Obama, FCC Caves on Net Neutrality
huffingtonpost.com
huffingtonpost.com
Though behind a registration-wall, here is an example of a more neutral source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/business/media/21fcc.html
I'm a pretty free market guy, but I'm pretty sure I support net neutrality regulation. Somebody please help me play it out. I'd like to think that there'd be a market for content neutral plans from ISPs, and that I'd be able to buy one, but isn't the fact that cable television has commercials evidence that people will do anything to save a buck? That is, I'd also like to think there would be a plan offering commercial free television programming, but with the exception of movie channels like HBO, I can buy no such service at any price (at least none that I know of)
I'd sincerely appreciate this community's thoughts on the issue.
I'm against net neutrality because I fear government interference in the network more than corporate - wherever the government goes it is eventually captured by vested interests and will do great harm.
All of that is to say, are you sure internet is different that TV? Seems that, for the most part, they're both already state sponsored monopolies.
I don't really see any way that a free market could support a neutral Internet right now - these "schemes" will be forced down our throats.
My point was that I wanted to talk about the facts, not about the people. I did't want to criticize without offering something better, so I grabbed the NYT link.
Coming from the folks who shut down websites for "copyright infringement".
Your title makes it sound like both Obama and the FCC have caved.
The article reads like this was a decision of the FCC commissioners appointed by the President. It's not clear that he had some hand in their votes or their decision, other than appointing them.
Because it threatens the nature of viral. More eyeballs being directed at fewer outlets is a recipe for ignorance.
Viral can't be viral under the oppression of corporate agenda. It's like the loudest voice in the room getting all the attention. This gives a megaphone to that person. Which wouldn't be that bad, if the loudest person was actually saying something interesting. But they rarely do.
0.) Cut taxes for 95% of America (EDIT: not referring to the most recent tax legislation... these are tax cuts Obama passed a while ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html. They truly are the tax cuts no one has heard of....).
1.) Reserved the policy of forbidding the media to photograph fallen soldiers and reversed Bush's torture policy.
2.) Signed legislation that provided health insurance to 4 million uninsured children.
3.) Prevented insurance companies from denying claims due to pre-existing conditions.
4.) Significantly expanded Pell grants.
5.) Expanded hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation and extended benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.
6.) Created the largest and most significant nonproliferation treaty with Russia in our lifetime.
7.) Credit card reform to stop abusive practices.
8.) Ended don't ask, don't tell.
Here's a fairly complete list with references: http://obamaachievements.org/list.
Note: I'm not pleased with the mapping between Obama's rhetoric and reality either. But you too are guilty of unsubstantiated rhetoric.
0) simply renewed a republican tax plan that was proven not to work since they helped put us into recession and caved on the idea of people making over $250k actually paying proportional taxes to help pay back their incredible gains
1) allows people to still be imprisoned forever without being charged and/or in solitary confinement with inhumane conditions - refuses to prosecute Valarie Plame leaks that got informants killed but now wants to go after non-citizens that republish leaks that only make his administration look bad
2) allowed insurance companies to drop children entirely before policy applied
3) allowed insurance companies to radically raise rates to compensate for imaginary loss of future profits - made the IRS an (even more powerful) enforcement agency that everyone will literally have to fear for their lives
4) allowed student loans to be "recovered" far more aggressively
5) insists on "partnerships" being "good enough" refuses to recognize gay marriage, setting a national tone that it's okay to discriminate like that
6) this won't be likely be signed because it's too late and democratic led congress is over - he let it drag out since April
7) allowed credit card companies to max out rates months before policy went into effect
8) asked courts to keep DADT on the books, setting national tone, allowed massive caveats in replacing DADT, 60 day nonsense waiting period from a dead-senator - military dishonorably discharged have to apply all over again and get all records reviewed without compensation
I like to consider myself very progressive but I cannot wait for Obama to be gone in 2012 so we can endure the dumbfounding insanity of 16 more years of far right rule, so FINALLY, FINALLY in 2038 when all these ancient a-holes finally die off and the young progressives will take over for a more enlightened country.
I just hope I live long enough to see it.
