The New Third Rail

Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal today wrote a much-discussed article theorizing that Google has changed their position on net neutrality and is now approaching cable and Internet providers to get their content a faster lane on the Internet. They also quote a bunch of technology leaders in the article who they claim are edging away from the principles of a free and open Internet.

Most of the stakeholders are calling the article a load of crap. Lawrence Lessig says he was misquoted and that the WSJ mistakes "delivery" for "access." There is a lot of confusion there. Right now consumers can pay more for a faster connection to the Internet. That's not the issue. The issue is if content providers are made to pay to serve their content quicker. That's what would set up a two-tiered Internet and ghetto-ize any company who would be unwilling or unable to pay. I generally believe everyone should have quality and affordable access, but delivery is clearly more important for a network-neutral Internet.

Google's Public Policy blog says that what it's doing is "edge caching," basically setting up their content physically closer to end users so that less bandwidth is needed to access them, optimizing the experience for the user. Frequently the same content has to be loaded and reloaded several times to get from the provider to the user. Reducing that duplication is beneficial to virtually everyone. Atrios rightly brings up the concern that these arrangements, if done exclusively with particular content providers, would have the effect of privileging one set of content over another, but Google claims that the arrangement is non-exclusive:

All of Google's colocation agreements with ISPs -- which we've done through projects called OpenEdge and Google Global Cache -- are non-exclusive, meaning any other entity could employ similar arrangements. Also, none of them require (or encourage) that Google traffic be treated with higher priority than other traffic. In contrast, if broadband providers were to leverage their unilateral control over consumers' connections and offer colocation or caching services in an anti-competitive fashion, that would threaten the open Internet and the innovation it enables.

Despite the hyperbolic tone and confused claims in Monday's Journal story, I want to be perfectly clear about one thing: Google remains strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality, and we will continue to work with policymakers in the years ahead to keep the Internet free and open.

The consensus seems to be that the WSJ story is bogus. David Isenberg, Tim Karr and Reuters are worth reading on this. Matt Stoller is still being somewhat cautious and trying to gather all the data. I think what's most notable is how everyone exploded at the very suggestion of whether or not the principle of net neutrality was being eroded. The differences on what regulation is needed among allies in the movement for a free and open Internet may indeed by real, but nobody wants to be on the side of restricting access or innovation. So that fear, the new third rail of American politics, if you will, is going to be something powerful to harness by advocates to make sure that the core principles are maintained.

No On 8 Using Obama In Web Advertising

If you tool around the Internets as much as I do, you may have noticed this. The No on 8 campaign has been using Barack Obama's logo and image in Web ads that say "Obama Calls Prop. 8 Divisive And Discriminatory". Clicking on the ad will take you to this page, at the No On Prop. 8 site, with a couple quotes from Sen. Obama about the measure.

The Obama campaign would not let this happen on its own. God for them for allowing the No on 8 campaign to associate with his remarks. Obama has shown a willingness to lend himself to the efforts of downticket races - he's cut an ad for Oregon US Senate candidate Jeff Merkley - though I doubt we'll see much more than this Web advertising from him on Prop. 8.

Here are a couple other things I think need to happen to help the Prop. 8 cause. First, Google needs to stop running ads that violate their own policies. Google has a very specific standard for those groups that use their architecture to advertise, which includes banning ads that advocate against a "protected class" like the LGBT community. Yet they allow Yes on 8 to use Google ads. I know Google as a company is on the right side of this debate, but they can either stand behind their stated policy or not.

The other thing that the no side might want to consider is putting an actual face on who would be discriminated against with this measure. I know this has been a source of controversy that's simmered under the surface, but today Jonathan Rauch brings it up in the LA Times.

The need to walk that tightrope helps explain why the actual subjects of next month's initiative, gay couples, were "inned" by the "No on 8" campaign's ads. (Full disclosure: I am a "No on 8" donor.) One ad, for example, features a gray-haired straight couple. "Our gay daughter and thousands of our fellow Californians will lose the right to marry," says mother Julia Thoron.

A subsequent ad, all text with voice-over narration, mentions marriage only once ("Regardless of how you feel about marriage, it's wrong to treat people differently under the law") and never uses the phrase "gay marriage" or even the word "gay." Just as oblique was a spot, released Wednesday, in which state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell reassures viewers that "Prop. 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage." A casual viewer could have come away from these ads puzzled as to exactly what right thousands of Californians might be about to lose.

Asked about the absence of gay couples, a senior "No on 8" official told KPIX-TV in San Francisco that "from all the knowledge that we have and research that we have, [those] are not the best images to move people." Children, also, were missing; showing kids with same-sex parents could too easily backfire [...]

Whatever the tactical considerations, the absence of gay couples and gay marriages from California's gay-marriage debate makes for an oddly hollow discussion. It leaves voters of good conscience to conjure in their own minds the ads that are not being aired: Ads that show how gay marriage directly affects the couples and communities that need it most.

