Anti Net Neutrality Crowd Reaches Deep For The Craziest Possible Response To President Obama's Call For Real Net Neutrality Rules

from the and-the-competition-is-on dept

Tue, Nov 11th 2014 6:11am — Mike Masnick

Well, we already wrote about President Obama's somewhat surprising decision to come out strongly in favor of Title II reclassification for broadband (with strong forbearance) to setup some real net neutrality rules. We also covered the unhappy response from the big broadband players who are just repeating the same talking points from the past year, claiming that they'll suddenly stop investing in broadband and how this will kill the internet (ignoring that they already rely on Title II for a number of things, including internet infrastructure).

But the real fun is coming from the politicians and the pundits who seem to be trying to out-crazy each other in coming up with the most ridiculous analogy/description of what Title II means for the internet and the world. The one getting the most attention has to be Senator Ted Cruz who declared net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet."

It's not, of course. Not even close. Matthew Inman, over at TheOatmeal has penned a fantastic response to Cruz, explaining the basics of what net neutrality is really about, and why it's just ridiculous to claim it's "Obamacare for the internet." You should read the whole thing, because it's much funnier than just this snippet (and you'll also understand the crab taco reference), but here's a snippet:

But, honestly, the "Obamacare" line was just one of many crazy comparisons. Here's Fox legal analyst Andrew Napolitano calling it "Orwellian" (I'd embed the video, but apparently MediaMatters still doesn't realize how to use SSL, so we can't) to refer to it as "net neutrality" saying that it's really about taking "the choice of buyers and sellers out of the market." And that's in response to Fox's Stuart Varney claiming (incorrectly) that the President's proposal is "one speed for all, one price for all." Neither of those statements are even close to true. There is nothing in the proposal that involves "one price for all" or "one speed for all." It's just about setting up a system where a broadband provider cannot discriminate and favor their own services over another's. It's the kind of thing you'd think the guys at Fox would appreciate, given that one of their main competitors, MSNBC, is owned by Comcast.

How do you think Fox's Napolitano and Varney would feel about Comcast slowing down access to Fox's videos and websites while pushing those visitors to visit MSNBC instead?

And if that wasn't crazy enough, let's take it up another notch. We got an unsolicited "statement of Roslyn Layton" in response to President Obama's proposal. I have no idea who "Roslyn Layton" is and, and frankly, have no interest in doing the Google search to find out, but I know plenty from the fact that she's actually claiming that this new plan to make sure that the internet is open and free from unfair blocking for all is somehow a victory for the Russians, Chinese and Iranians:

During President Obama’s official visit to China today, the White House issued a statement of support of government regulation of the Internet with the classification of broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act from 1934. The symbolism of this statement appearing while President Obama is in China could not be more Orwellian. The Chinese internet is everything that we don’t want in the US: state ownership of the enterprises that comprises the Internet, its infrastructure, content, and connectivity; top-down regulation of every aspect of the Internet experience; and government collusion with industry to create Internet companies. Should the US take the route of reclassifying broadband under Title II as Obama suggests, it would bring the the US dangerously closer to the Chinese model where the internet is “government allowed”.

Title II is not only bad news for the US, but for the rest of world. Indeed foreign authoritarian governments have been looking for justification to monitor networks and users under the guise of net neutrality and the “Open Internet”. Obama’s announcement could not be a better present to the leaders of China, Iran, and Russia.

Except that's the opposite of fact. A plan that specifically calls for "no blocking, no throttling, increased transparency and no paid prioritization." Does that really sound like a plan from China, Iran and Russia? Does Layton think anyone thinks that statement is even within the same area code as the truth? While some others are making similar statements, they at least admit that those countries will use "any action" by the US government as a supposed defense for seeking to regulate the internet.

But that includes any rules that would be put forth, including the rules under Section 706. So the fact that Russia, China and Iran would lie and totally misrepresent what rules under Title II mean doesn't magically mean that Title II would give them any extra cover.

And that's because it's simply wrong that Title II is "regulating the internet." As we've explained many times, there are legitimate concerns about using Title II -- but these complaints above are hysterical and simply wrong. And by being so hyperbolic and apoplectic, they're actually doing their side a disservice. Anyone who actually knows what's going on knows for a fact that rules under Title II aren't anywhere near as problematic as all of these claims are making it out to be.

