The news that swept the new media yesterday was a New York Times report that Google and Verizon were finalizing an agreement that amounts to a sort of unholy pact laying the groundwork to fully corporatize and control the internet. A pact that would signal an end to Google’s critical support for the concept of “net neutrality,” putting the freedom of the internet at risk.

For those who don’t know, “net neutrality” refers to the principle of keeping all web traffic equal across the internet. If the internet is a network of highways where information is going back and forth, everybody has to use the same off and on ramps and is subject to the same traffic and road conditions as everybody else. Big corporate interests are not given VIP lanes while everybody else crowds together in a traffic jam. Edgy political speech is not directed to meandering Class IV roads set aside for it. The big information corporations want to change that and reserve for themselves the ability to prioritize internet traffic. This could lead to a lot of obvious mischief, have the effect of stifling not just speech but innovation, and could even lead to Internet Service Providers charging subscribers based on popular website packages much the way cable companies do with television channels. As former GMD front pager David “Kagro X” Waldman wrote:

If you like the Internet the way it is, then you’re for net neutrality. If you’d rather pay more money for less service, and have a giant company tell you what you are and aren’t allowed to see, then you’re against net neutrality.

As you’d expect, the news has caused a flurry of activity. First a twittered denial from Google, which – at second glance – looks more like a carefully parsed non-denial. Then the Wall Street Journal came out with its own report backing up the NYT coverage. Bloomberg, the Washington Post and Politico followed. Finally (and most significantly), the FCC has decided to open up what had been closed-door, backroom discussions on the matter “to seek broad input on this vital issue.” The FCC has the authority to set the rules on this matter, as does Congress, but neither have done so – and it’s clearly only a matter of time before corporations succeed in filling that vacuum of authority themselves with their own self-interest,

Net neutrality on its own terms is a big concern, obviously. So, too, is the very idea of two large corporations meeting in private to determine how a major commercial and cultural infrastructure resource (largely created through tax incentives and direct public funds) is to be carved up to their benefit. In Vermont, though, we’re in the waning days of a gubernatorial primary in which one of the candidates is an executive at one of the companies in question.  

Matt Dunne has worked at Google for years, and its a major selling point of his campaign. So if his employer (Dunne is on leave) is heading to the dark side on this issue, what says Dunne?

In an email reply to the question, Dunne indicated:

“I am absolutely committed to net neutrality regardless of the stance of any corporation. A governor can have an impact on the debate, particularly by advocated for “open pipe” deployment of broadband.”

Not only a reassuring answer to receive, but a useful reminder to all politicians that, sometimes, a sticky situation can be avoided simply by clearly and directly refusing to let it be a sticky situation.

I checked in with the other campaigns as well. Here were their responses:

Bartlett: “The beauty of the Internet is that it is an almost-level playing field. Net neutrality is important to Vermont businesses so they aren’t dwarfed by large companies who can afford to pay for faster service. I don’t even want to think about the impact on access to news and information. The Internet is regulated on the federal level. Our federal delegation supports net neutrality and I will use my influence as governor to support their efforts.”

Racine: “I oppose this move by Google and Verizon to assert greater control over the internet in a way that will only lead to higher costs for consumers, especially those of us in rural areas. Net neutrality is especially important for Vermont and other rural areas so that internet content is not further limited. We already have a challenge in providing service for Vermonters. I will work with other governors to fight for true net neutrality and to oppose allowing Google and Verizon and other corporations gaining greater control of the internet.”

Shumlin: “Net neutrality is an important notion.  The state and a state’s governor can play a role in this debate as it is an important concept to uphold in the states’ communications policy.  The state has a fairly expansive role over telecommunications.  The Public Service Board and the Vermont Telecommunications Authority should make net neutrality a prerequisite of any approved funding.”

Markowitz Campaign Manager Paul Tencher: “Deb stands behind the tradition of net neutrality and would work with our federal delegation to ensure continued protection of this important issue of fairness.”

Sounds good to me.

The first gubernatorial candidate that can figure out how to household their mailing or calling list may well get my vote.  

It sports a popular cookbook. David Mamet called it “the best place on earth.” It was lauded in the New York Times. And for nearly 19 years I – and many others from in and out of state – called it the best place for breakfast in Vermont. Now we can call it closed.

Or rather, call it “Tasca”, which is the name of the new restaurant where the much lauded “River Run” used to be. New owner Ignacio Ruiz, who acquired the local eatery from founder Jimmy Kennedy only a year ago, has closed up shop to re-open as a tapas restaurant. Ruiz, himself from Spain, has continued the RR breakfasts since taking ownership, but told Blurt that “dinner has kept River Run alive economically” over that financial drag of a breakfast. Interesting, as everytime I’ve been in there for breakfast, it’s been as busy as ever. The huge portions and reasonable prices always struck me as a combination of questionable sustainability, but clearly there are solutions to such algebraic concerns short of closing up shop.