You can show me all the data you want; "hollow" is the best word for what's happening. Neither side is talking about the actual proposition in their messaging. I expect that from the Yes side, to hide their serial homophobia and focus on made-up protections of imagined rights that would be encroached upon. But when a self-described squish like Kevin Drum terms No on 8's ads "bland and generic," something is wrong. Without a clear indication, as done in the Ellen DeGeneres PSA, of who would be harmed by this measure and why, there's this subconscious message of shame about the rights that this campaign is trying to defend.

On a completely unrelated note, this is a great post from a minister discussing what the Bible actually says about marriage.

Tools You Can Use

One of the biggest ways you can impact this election is to disseminate information to your circle of friends. A couple organizations have stepped up in a big way to make that process smooth and easy.

Google noticed that millions of people were searching through their site for voting information - where their polling place is, when the last day for early voting is, etc. Google created this great tool as a one-stop shop to answer all of those questions.

It's hard to believe that in 2008, information so important to U.S. citizens and the democratic process isn't well organized on the web. To solve this problem, we've released our US Voter Info site, an effort to simplify and centralize voting locations and registration information.

Are you registered to vote? What's the best way to obtain an absentee ballot? When people visit the site, answers to these questions appear. And anyone with a website can provide the same information. The US Voter Info gadget places a simple search box that expands to show a full set of voter information when someone enters an address.

We are also offering a simpler way to find out where to vote. By entering a home address, citizens across the country will be able to find their polling place for election day.

The tool is super-easy and effective. Tell your friends.

Another incredible tool comes from our friends at CREDO mobile. It's called TXT Out The Vote, and it enabled you to send targeted text messages in California opposing Prop. 4 (parental notification for abortion) and Prop. 8 (eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry). The messages, which you can send to any friend or family member with a cell phone, will be delivered on Election Day. This kind of "personal phone banking" is one of the best ways to get out the vote. Check it out at TXT Out The Vote. Standard text messaging rates apply.

2004 Redux - Arnold To Campaign In Ohio

Some people don't have a well-developed sense of honor, I guess.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger once again will stump for a Republican presidential candidate in Ohio on the weekend before the election, this time making a Halloween stop for Sen. John McCain in Columbus.

Schwarzenegger considers the Ohio capital his second home. He hosts his Arnold Sports Festival in Columbus each winter and has invested in a suburban mall there.

At a press conference backing the redistricting initiative today in San Diego, Schwarzenegger called Columbus "the city where I traditionally always go and campaign, like the weekend before the election. I have done this in 1988 and in 1992 and so on, so I will be going there for one event to Columbus, Ohio."

Somebody should ask Arnold if this means he agrees that Barack Obama pals around with terrorists. Somebody should ask him if he agrees that Obama tried to teach kindergarteners sex ed. Somebody should ask him about every one of the despicable tactics McCain has used in the most dishonorable campaign in anybody's memory. And whether or not Sarah Palin is qualified to be President.

The thing is that, for all the moves to the contrary, Schwarzenegger is a doctrinaire Republican and loyal soldier. There are many other Republicans rejecting McCain's approach in this campaign - Arnold's ideological soulmate Charlie Crist, the governor of Florida, is basically sitting out the election. But Arnold would never think of that. He's a Republican serving in a state that is rapidly trending Democratic. He's stumping for McCain while holding office in a state that may go for Obama by 20 points.

Well, Arnold can do what he wants, although I don't want to hear another word from him about post-partisanship. And McCain can have Schwarzenegger; I'll take my chances with Obama and teh Google.

Prop Watch

Welcome to a probably not-so-regular feature, offering the latest news on the ballot propositions. The Calitics Editorial Board will be out with their endorsements on these initiatives sometime next week.

• Prop. 1A: A lot of good stuff on this race at Robert Cruickshank's California High Speed Rail blog. For instance, Arnold has come forward with his support:

There is far more economic opportunity in fighting global warming than economic risk....We shouldn't let the budget crisis hold back good things for the future. 20 years from now you can't look back and say "well they had a budget crisis so we didn't do it." Just because we had a problem with the budget does not mean that people should vote "no" on high speed rail. Our rail system in America is so old, we're driving the same speed as 100 years ago, the same system as 100 years ago. We should modernize, we should do what other countries do...We should start in this state, we should show leadership.

Absolutely, especially when you consider that initiatives which reduce emissions routinely save money and improve quality of life. A recent study showed that HSR would be a tremendous economic benefit to the Central Valley, with $3 billion in direct benefits and the creation of over 40,000 new construction jobs. You can add that to the reduction of billions of pounds of CO2 annually, which would be significant in that region at a time where interest groups are successfully suing the city of Fresno for its failure to curb pollution and protect the environment.

In other news, The LA Times has come out in favor, and check out this neat little graphic anticipating the train route.

• Prop. 2: You can see it by clicking on the ad on the side, but, you know, Piggy Wonder deserves some main-page love. Joe Trippi is apparently involved in the Prop. 2 campaign, which would help stop animal cruelty; I got an email from him promoting this video.

