Net Nuetrality, the Obama version

[ElNono]

Love how the re ed techies who are so afraid of verizon and comcast ruining the internet that they have cried out for government to ruin the internet.

The irony of course is that once regulatory capture occurs, as it always does, only verizon and comcast will exist anyway.

"Net neutrality" is a trojan horse. Lol @ thinking government cares about your internet experience.

The silver lining in all of this is getting to laugh at all the libs for ever and ever and ever when comcast & verizon buy the regulators (like the regulators have always wanted) and use their new found power to squash all compe ion (like the libs have always feared)

No one cares about your netflix viewing habits.

what does this rant even means? The government has regulated the internet for years. Heck, there's no internet without the government merging all it's networks to begin with.

This is merely a reclassification, which gives the government more regulatory power, and it's pretty clear why Verizon and Comcast hate it.

You're missing who Verizon and Comcast are afraid of. It's not the government, it's Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon... they're all companies with extensive lobbying arms and in the case of Apple, they make more in profits than Comcast and Verizon combined. Google is knee deep in this new regulatory framework. Google especially has been very aggressive against them:

- Already in half the smartphones they sell (Apple is in the other half)
- Free OS, with free messaging and free google voice killed their app, text, voice cash cow
- Google Fiber directly competing with them
- Recently associated with SpaceX to launch low-orbiting satellites to build their own cell network

Amazon already announced it will start creating exclusive video content. Microsoft, Amazon and Apple all have huge cloud system that would become pretty expensive with tiered pricing. It's not hard to see who is against who, and if SlingTV is a sign of things to come, the writing is on the wall for those companies. The government is just a mere pawn getting bought from one end or the other, but as soon as le II classification happens, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and all these companies will have a lot bigger tools to play with.

[ElNono]

What an awful take. Care to explain how the government would abuse electricity and interstate?

After all Snowden has revealed do you really trust gov running/regulating/controlling your internet?

You mean trusting the same government that was running/regulating/controlling your internet since the internet was created by the government?

You're not getting the government out of the internet, because the government was never out of the internet.

The fight here is between ISPs and businesses that rely heavily on the internet and that eventually want to take over the ISPs. The government is the pawn in the middle.

How it's gonna turn out? Time will tell, probably whoever has the deeper pockets and better connections will win out. That's how it has almost always worked, and this is actually another chapter in that very same story.

[Winehole23]

You mean trusting the same government that was running/regulating/controlling your internet since the internet was created by the government?

[boutons_deux]

There's a lot of figures floating around. Standard USF fee would bring in billions alone.

Its shocking that you rail the NSA yet believe gov won't abuse its power when it comes to running the Internet.

yep, "floating around" is FACT for TSA!

where does FCC says they intend to charge USF on Internet access?

btw, USF, confiscatory socialism!, pays to provide phone service to underserved rural, small town folk, the ing solid base of the Repug party!

Old, white, poor, low-education, low-wage, bitter and clinging to their Bibles, guns, screwing themselves by voting Repug, and loving their taxpayer-subsidized telephones!

[boutons_deux]

You mean trusting the same government that was running/regulating/controlling your internet since the internet was created by the government?

The same govt (US taxpayers) that electrified rural America, built all the major hydropower dams (Viva Las Vegas!), built the Tennessee River Authority, subsidizes rich peoples' flood/storm/coastal home insurance, guarantees nuclear power plant meltdown coverage, etc, etc?

[TheSanityAnnex]

You mean trusting the same government that was running/regulating/controlling your internet since the internet was created by the government?

This will be no where near the same.

[boutons_deux]

This will be no where near the same.

where does FCC says they intend to charge USF on Internet access?

[Th'Pusher]

This will be no where near the same.

You're such a moron. An intellectual notch above conspiracy theorists like cosmored, Galileo and SA 210.

Can you tell us what it feels to live in constant fear from imaginary bogeymen?

And at EN going balls deep in TSA and angrydude.

[ElNono]

This will be no where near the same.

You're approaching this as an emotional partisan fight, which couldn't be more disconnected from what's going on.

ISPs wanted to frame this as a free market vs gubmint takeover, but it's nothing like that. As scott aptly described on the other thread on the subject, most of these ISPs are currently enjoying a government subsidized Natural Monopoly which they don't want to lose. There's nothing "free market" about that. As I said, government has been knee deep into regulating the internet and everything surrounding it since the very beginning.

The real "free market" solution to this would be to rid the monopoly power from these companies and let everyone compete. But neither the ISPs that are crying foul nor the government are taking that route, so it's moot.