1.) Agreed.
2.) Agreed.
3.) Agreed.
4.) Strongly agreed.
5.) Disagree. Marriage is not a governmental institution and needs to be removed from our legislation and legal code in favor of civil unions.
6.) Strongly disagree. Sorry, how did he "let" that happen? Obama doesn't control Congress. He got the hard work done by, I don't know, negotiating with the Russia and writing the damn thing?!
7.) Agreed.
8.) I recognize what you're saying here, but to not support what Obama has done on DADT based on this feels like a stretch.
I'm not saying Obama has accomplished everything (my comment actually says the opposite and expresses displeasure in some parts of the job he has done). But do note that I was responding to someone who thought Obama was 100% rhetoric and no backbone, which empirically is not true. Also, I hope you realize that young people have thought the nation would be taken over by "young progressives for a more enlightened country" since the begininning of this nation. You do realize the people in power now grew up in the 60s, perhaps one of the most left-leaning decades this nation has seen?
Everyone else thinks that the recession was due to the collapse of housing prices and/or the credit markets.
> and caved on the idea of people making over $250k actually paying proportional taxes to help pay back their incredible gains
$250k is a pair of married mid-level individual contributors. It's also an engineering manager and a school-teacher.
BTW - what definition of "proportional" are we using? Both before and after, the marginal tax rates are progressive. (No, SSI doesn't count - it's a forced savings plan with better return for folks who contribute less.)
And, if you look at the difference between the Clinton tax rates and the Bush tax rates, you find that the Bush rates are more progressive.
Yes, compare someone who makes $300k with someone who makes $30k. You'll find that the $300k person got less than 10x the benefit from the Bush tax rate cuts that the person who made $30k.
You can play with numbers at http://www.giveitbackforjobs.org/
Curiously enough, that site's founders think that the tax rate cuts are a bad idea but suggests sending the savings to charity, which reduces tax liability, instead of sending it to govt....
Can you point me to any information regarding Obama's stance on the issue? I hadn't been following it until recently so I'd be curious to see what he's said on the matter.
1) Increased government accountability 2) Any reduction in the military industrial complex 3) A completely ironic nobel peace prize.
Also, how is the Nobel Obama's fault? He knew he didn't deserve it (hint: read between the lines of his acceptance speech). The idiotic committee put him in that situation and I don't think you'll hear anyone arguing it was actually deserved.
Do you really expect people to engage in a conversation with you when you demonstrate such a clear lack of preparation and knowledge of the issues in question? It's a drain for all those involved. Dijkstra had something to say about this....
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates#Fiscal_restraint
[2] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870431490457525...
[3] http://www.whitehouse.gov/VoluntaryDisclosure
[4] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memo...
[5] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/427...
[6] http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/07/27/ClosingLobbyistL...
[7] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/420...
Naming a dozen good to decent things Obama has done, with or without citations, doesn't come close to dimming the fact that Obama ran on a platform of huge sweeping change toward a more rational, peaceful world--and has in fact delivered on some token items but not even touched the core issues of imperliasism, state distributed misinformation, and a corporate-government marriage (it remains to be seen if Obama's anti-lobbying bill will be followed/enforced/effective).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S...
Your partisanism and preconceived notations are blinding you in this case, and I will say, it makes a conversation with you quite unenjoyable.
No it does not! It goes up when Obama becomes president. It isn't 2014 yet
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Defe...
He failed on his most important mandates? In the middle of a historic financial catastrophe which nearly triggered a full-blown depression (which under his watch the freefall was stopped successfully and the stock market is now largely recovered) he gets a historic healthcare law passed which had been attempted and failed at for more than 50 years. And because it's only 90% instead of 100% of the desired outcome it's a failure? Why not give credit for what it is, and opportunity for improvement it provides? Social Security, one of the most important social safety nets we have was not what it was when it first started either. This doesn't even get into passing the biggest financial reform laws (against powerful lobbies) since the Great Depression. No, I see it another way. This president has already had a very busy two years.