Hrumph. So much for the best pancakes ever. And the catfish. And the homefries. And the grits with cheese and jalapenos. And, and… I mean, a Spanish restaurant sounds great, but…but… well, crap. Guess I’ll start looking elsewhere for a favorite spot. Dammit.

I have never understood why a businessperson would buy a pre-existing business only to change it completely. Why not just open your own from the get-go?

Sigh.

I hate Wonder Woman’s new outfit (its the stupid 90’s jacket). I hate “Say Yes to the Dress” (hmmm… I seem to have some issues around women’s clothing…). I hate mayonaise (the real reason I had to leave the south).

And I’ve come to hate this primary. No, I still think primaries (and this primary) are good ideas (although 5 candidates, I’ll grant, is a bit much) for all the reasons I’ve mentioned in the past.

But I’ve come to hate this primary. Why? Because there’s more than one candidate I want to vote for. Worse yet, there’s more than one candidate I really wouldn’t ever want or expect to vote against. And I hate that. Over the coming days and weeks, you’ll be seeing more front pagers making their varied endorsements (as Sue did here) with their varied rationales

But you won’t be seeing one from me. The hate is flowing. By the time the primary gets here, I may well have a “Darth” attached to my name.

A quick follow up to one part of the mojometers, just to clarify something, and since it concerns a portion of the report I was responsible for writing, I thought I’d just take it.

In referencing the Markowitz campaign, it wasn’t my intention to send the message that they weren’t doing field work. Clearly they are. As I mentioned, they recently staffed up. The point I wanted to make was that they have only begun to work field hard recently, while many of their rivals have been developing field infrastructure more seriously for longer.

It is fact that Markowitz staff time has been more focused on fundraising, as compared to the others. What is opinion, then, is that this suggests a relative, inherent undervaluing of the ground game, and a proportionate increased reliance on (the soon-to-come) paid media.

The response from Markowitz staff and partisans, put simply, is that the comparatively late focus on field isn’t undervaluing it, its simply doing it right – and that is one school of thought.

Certainly its not the only one. A good example is the Dunne campaign. Dunne is being advised by at least one seriously heavy hitter in the political organizing world. He’s also being supported by 21st Century Democrats, an organization the focuses on campaign field work. His campaign, backed by such seasoned professionals, has been serious about the ground game for many months now. All of which is to say, what the “right” way is continues to be subject to much debate among the experts.

And this is Vermont, home of Democracy for America, which is known for promoting it’s own, far more time-intensive model of campaign field organizing, and that DFA culture has certainly impacted the way many of us in Vermont – myself included – look at this stuff.

So anyway, I hope that fleshes out the thinking a bit, and helps to distinguish the facts from the opinions in the piece.

Heh. Yeah, that’s right – publisher, baby. Some of you have noticed (and thanks for the emails) that I haven’t been around much of late. There are a few different reasons for this, but the long and the short is that I’m slipping into a slightly different role. At least for now, I’m embracing the “man behind the curtain” persona, and as such am embracing a more traditional (yipe!) “publisher” position on GMD. I’ll be doing things behind the scenes – including some improvements and promotion of the site. Mostly, though, I’ll be playing J. Jonah Jameson and harassing the front pagers heartlessly whilst chomping on a big, nasty cigar.

None of which is to say that I won’t be writing, but my writing in the last few months has often been the product of much collaboration, so putting it under my own byline seems rather glory-hogging. Features like the mojometers often are developed with group input – and this is precisely why we have the user GMD – to more accurately byline collective efforts of different front pagers.

So I’ll still have a lot of impact on content – as well as doing some writing – but I’ll likely just be more behind the scenes and collaborative (or is that behind the scenes and dictatorial?). At least for now. Let the other folks get the spotlight I’ve hogged for too long. I get the cool, fancy title.

Former City Councilor Andy Montroll and former Burlington Telecom boss Tim Nulty, along with Ron Cassel, Stanton Williams, Paul Guiliani, Rick Royer, Paul Millman, Richard Donnelly, and Don Mayer make up the so-dubbed “group of 9” – the cadre of technical professionals and investors who have offered to step in and cover the late payment on BT’s debt in exchange for being given the reins of the whole operation (or in Nulty’s case, re-given… is that a word?). Calling themselves “Reboot Burlington Telecom,” the group has a website up detailing their proposal (ht CandleBill).

