 |
| The Verizon edition of the game, I think... |
I have been putting off writing a post about the elections,
for a variety of reasons. I got back
from
vacation a few days after the event went down (I voted by mail long before
I left, so yes, I did my duty). I kinda
knew how it was gonna go down – no real surprises (Dems had a very slim chance
in holding the Senate, and my state – Oregon – is still pretty blue). Oh, and a good number of state-based
progressive initiatives succeeded (pot, minimum wage, defeat of “person-hood” amendments),
so I had nothing to bark about except the process itself, which has been dealt
with by others more politically bent than I.
And with the final table of the World Series of Poker on tap
for the first two days of the week, I knew that fellow online-poker-advocates
would be lax in attention (not to mention tired as hell if the event lasted as
long as it did last year). But something
happened on Monday that made a political/election/poker post a sure thing…”Net
Neutrality” was back in the news again.
For those unfamiliar with the subject, a good,
mostly-unbiased primer can be had here. Monday’s news – Obama reaffirming his support
of neutrality with a call to relabel the Internet a “utility” and Ted Cruz’s “Obamacare
for the Internet” rejoinder – once again brings our attention to how Washington
REALLY works. I don’t mean everything Obama
supports the GOP distains…Net Neutrality is something that most Americans
support, from left AND right. This, like re-establishing online poker, isn’t
a left/right thing.
It’s a money thing. That’s how
Washington works nowadays.
Yes, 90%+ of incumbents win re-election.
More importantly, when there is no incumbent, the candidate who spends
more is 80% more likely to win. Money
talks.
Average middle-class Americans have little voice in the political
process, except the potential of asking one question at a campaign tally or
town hall meeting with their representative.
Rich folks buy $1,000-per-plate dinners and gab at length with their
rep. Money talks. Richer folks still
help write new legislation for their reps while handling out campaign
contributions, and making still more “dark” contributions to various nefarious political
action groups. Money talks. The U.S. Congress is the world’s most
exclusive “millionaires
club,” with more than half of Senators and Representatives worth more than
a million bucks. Money talks.
Sheldon Adelson. Money talks.
Net Neutrality is all about money, and its implications for online poker,
besides the obvious (online poker uses the Internet – duh), are enormous. I’m no techy, but considering that part of
the debate centers on bandwidth and usage, I would have to assume that
interactive software like a poker room (and multi-tabling at that) might take
up some considerable width. If big users
get charged more, couldn’t that make online poker less profitable, ergo less desirable,
ergo less likely to see re-established?
Just askin’ is all.
And if there are to be “Guardians of the Internet” (called Verizon,
AT&T, and Comcast), what is to stop them from making decisions as to who
goes on which tier based on considerations having nothing to do with band
usage? Sure, they debate rests there for
now, but say someone like, oh…Sheldon Adelson decides to invest in Comcast, and
say they decide that it’s not really censorship but consumer protection to
divest their Internet tubes of pornography, medical marijuana dispensary information,
and online gaming websites? I know this
is hypothetical and a bit far-fetched, because to my knowledge Adelson doesn’t
have anything against pornography.
This issue is important, not just for online poker folks, but all
Americans. It’s as fine of an example as
any where the will of the people is seemingly thwarted by the desire of a few
LARGE multi-corporations. And what is
their desire?
Money. Pure and simple. Talking
LOUD.
No comments:
Post a Comment