I'm not saying Obama is Jesus in the flesh, and that he never gets anything wrong. At the same time, I don't think it's helpful for people to sit back and criticize with broad strokes. Have you called your representatives about the 9/11 responders bill? Or net neutrality? Have we, the tech experts that hang out on sites like HN, taken concrete actions to make our voice heard on things like net neutrality, or do we just wait until the verdicts are nearly in from politicians who don't understand the ramifications as well as we do, and then complain when it's not what we want?
Again, I agree with the sentiment, but not with the blame assigned.
That's what I blame the democrats for. They're shit at compromising.
6.) What good has it done? Obama's treaty signing seems to have done far less than a couple of coders and assassins on motorbikes.
8.) Grudgingly and with far more difficulty than it should have taken (assuming it sticks).
As for (8), how is that Obama's fault? He got the Secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs on board, he called for the removal during the State of the Union (note that the SotU is probably one of if not the most watched speech in the world), and then pressured Congress to take action. The difficulty comes from the Legislative Branch, which, thanks to the separation of powers, Obama has no control over.
They've compiled a pretty good list of promises kept vs broken since he took office.
Oh well, hypocrite time: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/ (which probably doesn't include DADT).
And considering that the President, you know, doesn't make telecom law. I have no problem complaining about a disconnected Congress and a corrupt FCC, but bashing Obama for this is silly and cheap.
I do wonder if net neutrality is supported by a small number of elite/intelligent folk who would be careful in their choices of which providers to support, but realise that given the wider stupidity of the market, their overall lack of market clout will lead to them having no option but to choose a crappy service.
sigh... gives the phrase 'Forcing people to be free' - yet one further dimension.
The problem here is that the market for mobile Internet service providers is rather supply-constrained. There aren't a whole lot of players in the game, sadly.
It's a lot easier to stifle competition when it's just you and 2-3 other companies providing service.
Why does it increase the barrier to entry to the former? Because expected lower profit returns increase the risk on capex.
So your reply - while a necessary consideration to think through - sort of misses the whole point of the argument against net-neutrality. Net neutrality - according to this argument - will only serve to contribute to the lack of competition at the infrastructure level.
The real response to this argument is not to fight it on economic grounds - but to assert that the 'public good' which transcends merely economic considerations is put under threat. The primary way infrastructure providers will seek to increase profit margins is by bundling content and service delivery options. However, content - in this context - includes the entire political information flow of all the political structures in the world. Generally speaking, we don't believe it to be in the public good for this to be under the control of corporations. Since the 'public good' is frequently the sort of thing that can't be monetized - it's the natural place for government to step in to protect it.
I remain torn because it's never really clear if the actual aim of preserving the 'public_good' is best protected by intervention or otherwise. I say that ultimately we have to try both and then compare. Get empirical on the issue. A priori debate can only take us so far.
The only thing that net neutrality prevents infrastructure providers from doing is discriminating traffic based on content - they're still free to do things like charge StreamingMovieCDN higher prices than they charge SimpleHtmlHosting, or bill for actual traffic carried rather than a flat fee for the lines.
But the argument is that this is artificially low from what it should be because service providers have so far held off from bundling because of the regulatory uncertainty. Because it's artificially low - so the argument goes - that's what explains (at least in part) the current levels of competition.
Infrastructure players claim that once regulatory certainty is provided (against net neutrality) - then, since the pot of profits for infrastructure providers will increase - this will in turn encourage more entrants to the market.
Actually - one way you might argue against their economic argument is say: okay, but if the profit pot is only being increased because infrastructure players are bundling content, then infrastructure players that want to give users completely free reign to surf where they want will be priced out of the market. Bundlers will be able to subsidise network access at a lower price because of income generated through the content. Non-bundlers won't be able to do this and will quickly go out of business... Since big media content is already tightly controlled by a few large corporations, only a few infrastructure players will be able to provide such subsidies. Ergo - competition at the infrastructure level will be as bad as ever if not worse, while competition at the content and user level will disappear completely.
And yeah - who doesn't believe really that corporations want to destroy the competition that the internet represents.
Whatever the answer, I don't want to see Verizon or AT&T having a role whatsoever in dictating access.