress--many of whom are in the Congressional Progressive Caucus--repeating industry talking points about how there is no need for regulation. Because really, if there is anyone you can trust to look out for your interests, large telecom companies are it. Why would anyone think that they would try and take control of content distribution for the largest cultural medium ever created? Leave Comcast and AT&T allllloooonnne.
To the FCC's credit, they moved forward on Net Neutrality anyway. It is very heartening to see the Obama administration stand up for the public interest, even if it means opposing a few dozen Congressional Democrats.
This was the first clear cut time that the Obama administration stood up for the public against corporate Democrats, instead of siding with them and coddling them. Further, in doing this the Obama administration moved the United States toward a more progressive Internet policy than most other wealthy democracies, which is something of a rarity for our country.
The continued expansion of the Internet (including wireless phones) is my pick for the top development of the decade. The Obama administration's protection of that Internet--particularly because the administration did it in the face of a bi-partisan and transnational corporate coalition--is my pick the top political moment of the first year. What are you picks?
A Chris Bowers Golden Oldie
From Mon May 05, 2008. Original HERE.
Is there a progressive movement? This question has seemed particularly relevant over the last two weeks, as support for Barack Obama has washed away apparent long-standing principles of the movement: do not legitimize Fox News and Democrats should become more partisan. Now, apparently, we need to go on Fox News as much as possible and we much ditch partisanship altogether. If the Obama campaign can change the principles of the movement so quickly, perhaps there isn't a movement at all.
Perhaps a different question is necessary: what is a political movement, anyway? Thinking back over the 20th century, the defining characteristic seems to be a large-scale political undertaking that not only had goals of changing governmental institutions, but that changed the way people lived by shifting the balance of power in other major institutions as well. A political movement seeks to reorganize society on a far broader level than simply changing governmental policy. Examples include:
The labor movement fundamentally changed the economic structure of this and other countries by granting wage-laborers more power over the American workplace.
In addition to expanding access to government, the civil right's movement sought to reorganize educational, housing and employment patterns throughout the country. Other examples from this time period include the Black Panthers and the "counter-culture," which were primarily organized around institutions other than governmental policy (law enforcement and cultural consumption).
Radical Islamicist movements have worked to reorganize virtually every major institution in a given society, from education to religion to familial structures to cultural consumption.
A political movement always targets more than governmental policy change, since only changing policy would not alter the general framework of how people live in a given society. With that in mind, in what ways is the contemporary progressive movement going beyond seeking governmental policy change, and directly altering the way people interact with other major institutions in our society?
Looking over the major ideological institutions in America--the family, education, mass media, religion, and the workplace--the largest and most rapid changes are currently taking place in the latter three. By lowering the cost of information, the Internet has dramatically changed both the media landscape specifically and cultural production / consumption patterns more generally. Also, in terms of religion, nationally there is a broad movement away from self-identification as Christian, and even a dramatic re-organization within Christianity itself. Within the workplace and our larger economic structures, the rise of the Creative Class has had a major impact on the types of jobs available in America, and also on income inequality. This isn't to say that there are not major changes in other major ideological institutions like education and the family, just that the changes in the above three are far more pronounced in recent years.
Now, which of these three major changes can be identified a part of a "progressive movement?" The religious shifts don't really work, since the movement away from traditional religious identification and institutions is not organized by any group of people, and is simply happening on its own. Since it is at least partially a side-effect of a rising corporate power, income inequality, and de-industrialization, the rise of the Creative Class doesn't really work, whether or not most members of the Creative Class tend to be progressive. This leaves us with the lower cost of information, and resulting explosion in cultural production, brought on by the Internet. Perhaps the de-centralization of mass media consumption, the public sphere interaction, and cultural production brought on by the Internet is the progressive movement. It is the clearest example of how daily life has changed in a progressive way over the last decade. The medium is the movement.
Identifying the medium, and the changing cultural and media consumption / production patterns it has created, as the progressive movement itself helps provide perspective both on Barack Obama and on policy priorities for maintaining a healthy movement. First, changing viewpoints that Obama's campaign has created about Fox News and partisanship will not be isolated incidents. Since the consumption and production patterns themselves are the major change, the movement is ultimately lacking in fixed precepts. We should expect other changes in the future, including an inevitable rejection of Obama's ideas on partisanship and Fox News. Second, in order to maintain a healthy movement and the positive feedback loops the movement creates for progressivism, telecom policy and net neutrality should be understood as top, non-negotiable policy priorities. If net neutrality is ended, then the contemporary progressive movement, along with all progressive policy and lifestyle changes it promises, will come to an end. The movement is not just dependant upon the medium, but is in fact embedded in it. If net neutrality is ended, it will shift control of the medium away from individuals with broadband access, and toward large corporations. If the movement is the medium, then control over the medium for the average Internet user must be maintained, and expanded, at all costs.
Finally, from a "medium is the movement" perspective, the choice between Clinton and Obama isn't really even a choice at all. It's Obama by a mile.
STATE BLOGS