Taking clear rules that are designed to keep the internet more accessible and more open and less susceptible to interference shouldn't be seen as a partisan issue (a la Cruz) or "regulating the internet." It's not. It's about defining the rules under which underlying infrastructure must agree to operate -- to keep the internet itself free from dangerous interference by gatekeepers who have a long history of interfering. It's certainly not about supporting totalitarian censorship-happy regimes, but the exact opposite. It's about making sure that everyone can get their message or service out there, and not worrying about having a giant broadband player block access over its last mile monopoly.

To take an issue that is about keeping the internet open and free, and pretending it's going to lead to a censored and "Orwellian" internet is just ridiculous and wrong.

Reacting like this just makes everyone making such claims look really, really silly.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: andrew napolitano, net neutrality, roslyn layton, stuart varney, ted cruz, title ii

127 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Violynne (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 5:34am

Because the chat window wasn't enough: Senator Cruz is a moron.

Now I've other names to add to the "Morons Who Don't Deserve The Responsibility Americans Gave Them".

*scratches off SCOTUS

I ran out of space on my 3.2 petabyte drive. >:[
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pixelation, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:33am
  
  Re:
  +1 Senator Ted Cruz is a moron.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - me, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    Disagree, Cruz is not a moron. He's a manipulative asshole.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 9:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't understand how MSM considers Ted Cruz to be 'grassroots' with his connections to Goldman Sachs via his wife (Mid level VP) and campaign contributions. To top it all off his dad is best described as every possible stereotype of a racist old southern fundamentalist rolled into one horrible package. Normally I don't use the 'guilty by association' logic but it's incredibly obvious that the Senator is using his father as a proxy campaigner.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    Disagree. Cruz is a psychopath who shouldn't be let anywhere near the reins of power. But somehow, the Fox 'News' channel pushed him in.
    
    Make of that what you will.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Glen, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      http://youtu.be/M7fchtEJpy8
      
      That's what I make of that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 11 Nov 2014 @ 8:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    And that clip of him jumping up and down on Oprah's couch is priceless...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 5:37am

So we have trolls here that don't seem to be able to read the articles if they don't agree with them but are eager to comment on them. Now I've learned such trolls exist in the offline world and they are unable to listen (as opposed to hear) to things said if it comes to some source they oppose.

And they say people act differently online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:26am

Obamacare for the Internet?
My head hurts

Does anyone with a shred of intelligence take Ted Cruz seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:29am
  
  Re: Obamacare for the Internet?
  Sadly, yes. Why, I don't understand. The man should have trouble taking himself seriously...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John85851 (profile), 12 Nov 2014 @ 7:54am
    
    Re: Re: Obamacare for the Internet?
    This is politics: he doesn't need take himself seriously as long as he knows how to get his constituents fired up. And nothing fires up people in the Republican base than comparing anything to Obama.
    Don't like something? Just say it's just like Obamacare, even if there's no evidence in reality. Then let Rush Limbaugh and Fox News run with it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:55am
  
  Re: Obamacare for the Internet?
  Me. You should always take completely insane people serious if they enter a position of power. Wouldn't want S. Palin or Cruz anywhere near where they have been.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:01am
  
  Re: Obamacare for the Internet?
  He's considered a top contender for winning the GOP nomination for president in 2016, so sadly, yes a bunch of idiots take him seriously.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JWW (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 9:04am
    
    Re: Re: Obamacare for the Internet?
    There is no way in hell Cruz wins the nomination.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - David, 11 Nov 2014 @ 12:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Obamacare for the Internet?
      Big money has a lot of interest of letting a corrupt manipulatable putz win. So that's the kind of guy where the campaign contributions end up. And propaganda works: the kind of idiocy that Americans endure because of "terrorists" alone beggars belief.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Pragmatic, 12 Nov 2014 @ 3:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Obamacare for the Internet?
        I actually hope he wins the nomination. Then the GOP will lose in 2016 unless their voters are dumber than I thought.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pragmatic, 12 Nov 2014 @ 3:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obamacare for the Internet?
        This does not mean I'm cheerleading for Hillary Clinton. I'm not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:16am
  
  Re: Obamacare for the Internet?
  Well, *someone* elected him, and wasn't he the lead proponent of the government shutdown a while ago?
  