• Prop. 5: The LA Times has a series of profiles on all the propositions, and here's their edition on Prop. 5, which would finally increase treatment for nonviolent offenders like drug users instead of warehousing them at our overstuffed prisons. Opponents are smearing this by saying its true intent is to legalize drugs, but the failed Drug War is the great unmentionable sinkhole in state and national budgets, and a smart policy emphasizing rehabilitation is desperately needed, especially in California. The No on 5 people must have better spinmeisters, however, as most of the newspapers in the state have come out against the measure. Right, because the policymakers have done such a stellar job in sentencing law, we should just leave it to them.

• Prop. 8: An update on those million yard signs that were "in route" from China to the Yes on 8 campaign: they're still not here.

It seems that the signs, some of them outsourced overseas, didn't all arrive in time for the September event. And many still haven't reached supporters of the measure that would amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriage.

"It takes longer to get a million than we thought," said Sonja Eddings Brown, deputy communications director for the Protect Marriage coalition [...]

Brown tried to spin the production glitch as a positive thing for the campaign -- a sign, so to speak, of the overwhelming demand for lawn signs by voters who wanted to participate in "the most unprecedented and largest grass-roots effort ever attempted in California."

Oh that's just a FAIL.

Meanwhile, when the most reactionary editorial board in the state, the Orange County Register, comes out against your proposition, you know you're having a tough time selling it. As for the right-wing boycott of Google for opposing Prop. 8, the website orchestrating it advises its supporters to follow the fate of the proposition - on Google News.

I think I'm going to miss this initiative, it's been hilarious so far.

Let Me Get These Out Of My System

John McCain has promised to veto every beer.

He's also described his Vice Presidential search by saying "it's a Google".

Slips of the tongue on the campaign trail really aren't worth harping on, but when they reveal character, like someone who doesn't know anything about computers in 2008, it's a little more significant.

Really I just wanted to write the words "it's a Google."

OK, I'm done.

Searching For John McCain

More people should be searching for John McCain. I haven't found John McCain yet. Have you seen John McCain?

McCain
McCain
McCain
McCain
McCain
McCain.

(context)

Now Is The Time For An Energy Shift

Tonight, the Republicans will debate in Florida. It will be brought to you by the coal industry. The last CNN debate on the Democratic side was also sponsored by the coal industry. Needless to say, questions about climate change and energy didn't come up then, and don't expect them tonight, either.

And yet, with $100 a barrel oil prices starting to make a real dent into American economic security, candidates are being pressed on energy issues, at least out on the campaign trail.

For Democrats, the goal of energy policy is largely about reducing oil consumption and has become inseparable from the goal of reducing the risk of climate change.

For the Republican candidates, energy policy is primarily about producing more energy at home — more oil and gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; more use of American coal to produce liquid fuel; and, as with Democrats, more renewable fuels like ethanol.

By contrast, all of the Democratic candidates would repeal billions of dollars in tax breaks for oil companies, spend billions more each year to develop alternative fuels, and require cars and trucks to be far more fuel-efficient.

While rhetorically, all candidates are forced into acknowledging the man-made element to climate change and the need for solutions, on an economic and national security level if not on an environmental one, the Republicans are really concerned with opening up new revenue sources for their traditional oil, coal and mining industry allies and pushing the costs onto the backs of consumers. Not only is this shortsighted, it misses the most fundamental entrepreneurial opportunity since the Internet boom. A progressive growth strategy focusing on innovation and reducing carbon output is one of the only areas in which American ingenuity can outflank the world and reap the benefits. It would both save consumers money and create millions of new jobs. Google is already jumping aboard by making a strong commitment to renewable energy.

The company, based in Mountain View, Calif., announced Tuesday that it intended to develop and help stimulate the creation of renewable energy technologies that are cheaper than coal-generated power.

Google said it would spend hundreds of millions of dollars, part of that to hire engineers and energy experts to investigate alternative energies like solar, geothermal and wind power. The effort is aimed at reducing Google’s own mounting energy costs to run its vast data centers, while also fighting climate change and helping to reduce the world’s dependence on fossil fuels.

“We see technologies we think can mature into very capable industries that can generate electricity cheaper than coal,” said Larry Page, a Google founder and president of products, “and we don’t see people talking about that as much as we would like.”

The initiative, which Google is calling RE < C, using mathematical symbols to denote “renewable energy cheaper than coal,” will be based in Google’s research and development group.

We know that the catastrophic effects of climate change that can't be mitigated by immediate action are going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars in the near future, and rich nations will have to either bear the burden or facilitate mass carnage. The only way to stabilize the environment, lower that burden, and thrive in a post-carbon economy is by starting right now, overcoming the trenchant nature of special interest politics, and undertake the steps to move the country off of oil and onto something that can power the next generation. This election is an opportunity that's in danger of being squashed.