Betrayal of the open Internet‏-A Message from Color Of Change

Anita:

Thank you for explaining this issue in a clear way.

The statement from the GOP’s say this:
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.
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, led 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.
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."
So how did we get here? Just two years ago, net neutrality advocates were heartened by the election of a president who promised to defend net neutrality and appoint an FCC Chair who would do the same.
Initially, things looked good. After President Obama was inaugurated and after he appointed Chairman Genachowski to head the FCC, we had what we thought were three net neutrality supporters on the five-member commission and the support of the president. It seemed reasonable, therefore, to support the FCC in writing the net neutrality regulations that we needed.
But it was the FCC's unwillingness to undo a Bush-era decision to deregulate broadband Internet providers that demonstrated how weak the Obama administration's support for net neutrality really was.
This Bush-era decision classified broadband Internet providers outside of the legal framework that traditionally applied to companies that offer two-way communication services
After a federal court ruled that unless the FCC reversed the Bush-era decision to deregulate broadband the FCC couldn't enforce net neutrality rules, Genachowski tested the waters with a proposal to reregulate (or in the jargon of the FCC "reclassify") broadband. Genachowski himself said that, according to the FCC General Counsel, pushing ahead with policies without reregulating broadband would be unwise given the tenuous legal footing the FCC would find itself in.
In fact, Genachowski said: "...continuing to pursue policies with respect to broadband Internet access [without reclassifying broadband] has a serious risk of failure in court. It would involve a protracted, piecemeal approach to defending essential policy initiatives designed to protect consumers, promote competition, extend broadband to all Americans, pursue necessary public safety measures, and preserve the free and open Internet. The concern is that this path would lead the Commission straight back to its current uncertain situation-and years will have passed without actually implementing the key policies needed to improve broadband in America and enhance economic growth and broad opportunity for all Americans."
But the Chairman changed his tune after he unsurprisingly came under pressure from the telecom giants.
Chairman Genachowski was quickly cowed by political pressure and signaled an unwillingness to reclassify broadband. And rather than trying to give us net neutrality protections, he has instead sought to find a way of cynically passing something he can claim is net neutrality, when it's nothing of the sort.
The lack of political will to confront the telecommunications giants effectively gave these oligarchic interests a veto over the rules that govern their behavior. In this way the narrow interests of a few powerful and wealthy corporations were prioritized over the public good and the literally millions of people who spoke out and demanded that the FCC protect our free and open Internet.

Anita, I don't believe that is a statement from the GOP. It looks suspiciously like the email I got from CREDO, who are definitely NOT GOP.

http://blackinamerica.com/cgi-bin/blog.cgi...

I'm sorry, sorry Brotha Steve, I do believe that is who the post was from, but I've deleted it after I copied it to this posting. I'm sure they said at the bottom, to join the GOP's in getting someone fired the Dem's had hired. I could be wrong. I need to go back and see if I can find it on the internet, so I can be sure, because I don't want to misrepresent anyone, but I do know, anyone asking me to stand with them and denounce or fight against the Dems can be nothing other than a Republican. Thanks for the heads up.

Brotha the post came from Jason Rosenbaum from the Huffington Post and I guess Credo picked it up and ran with it. Here is the link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-rosenb...
There's a lot more to it.

Sister Anita, you may be thinking of this, at the end of their email:

3) Harry Reid's new chief of staff is a former telecom lobbyist and contributor to Republican causes. Tell Reid to fire him. Click here to take action.
http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=6736&id=14...

CREDO of course, as a mobile service provider, has a stake in this too.

But they are staunchly Democrat, no doubt about that.

I checked out Credo's site and they by no means deem themselves as being democratic. In fact they state they are progressive and fighters of issues. Let me paste their statement:
At CREDO, we fight hard on the issues, but we don't take sides in partisan elections. As someone who cares about progressive issues, there is no doubt that Tuesday's results will make for even harder times for our country. It is crazy making to realize just how extreme and misinformed much of the new Congress will be.
There is little reason to expect any useful legislation from the Tea Party-dominated House or the dysfunctional Senate. Swing votes in the Senate have really troublesome names: Lieberman, Nelson, Manchin, and Pryor. In fact, this Congress will do damage to anything even remotely progressive.

So let's take a look at what happened and what we can do now. The media, unfortunately but not surprisingly, will be of no use in making sense of Tuesday's results, and even less so in helping chart a course for the future.

There is a lot of evidence that the state of the economy, and employment in particular, drive the results of elections -- and this one was no exception. As the saying goes, "If you think the economy is working, ask someone who isn't." We have an economy stuck in a deep ditch, with corporate profits and bank bonuses soaring while long-term unemployment is at near Depression levels.