  Seems like far too many people take him seriously, even if to the outside world he's just another Palin-style moron who inexplicably gets to be a lead international figure. (Yes, *inter*national - the rest of the world is caught between laughing at these morons and hoping that they don't get put in a place where they cause real damage to the rest of us).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - lucidrenegade (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 9:35am
    
    Re: Re: Obamacare for the Internet?
    "Well, *someone* elected him, and wasn't he the lead proponent of the government shutdown a while ago?"
    
    Blame Texas. I'm sure there are people there who actually have two brain cells to rub together, but there aren't enough of them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:34am
  
  Re: Obamacare for the Internet?
  I hadn't heard anything bad about him before today. Now he's on my blacklist, with the label "Corporate stooge/telco shill".
  
  (It's not even GOOD shilling; he's just blatantly trying to hitch a ride on the Anti-Obamacare train. Pathetic.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:27am

Jingle: " Fact-free - all you need for your doubt-sowing nonsense-spree!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:30am

If you like your movie provider, you can keep it
Are you sure this isn't Obamacare for the internet? It sure sounds like it is with the slogan, if you like your movie provider you can keep it. We have all heard that before. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:01am
  
  Re: If you like your movie provider, you can keep it
  Well, apart from the pathetic attempt at false equivalence, it should be noted that it's the *anti* net neutrality side that's pushing to take that choice away from you, not the pro side. Net neutrality is literally a fight to keep things the same, no matter how much misinformation idiots push out there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 11 Nov 2014 @ 8:57am
  
  Re: If you like your movie provider, you can keep it
  Didn't you hear?
  
  Franchises are dead because of piracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JWW (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 9:09am
  
  Re: If you like your movie provider, you can keep it
  This is what I don't get. Republicans should be rushing to support Obama on this. This is their chance to get some bipartisanship credit AND stick it to Hollywood (mark my words, there are Hollywood folks making Obamas phone ring off the hook to try to back him down on this).
  
  But the stupid Republicans fawn over Hollywood hoping to get some scraps from them.
  
  This time you can do the same thing Obama is advocating AND support the actual "folks" who don't want their Netflix to start moving at the speed of molasses. Thats the whole rub here an the angle.
  
  Minus common carrier the screws will be turned on Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu, until those services either become too expensive or too slow to be of use to people. This it the argument, this is the reason.
  
  Republicans, get on the right side of this dammit!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 9:26am
    
    Re: Re: If you like your movie provider, you can keep it
    This is their chance to get some bipartisanship credit AND stick it to Hollywood (mark my words, there are Hollywood folks making Obamas phone ring off the hook to try to back him down on this).
    
    Many of them consider bipartisanship a bad thing. Working with Democrats to get something done is seen as a stain, not an accomplishment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2014 @ 3:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: If you like your movie provider, you can keep it
      Same can be said of the Dems. Obama's idea of a compromise is you do what he says. Now that the Repubs have the house and senate he suddenly starts talking cooperation.
      
      I am all for net neutrality, but you cannot take O at his word so the Repbubs need to proceed with caution.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:36am

When you don't have a good argument against a transparent, open, and competitive internet protected under Title II classification. The only recourse left is to start making shit up that makes absolutely no sense. We've finally hit that stage in the net neutrality debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cal (profile), 12 Nov 2014 @ 8:50am
  
  Re:
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MadAsASnake (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:41am

The government should not operate at the speed of the Government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:47am

Just think
Maybe Obama is supporting this to kill it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:00am
  
  Re: Just think
  That was actually my initial thought when i first saw the video.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ambrellite (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 3:32pm
    
    Re: Re: Just think
    I thought that, too. The Republicans get to look like they're fighting Obama, and the Democrats get to rebuild credibility with their base by "fighting" back, though of course not hard enough to stop a bill that Obama will be "forced" to sign because "at least we were able to pass vital cybersecurity legislation (CISPA)" and "we'll fix net neutrality when a Democratic president is elected."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JWW (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 9:10am
  
  Re: Just think
  All the more reason for Republicans to pick this up and run with it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich Kulawiec, 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:57am

Let's not dismiss Ted Cruz so quickly...
After all, remember the time he managed a 200-server operation single-handedly -- well before puppet, chef, et.al?

