Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gigabytebob]

To be more specific about this site I just linked, It's the same issue that happened a few years ago I believe in 2014? Where there was a net neutrality scare with ISPs being given the freedom to block or limit your accessibility to certain sites, and its happening again
This is a problem because it will block free speech, and give ISPs freedom to deal with competition like say a business owns a movie streaming service, they could block or slow down netflix, making you have to buy and use their movie streaming service, and they could also use this freedom to block news websites or other sites that could give you information about world news or politics, which in return could effect your stance, and if say an issue or new law could say, benefit the business of your isp, they could block certain sites that are telling you about the issue or law or telling you the full story.
https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/

[wierd]

This is less about freedoms, and more about money, and the philosophical consequences of placating shareholders.

Namely, our current crop of regulators/executive cronies hold the philosophical position that increasing profit margins and increasing private enterprise shareholder value are top priority goals that these "cumbersome" regulations stand in the way of. In their view, increasing profits and shareholder value increases economic activity, which increases the motility of capital, and improves quality of life for the citizens of the nation.

That is however, the rose-colored version of trickle down economics popularized by Reagan in the 80s, right alongside deregulation in general. (It does not work as they pretend it does.) The need to regulate the behavior of private firms to protect the public good is a contradiction for them, despite being objectively true as a real requirement.

The more cynical outlook is that they know it does not work, (as opposed to just being delusional that it will work 'this time!'), are banking on the public being either disenfranchised politically (no true power to stop them), or too ignorant/stupid to know that the party line us recycled 80s bullshit that has plenty of data to show how it does not work and should not be attempted again, and are doing it strictly to enrich themselves at society's expense.

There is the saying though: do not attribute to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence.

Trump's clowncar cabinet has the incompetence thing down pat.

That is why despite Pai being a former Version exec, I favor the incompetence angle.  Pai might be a competent sociopath, but trump is not, and trump is the one permitting Pai to do this shit, even encouraging it.

So, again, this is less about freedoms, more about money, and the belief that enabling increased profits will result in increased prosperity.

Do I like what Pai us doing? Fuck no. Is it because the powers in charge want to remove your freedoms? No. It is because the powers in charge believe the 80s econ bullshit.

[Aklyon]

Believing the 80s econ bullshit is not necessarily mutually exclusive with mucking about with freedoms though, in this case.

[Teneb]

Also, it's also important to note that they want to end net neutrality in the US (and countries it can still bully into doing whatever the fuck it wants). Elsewhere is a different story. The USA is not the world and all that.

With that out of the way, this is still pretty bad stuff.

As weird said, this seems neoliberalism at its finest. In the neoliberal theory, there have to be no restrictions on the freedoms of individuals (corporations are seen as individuals) and all obligations are established through contracts between individuals. The government's sole purpose is to defend those freedoms, by force if necessary. This, the theorists believe, will cause technology to advance more rapidly and spread prosperity across all social classes. In practice, it obviously doesn't work that way. Further, the corporations are quick to rail against government oversight... when it doesn't favour them. They are pretty much okay with tariffs on foreign imports, and whenever the latest economic bubble pops they are quick to ask the government to bail them out.

Here's the thing though: The US is not, and has never been, liberal. Neo or otherwise. Don't get me wrong, they absolutely adore to spread it around the world, because that leaves countries, especially developing and underdeveloped ones, vulnerable to US corporations. The US' economic model does have some shades of liberalism on it, but free competition only ever happens between american corps, everyone else is hit with a big protectionist stick. This is because of a mentality that the USA has a unique and better economic and political system as planned by the Founding Fathers, and needs to be preserved and protected from the rest of the world.

(PM me if you want my sources on all this)

[Neonivek]

Philosophically Net Neutrality just makes sense to me.

The Internet is like Water. A Water company cannot charge you more for putting water in a cup versus putting it in a jug. A Water company cannot ban you from watering crops that are not sponsored crops.

At the end of the day I support the internet as Water or Electricity. The idea that your internet should be curated is antiethical to that idea.

-As for censorship: This is actually a valid concern and has occurred... Twice. One time to take down a pro-choice website and a second time to squash a competitor.

---

What is interesting is that it isn't Business in general being set against the public. The ONLY people the removal of Net Neutrality benefits is the big corporate owners of the internet. Smaller internet companies will basically exist at Verizon's leisure.

I mean what could go wrong supporting a monopoly and oligarchy that cannot possibly be deconstructed?

[MrRoboto75]

Even if you do retain net neutrality now, it'll be on the chopping block next year, as its been for a while now.

[Aklyon]

Even if you do retain net neutrality now, it'll be on the chopping block next year, as its been for a while now.

You say this like they'll remember to do that. The GOP is too busy dealing with supporting/defending our idiot-in-chief and failing to repeal healthcare laws.

[Zangi]

Even if you do retain net neutrality now, it'll be on the chopping block next year, as its been for a while now.

You say this like they'll remember to do that. The GOP is too busy dealing with supporting/defending our idiot-in-chief and failing to repeal healthcare laws.

They'll remember come election time.

[Neonivek]

Even if you do retain net neutrality now, it'll be on the chopping block next year, as its been for a while now.