Time will tell how this all works out, but this is strictly a battle between large business interests. The politicization of all this is how you end up with "Net Neutrality Obama version" or "Al Gore invented the internet", which is a distraction.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You're approaching this as an emotional partisan fight, which couldn't be more disconnected from what's going on.

ISPs wanted to frame this as a free market vs gubmint takeover, but it's nothing like that. As scott aptly described on the other thread on the subject, most of these ISPs are currently enjoying a government subsidized Natural Monopoly which they don't want to lose. There's nothing "free market" about that. As I said, government has been knee deep into regulating the internet and everything surrounding it since the very beginning.

The real "free market" solution to this would be to rid the monopoly power from these companies and let everyone compete. But neither the ISPs that are crying foul nor the government are taking that route, so it's moot.

Time will tell how this all works out, but this is strictly a battle between large business interests. The politicization of all this is how you end up with "Net Neutrality Obama version" or "Al Gore invented the internet", which is a distraction.

You are missing my point completely. I do not trust our government to properly run it without abusing it's power.

[ElNono]

You are missing my point completely. I do not trust our government to properly run it without abusing it's power.

I'm not. You're speaking in clichés: "gubmint bad, you'll see". Well, that discussion is irrelevant in this case, the government had it's hands on this since the get go: from granting monopolies, to the DMCA, COPA, etc. The concern of government overreach is well past it's expiration date here, it's been happening for a long ass time (ie: SOPA, that was eventually beat through public outcry), and it didn't need this particular regulation to do it.

Now put into words what's your actual non-political, technological or economic concerns about this specific move.

[ElNono]

And before boutons tries to turn this into government cheerleading (again), the point here is that this was never about getting government in or out of the internet, which is probably a better and more valid discussion to be had, although entirely academic.

The ISPs don't want that, and their competing interests don't want that either. That's been painfully clear since the get go. Which is why the discussion about government intervention is moot: none of the parts in this situation want to have that conversation.

[boutons_deux]

You are missing my point completely. I do not trust our government to properly run it without abusing it's power.

Your only 2 choices to trust with Internet:

Govt: rejected

BigCorp: gotta accept this choice

[boutons_deux]

"this was never about getting government in or out of the internet"

WTF?

For Repugs, VRWC, BigCorp, it's ALWAYS about getting govt out of EVERYTHING (except brown and black vaginas)

[TheSanityAnnex]

And before boutons tries to turn this into government cheerleading (again), the point here is that this was never about getting government in or out of the internet, which is probably a better and more valid discussion to be had, although entirely academic.

This is what I've been trying to discuss

[TheSanityAnnex]

Your only 2 choices to trust with Internet:

Govt: rejected

BigCorp: gotta accept this choice

Concerning the Internet yes I would trust bigcorp over gov.

[Th'Pusher]

This is what I've been trying to discuss

why would you want to discuss that? As EN pointed out, neither of the competing interests want government out of the Internet regulation business.

I honestly think you have no idea what you're talking about and you should bow out gracefully (with only part of EN's load on your face)

[ElNono]

This is what I've been trying to discuss

We can have that discussion any time. There's a lot of topics to cover, including monopolies, subsidies, infrastructure, pricing, etc. Be warned though that's largely a waste of time. The parties facing each other on this want government in the middle. ISPs want the monopolies and the subsidies, but no regulation, while the other end wants the exact opposite.

It has nothing to do with this regulatory step, Barry, or Net Neutrality though. Comcast and Verizon are government-picked winners. This step is government picking different winners and losers.

[Th'Pusher]

Concerning the Internet yes I would trust bigcorp over gov.

The question is which big corp. Verizon and Comcast or Apple and Google? Which big corp do you side with?

[ElNono]

lol this is not about loads on anybody's faces... the politicization of this whole thing has made people take sides on ridiculous imaginary fronts.

There's obviously a lot of money at play, so you can't blame people for walking into this with just partial information.

[ElNono]

The question is which big corp. Verizon and Comcast or Apple and Google? Which big corp do you side with?

Exactly. This is what is lost in all the noise.

[Th'Pusher]

lol this is not about loads on anybody's faces... the politicization of this whole thing has made people take sides on ridiculous imaginary fronts.

There's obviously a lot of money at play, so you can't blame people for walking into this with just partial information.

You're too nice EN. You were right though. In typical TSA fashion he stormed in with an emotional, partisan ill informed take. Thanks for educating him and all who read.

[ElNono]

Now put into words what's your actual non-political, technological or economic concerns about this specific move.

FWIW, this is the question that rarely gets answered, which is ironic considering the claims of "ruining the internet"....

[Th'Pusher]

^TSA is incapable of answering that question.

[ElNono]

I don't know what beef you have with TSA, but I want no part of it.