Proponents of the net neutrality debate have been citing a dubious explanation for their doom and gloom claims. The argument goes something like this:

Yeah, after a one year transition period, that’s gone, as a sort of sunset provision for the free internet sets. This is incredibly sneaky. What McCurry is doing is couching a radical change to the internet in the guise of the status quo… [W]e are in the waning months of the Clinton/Gingrich-era internet, where telcos are forced to treat everyone fairly. In three months, we won’t be there anymore unless Congress passes Net Neutrality legislation. It’s funny how the telcos want Congress to cement the FCC‚Äôs radical change to the Clinton/Gingrich era into the law while no one’s looking ‚Äì all while pretending others are advocating such radical change.

The trouble is, it’s just not true. The FCC did, in fact, reverse the restrictions it had on DSL lines, but those rules never applied to cable modems – of which, there are millions more.

There are currently almost 25 million people connected to the Internet via cable modems and about 18.5 million connected by DSL. Under the doomsday scenario espoused by Matt Stoller, MoveOn and the rest of the Net Neutrality reactionaries, you would think that cable companies have been using their gross power to block access and force you to use their services rather than Google or Yahoo. It’s just not the case. Why? Because of the dangerous forces of what we call the free market.

If cable companies started these predatory practices, the customers would run – not walk – to the telephone companies with their internet dollars. If the telcos begin restricting access when the FCC ruling goes into effect, the number of cable modem customers will skyrocket. Why would the telcos risk the loss of 18.5 million customers? The simple answer? They wouldn’t.

Net Neutrality, for those on the left, is not about “saving” anything. It’s also not about protecting the consumer.

For them, it is about striking a blow against corporations. They believe in the power of the federal government to make things better despite a nearly total lack of evidence of that possibility.

If you believe in federal management of the Internet, then declare it a national asset, pay the companies that have built it with billions of dollars of capital investment, and give it to the populace for free.

If you’re not prepared to do that – either because you fear the disaster of government management or because you don’t believe we should shell out billions in a massive power grab by the fed – then you should accept that the market is an exceedingly powerful force and will continue to work.

For a change, calmer heads prevailed on Capitol Hill today and the net neutrality amendment advocated by the Save the Internet Coalition was soundly defeated 34-22.

For those who were hoping for a win, you really need to step back, now that it’s going to be a while before this comes up again, and think about what you are asking. I’d like you to go out and ask 20 different people what they think net neutrality means. I guarantee you you’ll probably get at least 19 different answers. You’ll also discover that trying to codify a concept as vague as net neutrality into law is a terrible idea.

What’s interesting about the left-leaning coalition that has been fighting this is the members would be largely opposed to regulating something as vaguely defined as “pornography”. They would argue that which you consider pornographic I may consider an artistic celebration of human sexuality. Yet that same concept is discarded in the net neutrality fight in favor of irrational fear over some ill-defined evil that may or may not ever come to pass.

Oh well. At least we don’t have to worry about it again for a while… until the Senate takes it up in a few weeks…

In a decision sure to go down in history as the single dumbest career move ever made in the history of the world, Tony Snow left a cushy gig on Fox News to go be the whipping boy for an irate liberal media carrying a righteous amount of indignation aimed at the White House puppet.

Why on earth would you leave the cozy world of network TV to become the mouthpiece for an administration known more for what it doesn’t say than for what it does?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they have Snow on the job. As dancing monkeys go, he should be able to shake some ass when the organ grinders start cranking out the tunes. I just don’t have any idea what would have possessed him to say yes. My money says that Karl has a grainy photo of Tony blowing a goat in a phone booth and threatened to go public with it.

Techdirt has an interesting post on the new intellectual property rights law floating through Congress. It seems the new bill imposes lengthy sentences for illegal use of entertainment – much longer than assault or kiddie porn trafficking, for instance.

For all the Democrats bluster about the Republicans selling out in favor of corporate interests, it really is sad to see that both parties – when it comes to legislation – are for sale to the highest bidder.

Over the weekend I commented on Denise Richards’ allegations against Charlie Sheen and his addictions. In it, I suggested that Denise may have bitten off more than she can chew, and the power of the Sheen family may be brought to bear against her. This morning on Today, I saw the first indication I may be right.

In a segment about her filing, the coverage made passing mention to her allegations, had Charlie on camera saying it was all lies and a smear campaign, and made not a single mention of his past problems with drugs, prostitutes or gambling. He has admitted to just about everything but porn addiction and domestic violence in the past, so it’s not a real stretch to think he’s capable of that, but the media is leaving it out of the story.

Denise was shown, but most of the images of her were unflattering at best – including the one of her astride Bon Jovi guitarist Ritchie Sambora wearing a skimpy bikini. They went on to paint that picture as some sort of betrayal of her friend and Sombora-ex Heather Locklear. In short, the piece painted him as shocked that anyone would make such claims, and painted her as a whore.

I hate being right all the time, but I suspect this won’t be the last hit piece we see making her out to be a skank. I suspect, by the time all is said and done, she’ll have a hard time finding work or being taken seriously.

Michael Douglas in The War of the Roses may have summed up Sheen’s feelings:

lf this is a who-can-sink-lowest-fastest contest, you won… you have sunk below the deepest layer of prehistoric frog shit at the bottom of a New Jersey scum swamp.

Denise, by filing her statement, fired what the family will see as the first shot. There are two reasons that may have been a horrible idea. She’s taking on the Sheen family – a family with great clout in the entertainment world. But more importantly, the world of the famous is a very incestuous place. It is filled not only with real celebs like movie and music stars, but psuedo-celebs like TV anchors. None of those people want a precedent set that encourages the airing of dirty laundry.

If the media gives Denise credibility, or treats her fairly, then the next divorce will get uglier, meaner, and more public. Pretty soon all the vices the rich and famous will be on full display – and none of them want that.

The easiest way to protect against that is to discredit Richards, and make the next person think twice. Just watch, it’s going to get really ugly and painful for her. She had better hope that every single detail of her past is squeaky clean, or she’ll quickly find herself in a world of hurt.