Obola throws his hat in the ring for net neutrality

[Daran]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality

Seems like Obama (known hereafter as Obola) wants to regulate the internet under title II of the federal communications act. If you're informed on this topic, please discuss. My understanding is that this is the less onerous of the two competing outcomes in this debate but having no government oversight would be best and would allow the free market that exists today to continue for the foreseeable future on the intranets.

[Saint Hubertus]

Obama is ma nigga

[Hades]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality

Seems like Obama (known hereafter as Obola) wants to regulate the internet under title II of the federal communications act. If you're informed on this topic, please discuss. My understanding is that this is the less onerous of the two competing outcomes in this debate but having no government oversight would be best and would allow the free market that exists today to continue for the foreseeable future on the intranets.

From what i dug up, I gather this regulation is there to keep the broadband broad and free for everyone.  Kind of like an anti-trust law IRL economics.
I think it's an awsome move.

[-SpectraL]

I like how these predictable sub-animal scumbags always call something the exact opposite of what it really is. So when they say "net neutrality", they really mean "net un-neutrality".

[Daran]

I like how these predictable sub-animal scumbags always call something the exact opposite of what it really is. So when they say "net neutrality", they really mean "net un-neutrality".

Right, like "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" or "PATRIOT Act". Always a good idea to assume the opposite of the bill's meanng is the real intention. With this, I'm not sure if the congress needs to act or if the FCC can promulgate new regulations. I'm admittedly not well read regarding this, but if bandwidth speeds are kept uniform for every website or web service is it not a step in the right direction? I need to read up more on what title II really entails and the implications of this regulatory framework.

[Hades]

I like how these predictable sub-animal scumbags always call something the exact opposite of what it really is. So when they say "net neutrality", they really mean "net un-neutrality".

I kinda fail to see how you come to this conclusion based on the letter and the text of the title II in question...
Unless you assume that ANY regulation from Any government = oppression.

[Daran]

I like how these predictable sub-animal scumbags always call something the exact opposite of what it really is. So when they say "net neutrality", they really mean "net un-neutrality".

I kinda fail to see how you come to this conclusion based on the letter and the text of the title II in question...
Unless you assume that ANY regulation from Any government = oppression.

After re-reading his reply, I don't see why he said that either. Net Neutrality is the concept for equal bandwidth allocation and speed for everybody. I'm no liberal, but keeping this market as free from regulation as possible while maintaining net neutrality seems like the best solution. I think if it's classified differently, i.e. not a utility, then ISPs can throttle speeds for websites and such depending on pricing tiers.

[Hades]

The net neutrality debate hinges around ISP's and probably entertainment groups aswell allocating bandwith to the highest payer.  Thus de facto cicrumventing what makes internet free: the fact that no one "site" is more important than any other.  That's why the internet was invented: so that one russian nuke on a communications centre could paralyze or even significantly influence communication capabilities.  Or in today's internet so no government, corporation or individual can ever truly squeeze anyone out. Silkroad 2.0 is shut down but surely 3.0 is already in the making.  Piratebay and Kickass have all the proxies they can dream of... that kind of stuff.
I think in this case it's vital for internet to survive in it's current 'free' state that the net-neutrality law is implemented.  I think not implementing that law would open the floodgates for ISP's to start determining what you do and see on the net rather than you having the free choice from millions of other users and dettermining for yourself who will be the next Facebook, E-Bay or whatever.

Otherwise i'm quite in favour for keeping the .gov out of the net by the way.

[John Smith]

From what i dug up, I gather this regulation is there to keep the broadband broad and free for everyone.  Kind of like an anti-trust law IRL economics.
I think it's an awsome move.

Yeah, if the internet is treated like a utility, this isn't going to end like most of the naive proles think it is. It is not going to end well, or will be follow the same half assed mediocre bureaucratic dynamic that drags on and stagnates for decades, with an occasional minor improvement thrown in.