And the time he debugged a PMTUD issue spanning two different ISPs and a firewall?

Or the time he wrote the definitive paper on congestion control for streaming content delivery?

Oh...wait. He's never done ANY of those things. And that is why we should all pay rapt attention to what someone with no experience, no knowledge, no background, no expertise whatsoever has to say. Right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vidiot (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:40am
  
  Re: Let's not dismiss Ted Cruz so quickly...
  No... Walter O'Brien did all those things, I think. I saw it on TV.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 10:00am
  
  Re: Let's not dismiss Ted Cruz so quickly...
  Pretty much the the same thing can be said of those who wrote the ObamaCare Bill.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:58am

Oh no!
Title II is not only bad news for the US, but for the rest of world. Indeed foreign authoritarian governments have been looking for justification to monitor networks and users under the guise of net neutrality and the “Open Internet”. Obama’s announcement could not be a better present to the leaders of China, Iran, and Russia.

Isn't it enough for China, Iran, and Russia that they have taken over our streets, our water supply, our electricity, and whatever else is considered a utility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:59am

That media matters clip of the Fox News roundtable is terrifying. That people actually watch and believe that pitch perfect Orwellian propaganda, makes me lose all hope.

Seriously, fuck this planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JWW (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 9:12am
  
  Re:
  Heh, I occasionally watch Fox News.
  
  And
  
  The people on that panel are seriously wrong.
  
  Have I restored any of your hope?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 9:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not at all. Case in point, why would you continue to watch fox news after they aired a piece like that?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 1:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You forgot that Fox News isn't actually news. IT's a propaganda machine for the 1% masquerading as an astroturf for the masses. IT's the only 'news' channel that actually makes you less intelligent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 9:42am
  
  Media Matters vs Fox News
  Given the history of Media Matters and their frequent attacks on Fox News, I'm inherently suspicious of any Fox content they post. An original source, directly from Fox's video site or recorded off one of their channels, would be a better citation for claims that Fox has gone off the rails. If they are that nutty, they'll be happy to have it published.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:00am

It almost seems like all Obama has to do is come out and say something and a certain segment of politicians are obligated to come out and speak against it.

I'm waiting for Obama to come out and make a speech decrying murder and puppy kicking, and Ted Cruz will have to stand up and declare that he's not sure if there's enough murder and that not kicking puppies is Obamacare for our pets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:09am
  
  Re:
  I'm waiting for Obama to come out and make a speech decrying murder and puppy kicking, and Ted Cruz will have to stand up and declare that he's not sure if there's enough murder and that not kicking puppies is Obamacare for our pets.
  
  As awesome as that would be, he would actually denounce Obama for not coming out against murder and puppy kicking sooner (despite the fact that Cruz hadn't said anything about them either).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:20am
  
  Re:
  The long-standing meme is what would happen if Obama came out in favour of breathing oxygen. The collective IQ of the country would probably shoot up a few points...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:24am
  
  Re:
  "It almost seems like all Obama has to do is come out and say something and a certain segment of politicians are obligated to come out and speak against it."
  
  It doesn't just seem that way, it's their publicly stated policy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JWW (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 9:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    Republicans really need to wrap their head around the statement
    
    "even a broken clock is right twice a day"
    
    This is one of those two times Obama is right.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - David, 11 Nov 2014 @ 12:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, Obama is left. And Republicans must be right.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Pragmatic, 12 Nov 2014 @ 5:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Obama is center right, Republican Lite. That's why they're so nutty about bringing him down. They're trying to maintain the illusion that our two party system offers us an actual choice. It doesn't.
        
        One of them needs to fail real bad in the next election so the third parties have a chance to get their candidates in. It doesn't matter that much who is president, he (or she) will always have to work with Congress to get anything done so we need to be aiming to get our candidates elected to Congress. We just need the numbers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 2:22pm
  
  Re:
  Perhaps a we the people partition to get Obama to official endorse breathing is called for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roger Smith, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:03am

Cruz is wrong
As everyone knows, the internet is not something you can just dump something on. It's a series of tubes that can be filled. Fact!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:13am

Not having net neutrality is like having a highway where only cars made by Ford and GM can drive over 60, and European and Japanese cars have to drive under 20 mph.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:21am
  
  Re:
  Actually, I get to drive 60 on that highway in my Honda, I just have to pay the guy who built the road $1,000.00 for the privilege, even though it's the exact same *^%@$# road.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:18am

This is what happens when the political system degrades to the point where everything the other side does must be opposed as the worst thing ever.