Honestly I think the opposite. The major internet companies who are lobbying to HELL AND BACK to get rid of Net Neutrality are so untrustworthy and so duplicitous that they will be their own undoing and essentially get it reinstated or even more heavily regulated than before.

[RedKing]

Even if you do retain net neutrality now, it'll be on the chopping block next year, as its been for a while now.

Honestly I think the opposite. The major internet companies who are lobbying to HELL AND BACK to get rid of Net Neutrality are so untrustworthy and so duplicitous that they will be their own undoing and essentially get it reinstated or even more heavily regulated than before.

You're assuming anything has consequences anymore, specifically for people with lots of money. Empirical evidence would suggest that it does not.

[misko27]

But why is the us trying to introduce liberal things if this is supposed to be "not and has never been" a liberal country? Seems a little contradictory to say "Of course, the US always tries to maintain it's protectionist stance" while A) doing exactly the opposite of that right now, B) Thoroughly and openly protectionist Trump just took power and is the one introducing the "neoliberal" policy, and C) is a reaction to years of free-trade deals (actual and attempted) and other "neoliberal" policies.

There's a logical disconnect there. How can the US never be a liberal country, if it supposedly attempting to be one with this policy? Why is the most avowedly protectionist President in decades the force behind what you two are calling a fundamentally neoliberal policy? By contrast, Net Neutrality was protected under the previous president, who was the one who saw a major trade deal (and what is more liberal than trade deals) as his legacy in the East Asian region. I see the connections you two are describing, but it doesn't seem to fit with other evidence, at least not in a way I understand.

[wierd]

I personally would not ascribe Reaganomics to neoliberalism. That (Reaganomics) is quite firmly a conservative package, not a liberal package.

The liberal philosophy double to Reaganomics is the deficit spending model, where the philosophy is that govt spending stimulates the economy, which increases quality of life. It is ultimately better supported by historical data (better performing than nonperforming does not make it great as a policy though.. More in a bit), but not without serious warts. Namely, govt spending by its very nature "assures" certain groups become "winners" with unfairly reliable income flow that enable them to engage in anticompetitive behaviors. This favors the creation of oligopolies, via defacto govt favoritism introduced through the combination of (necessary, due to paperwork overhead) limited numbers of bidding firms landing contracts, with contract terms lasting decades. For good examples of this in action, see the likes of BOEING, Lockheed-Martin, and pals in the defense industry.

The bid to strangle net neutrality in the cradle is clearly a Reaganomics inspired move, not a neoliberal one.

Neoliberal inspired moves in this industry are more like the failed national fiber rollout plan from the 90s that saw very little actual fiber deployment, and some big ISPs pocketing lots of taxpayer money, and using that money to squash the competition.

[sluissa]

Not that it's likely to matter, but there are a lot of pre-written comments sent into the FCC, on both sides of the argument. If you do submit a comment, try to write it yourself lest you get lumped in with the "bot spam"

[wierd]

I already did. However, Mr Pai has essentially stated that he does not care about public comment, and wants to kill NN as quickly as possible, regardless of what actual small ISPs say, regardless of what industry professionals say, and regardless of what the consuming public at large has to say.

Expecting the Pai run FCC to do anything other than kill NN is not supportable with reason.

The best outcome here is for congress to create legislation that requires NN, then leaving enforcement up to the FCC.  Expect that to have some possibility of happening in 2 years, when I expect the climate on the hill to change due to current mismanagement, and impending election due at that time.

[Teneb]

But why is the us trying to introduce liberal things if this is supposed to be "not and has never been" a liberal country? Seems a little contradictory to say "Of course, the US always tries to maintain it's protectionist stance" while A) doing exactly the opposite of that right now, B) Thoroughly and openly protectionist Trump just took power and is the one introducing the "neoliberal" policy, and C) is a reaction to years of free-trade deals (actual and attempted) and other "neoliberal" policies.

There's a logical disconnect there. How can the US never be a liberal country, if it supposedly attempting to be one with this policy? Why is the most avowedly protectionist President in decades the force behind what you two are calling a fundamentally neoliberal policy? By contrast, Net Neutrality was protected under the previous president, who was the one who saw a major trade deal (and what is more liberal than trade deals) as his legacy in the East Asian region. I see the connections you two are describing, but it doesn't seem to fit with other evidence, at least not in a way I understand.

First, I said the US wasn't and isn't a neoliberal (or plain liberal) country, economically. That doesn't mean it can't be.

It's only liberalism if the government stays out of all economic matters completely. As for why would a non-liberal country want other countries to become liberal, it is quite simple: If you have strong corporations and tariffs, while another country has neither, then it is trivial for your own corporations to enter that country, drive their local competition into bankruptcy and then send all their profits back to their home soil. This was one of the main driving sources of communist, socialist, nationalist and neoconservative movements in both Central and South America. For instance, Allende in Chile (the first 9/11) and Castro in Cuba. The US was pretty quick to crack down on most of these during the Cold War, either through embargoes (Cuba), counter-revolutionary guerillas (Nicaragua), assisting in coups (Brazil), or direct coups (Chile).

I feel I should make it clear that every time I say liberal, I mean it in the economic and not political or social sense.

Anyway, to contribute to the actual topic: While I don't have nearly enough info to take a guess at whether or not this will pass, I think we can agree that it will be pretty unlikely that there'll be any chance of going back after it.