1.) They are not natural monopolies, the claim is politically motivated for their benefit.
2.) Contrary to what I've seen spouted there are multiple, a few key major, regulations that were implemented for their benefit under the disguise of being beneficial to the public, to prevent and cripple competition, give them artificial advantages. This has been occurring since states existed, but particularly kicked off in the US during the "Progressive Era" of the early 1900s.
3.) Almost no one understands the economic factors behind it. The masses will accept things at face value and fall for whatever superficially sounds good. Feel good politics.

Hopefully things will eventually get so bad that it'll spur major effort towards decentralized solutions. Some promising wireless technologies may make the "natural monopoly" and economic problems of infrastructure obsolete if there government doesn't fuck things up, either through legislation or stemming from the effects of intellectual property/patents.

[Daran]

From what i dug up, I gather this regulation is there to keep the broadband broad and free for everyone.  Kind of like an anti-trust law IRL economics.
I think it's an awsome move.

Yeah, if the internet is treated like a utility, this isn't going to end like most of the naive proles think it is. It is not going to end well, or will be follow the same half assed mediocre bureaucratic dynamic that drags on and stagnates for decades, with an occasional minor improvement thrown in.

1.) They are not natural monopolies, the claim is politically motivated for their benefit.
2.) Contrary to what I've seen spouted there are multiple, a few key major, regulations that were implemented for their benefit under the disguise of being beneficial to the public, to prevent and cripple competition, give them artificial advantages. This has been occurring since states existed, but particularly kicked off in the US during the "Progressive Era" of the early 1900s.
3.) Almost no one understands the economic factors behind it. The masses will accept things at face value and fall for whatever superficially sounds good. Feel good politics.

Hopefully things will eventually get so bad that it'll spur major effort towards decentralized solutions. Some promising wireless technologies may make the "natural monopoly" and economic problems of infrastructure obsolete if there government doesn't fuck things up, either through legislation or stemming from the effects of intellectual property/patents.

Could you spell out the drawbacks of regulating the internet as a utility for the audience?

[John Smith]

And the FCC comissioner  was the CEO of the CTIA from 1992-2004!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTIA_%E2%80%93_The_Wireless_Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler#Career

The former head of a telecom industry lobbyist group at the head of the FCC, former Monsanto VP to the FDA, a couple of Wall Streeters.

Keep hoping things will change. Hillary 2016 will make this work out real well.

[John Smith]

Could you spell out the drawbacks of regulating the internet as a utility for the audience?

Not necessarily bad, to be honest. Pragmatically, it may be better than what we have now, but still pretty bad and not even remotely close to optimal.

The problem is like this:



They create the problem in the first place through the power of political authority (government), unsurprisingly as legislation in their favor accumulates they develop monopoly power and abuse it, along with all the other problems that come from monopolies/oligopolies, eventually there's back lash, people want change, but due to the profound ignorance and stupidity of the vast majority of the population they're unable to identify the root of the problem and support effective solutions, so to keep them placated and keep the game going, prevent things from getting so bad, to the point, where there's major backlash and it's instead genuinely socialized they throw them a bone and provide some regulation and oversight to curb the worst abuses, to make it appear as if they have the public's interest in mind, and make things bearable enough to where there won't be major actual change, as opposed the false hopium fueled "change" perfectly demonstrated by the Obama legacy, such as repealing the policies that created the problem in the first place as opposed to applying band-aid, and then we're stuck with what I mentioned above: "the same half assed mediocre bureaucratic dynamic that drags on and stagnates for decades, with an occasional minor improvement thrown in." While still benefiting the major corporations/oligopoly as much as they can get away with.

And to make things even worse, this only brings the government power closer over the internet, allows them to become more deeply embedded, and makes it easier for them to enact their standard abuses. I mean, really, it's going to be the same extremely corrupt government that  has consistently benefited and been beholden to big money, the same government that the fucking NSA is part of, along with the DEA, FBI, and CIA, and these are the people you trust to oversee and manage the internet? Well, good luck with that. Maybe Elizabeth Warren, Jill Stein, or Ron Paul will be elected and they'll all turn into angels and we'll suddenly become Sweden or Somalia (I kid).