RebootBT has already done the impossible; carved out a growing space for those who think the whole endeavor is a hopeless disaster under the Kiss administration, but really don’t want to see it abandoned. That’s a space that hasn’t existed for months – really, ever since Progressive Party leaders tried to make the whole thing into a partisan referendum, setting up a “you’re with the mayor or you’re against BT” dynamic.

They certainly succeeded in that, but the results of that now-polarized dynamic have hardly gone their way. Now, the only realistic hope for salvaging the situation – particularly in terms of public confidence – would seem to be in accepting Reboot BT’s offer.

Thankfully, the City Council is filling the void and moving forward on their own as – naturally – the mayor and Jonathan Leopold have all but ignored the offer. After all, going with it would be a tacit admission that they screwed up.

It’s called the first deadly sin for a reason.

Call me old fashioned, but all the sweeping, absolutist ranting against “earmarks” as “pork” leaves me cold. Sure, we can all agree that gazillion dollar bridges to nowhere are a bad thing, but funding for projects at local universities? Support for renewable energy projects? Public works? Infrastructure projects?

Hell yes I think those are perfectly good uses of federal tax dollars. In fact, I’m of the school that thinks securing such assistance for worthy, meaningful home state projects is a fundamental part of a US Senator’s or Representative’s job. That’s why I appreciated this from the Freeps today:

Vermont does better than any other state when it comes to qualifying for federal money distributed on the basis of census data, a new study has found.

[…] According to the Brookings data, Vermont received almost $1.79 billion in federal money in fiscal 2008 based on Census-related statistics, or $2,873.67 per capita. The per-capita average for the country was $1,469.

Heck, with all the inevitable “earmark” whining that’s probably filling up the Freeps comment section by now, allow me to offer a hearty “damn fine job, gentlemen”.

Looking forward to the day (not too far off, maybe?) when our senior Senator becomes Chair of Appropriations…

• NTodd of Dohiyi Mir is running for the State House as an independent. With Philip Baruth running for Senate, could that make for two bloggers hitting the Statehouse next session? If so, they’ll find they aren’t the first, as Republican/Vermont Tiger blogger Oliver Olsen beat them there after being appointed by the Governor to the late Rick Hube’s seat.
• Star Trek or Star Wars? Doug Racine says Star Trek. Good man.
• In case you haven’t already heard or read, gubernatorial candidate Matt Dunne is about to become a dad again. Congratulations Matt! Pretty challenging timing for campaigning though (kiddo is expected in June). Perhaps any lost time can be offset by the public “awwwwwwwww” factor.
• Definition of a self-impressed jerk.
• Margolis dissects the gawd-awful House Bill that would allow high donors to the State Colleges or UVM to maintain anonymity, carving out another open records law exemption. What a terrible idea, terrible precedent. Dunno if it passed today.

…they’ll introduce a congressional rebuke of the recent political ad from an organization spearheaded by Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol (the “Dept. of Jihad” ad) which suggests that lawyers defending guantanamo inmates are in league with (or at sympathetic to) al qaeda. From Greenwald:

One of the most inane acts undertaken by the Democratic Congress was its formal and highly bipartisan condemnation of MoveOn.org’s “Petraeus/Betrayus” ad.  Regardless of one’s views of that ad, formally opining on the views of private citizens is not the role of Congress.  But since they did that, and apparently believe that repugnant political campaigns merit Congressional disapproval, shouldn’t there be some form of formal sanction for the far more pernicious and genuinely McCarthyite attacks on DOJ lawyers from Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol’s “Keep America Safe”?  So reprehensible was that campaign that numerous right-wing lawyers have vehemenetly condemned it — including Ken Starr, David Rivkin, Ted Olsen, and even (ironically) former Bush official Cully Stimson — with most of them signing a letter decrying it as “a shameful series of attacks” that are “destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications.”

A reminder of that MoveOn vote:

Last week, Senator Leahy and Representative Welch broke with Senator Sanders and brought several flavors of shame to the liberal community under one, all-encompassing umbrella – the vote to rebuke MoveOn. While first and foremost, I find the vote both bizarre and cowardly (for its myopic waste of time on the one hand, and the pointless “Sister Souljah”-style sacrifice of an ally deemed – apparently – disposable on the other), the fact is that it was also an affront to the tradition of free speech in this country.

Don’t get me wrong – I didn’t like that vote and I don’t like the idea of a new one to rebuke this latest attack (and I differ with Greenwald on that). But it does make for an interesting question, the answer to which will tell us whether or not the MoveOn votes by Mssrs. Leahy and Welch were based on genuinely held principles, or whether they were just afraid of the big bad Republican noise machine. Obviously, one would hope it was the former, even if I disagreed with those principles.

If you haven’t yet seen it, the ad in question is below the fold.