More on MyDD net neutrality thing

I have a sinking feeling that there is more to this issue than what I (and we) originally thought.

After they posted their initial Granholm "sell out" post, I posted a response in the MyDD thread, and InterrupT followed as well. More discussion on it took place over at Michlib in an unrelated thread. We let them know that we weren't totally on board with what they were doing, and the general sentiment was that it wasn't fair of them to attack Granholm or get involved without at least talking to us first.

Matt (Stoller) initially replied to the comment in my thread, and then created a follow-up post based on some of my and InterrupT's comments on the MyDD Granhom "sell-out" post. I also got an e-mail from someone at MoveOn (not a mass e-mail) responding to what I wrote. On one hand, its great to see that they actually listened to us and acknowledged that we weren't comfortable about this, as opposed to dismissing us outright. On the other hand, I'm becoming increasingly more aware that this issue is very complex and tough to figure out based on secondhand info only. They are clearly making an effort to reach out to us now and explain their side of things, which I appreciate.

We're talking about this on the MI-bloggers list a bit, and my "gut feeling" is that there is validity to wanting to get this done now.

UPDATE: InterrupT has more on Matt's follow-up:

Your argument has a fatal flaw, it assumes that we have to bargain for a neutral network. No amount of bargaining would change the telecoms minds about setting up a two tiered Internet. It would take a lot more than just allowing AT&T to provide terrestrial video services in Michigan to get them to change their minds. AT&T already owns at least half of Dish Network, so they are already providing video services in Michigan (along with Internet and telephone services), they just also want to provide terrestrial video services. If every state that hasn't done so already, denied them franchising rights to their state, they would instead improve their Dish Network service so more people could get a better signal. Also we can't forget that Verizon isn't asking for franchising rights in Michigan yet would still be allowed to operate in Michigan even if the new bill in enacted. So what do Verizon have to bargain for? They can just as easily enact a two tiered network as anyone else.

Your argument is also flawed in that you assume that this bill allows for a two tiered Internet, and the point in my post that you link to is that it does not allow such a thing (but it also doesn't stop it). You are right however that this bill could allow for a greater abuse of the telecoms power.

It is true that the Telecoms have an insanely powerful lobby, which is why a bill has yet to be passed at the national level, but that doesn't not mean that they will always win. Let's give the new Democrats in congress a chance to address this important issue at the national level. I know that they are aware of the issue, I have written Senator Levin about the issue myself. He sent me a back a nice letter stating that he supports a neutral Internet and would support a bill outlawing a two tiered Internet.

Please don't take my comments or anyone else as assault on you or on net neutrality. This bill has been a hotly debated topic in Michigan, gaining a lot of press about it and a lot of talk on the blogs. Plus the titles "Governor Granholm Selling Out the Internet?" and "Why Jennifer Granholm Really Is Helping Destroy the Internet," didn't really help you with Michigan readers. I don't think anybody is saying that this bill is perfect; it still needs provisions insisting the service be rolled out to all parts of the state not just the wealthy, most profitable parts. I think most people want a neutral Internet, but in order to be taken seriously we need to make the best possible argument.