The Republicans shrunk the first "stimulus" package and filled it with tax breaks, even as corporate Democrats helped them along, blocking any effort to restructure mortgages in bankruptcies, freeze foreclosures or force banks to lend money. The election outcome was partially baked in early 2009, when the White House preemptively conceded on the scale and provisions of the stimulus package and chose to coddle the banks. To watch this unfold was simply maddening.
There's more if you go to their site. I just got tired of reading:

Thanks sis!

Good link Clark. There are many interesting points made there in addition to the quotes you gave above. I would encourage all to read it.

So right Brotha Clark, and why is it our black elected official uses those around them to climb up out the pit and then instead of reaching back and giving someone else a hand, they instead steps on their fingers and watch them fall back down into the bottom (Not all of them, but a darn good amount) Doesn’t that fool understand those big companies are using him and when he falls, who is he going to look to save his sorry behind, and at a time when regular Americans need the internet for things such as paying bills, running their businesses, taking care of their schooling and other things the internet has made so easy, and even socializing!
I guess Mr. Rush won’t be needing those helping hands anymore, since he has the telecom and other big companies greasing his pockets and defending him. They’ve even donated a million to his favorite charities, so how can he be neutral and represent the publics interest?
I sure hope Nancy Pelosi takes into account her own personal feelings when choosing the position of senior democrat. She has received letters she from Color Of Change and others stating their grievances and I also hope she takes into account that the President himself has said he is an advocate of network neutrality and of a free and open internet.

Here's what James Rucker had to say about that.
“The Congressman's defenders say Color of Change is funded by Silicon Valley. That's ridiculous. When Google teamed up with Verizon to cut a deal that would hurt our people by ending network neutrality we were among the first to stand up and oppose it.
“It's a myth we hear all the time, this trickle-down notion that if we give rich and powerful corporation even more money and power, that they'll take care of us, they'll create jobs and prosperity. It's a myth. The real world simply doesn't work that way...
“We understand that companies are in business to make money. But public officials are supposed to serve the public interest. That's not too much to expect. It's what we have to demand. It's hard for politicians and organizations that take millions of dollars from the telecom industry to serve as public servants or reliable representatives of our community's interests.””

Yes Sista Irma, glad to see your resounding words again. Missed you, and how elegantly put. I must admit, I love the Clintons, and though they may have some links to racism in the past, I do believe they have reformed themselves through their works. They didn't have to continue after President Clinton left office, there was no reason to, but that shows me, he was truly committed to change among all people.
Yes Brotha Steve, they do have a stake, as we all do, some more financially prosperous than others, but their statements definitely make them bi-partisan and not Democratic.

There are a few things that one can not put on the Democrats...

1. Making sure that the needs of war come before the needs of the most needy.
2. Making sure that there is always a lack of equal justice / civil rights in America.
3. Violating lots and lots of our Constitutional laws for private political gains.
4. going against their own prencipals if it will do harm to our president even if it puts our whole country at risk.

TO NAME ONLY A FEW. (N..U..P)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(SMILE)

@Anita my sister...beautiful post...

and, we must always be the finial decider of our own individual conclusions and this is where using more than a few resorces to accomplish this come into the picture. (smile) example,

You and the majority of the Black Caucus backs Hillary Clinton, I don't. Granted both of the Clintons are a great help to our president...but with both of the Clintons this is personal with my still believing they are not reformed racist to the core who regularly abuse the Black churches for political gains. (smile)

@Steve, I get regular up dates from Color of Change, Credo, Media Matters as well as The Weekly Standard to name just a few.lol They all have their own missions and goals and I am sure they don't want to be sued for hiring by way of political leanings which would be a 110% plus for their opposition during a political campaign season!!! (smile)

@Anita, whose lives do you believe tHose Clinton's put their $10 million in Dubia on the Blacks or not????...When I sAId it was personal it had to do with someting taht happened when Hillary and Bill were in my home town of Jacksonville, N.C. during the campaign and is always being in tHose ALL WHITE ONLY TOWNS IN THE DEEP SOUTH WHERE BILL ONLY MET WITH THOSE OF THE 60S RESISTANCE AGE PERIODS...

EVEN SARAH PALIN DID NOT SINK THIS LOW...BUT AS I STATED THIS IS PERSONAL...PLUS I KNEW WHAT WAS BEHIND THAT STATEMENT OF THE THEN SENATER OBAMA WHEN SHE SAID SHE WAS REFORMED WHICH I AM THE SAME WAY AND AS THE SAME REASON HE MADE THIS COMMENT THAT WAS EXTRA BLOD AND HONEST OF HIM FOR SAYING IT.(SMILE)