For some reason, I'm pretty sure that Dems would do the same thing if the Reps looked at the Net Neutrality, and saw the pro-business narrative that it provides, and ran with it first.

It's not like it hasn't been pointed out before. There are numerous businesses that exist today that couldn't, or would be smaller, if their access was subject to the whims of telecoms. You might even say that preventing a neutral field of play for businesses is a "job killer", a line that has been trotted out by the GOP for dem policies they don't like, which today is all of them.

The GOP could have easily done that; say that Neutrality is a part of the engine that allows small businesses, and enterprising americans to thrive and make the country great (TM). Instead there must be strident and hyperbolic resistance, because the other side must never be credited with having a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:44am
  
  Re:
  Isn't this the definition of bipartisanship?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    Zing!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 8:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    And you are right, what is bipartisanship if not political opposition? At the same time, when politicians see everything as a Manichean struggle between their version of absolute good and evil, then a lot of babies get tossed with the bathwater.
    
    While I have my ideological lines, I also am becoming more pragmatic as this particular flavor of politics continues. I'm tired of everything being a fight to see who can exlude the middle the fastest, and would rather see some ideas at least tried out before being blocked out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JWW (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 9:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I have my ideological lines too, but....
      
      I work on the internet, I get my entertainment over the internet, I utilize the internet daily for untold things.
      
      If there is ONE issue that I could possibly be compelled to be a single issue voter on, it is internet freedom.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 9:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        On this, I agree. Net Neutrality and the braoder idea of internet freedom is not just a good idea, but probably one of the best ideas going on. What I'm bothered about is how that that idea is being treated because of the usual partisan baloney.
        
        That was the point of my original comment. I'm sorry if that came over poorly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:59am
  
  Re:
  Political campaigns funded by telcos. Telcos want net neutrality to be a vague, hated thing, because if it isn't they lose some of their monopoly power. Politicians want to keep their patrons happy so they'll fund their reelection campaigns. End result: ridiculous public statements from telcos' pet politicians.
  
  Possible solutions:
  -Make political advertisements illegal (nearly impossible)
  -Put forward candidates who are unwilling to compromise on their beliefs (completely impossible)
  -Create an intelligent, well-informed voting public that demands excellent representation from their government (laughably impossible)
  -Enact harsh universal term limits that restrict anyone who is elected to a political office from ever running for any other office (may have negative side-effects)
  -Something else?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 8:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    -Something else?
    
    Take off and nuke it from orbit (severe side effects)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 8:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    Take inspiration from Guy Fawkes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 8:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Take inspiration from Guy Fawkes.
      
      Why in the world would I want to engage in a failed terror attack, get tortured for multiple days, then be burned at the stake? I mean sure, he gets a holiday, and there's candy involved, but it's all about making effigies so they can burn him all over again.
      
      I'll take my inspiration from a group that succeeded in revolution, thank you very much!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - tqk (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 2:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'll take my inspiration from a group that succeeded in revolution ...
        
        Succeeded? Your front runners for the presidency include Ted Cruze and Hillary Clinton, your corporations buy your law by buying your elected representatives, your 4th amendment has been gutted, your 5th amendment is on life support, your 1st amendment is contra-indicated by your educational system, your police think they're fighting a war against the people they were hired to protect, your south pines for the days of slavery, the rest of you are damned near proud of your racism, there's a revolving door between banks and corporations and their regulators, your FBI is trying to compete with your CIA, your supremes don't even understand English any more, your MafiAA is dictating treaties for your trade representatives to impose in secret, ...
        
        I could go on, but I think I need to go throw up now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rapnel (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 2:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dude, when you say it like that you make it seem like something's wrong. So neg.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tqk (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, kind of sad, isn't it? I didn't used to have so much to complain about when I was younger, I think. My big brother pretty much filled that role (asshole) all by himself (still is, last time I checked, but I won't be doing that again). Then I grew up and started to get into programming and systems analysis, and it was all downhill from there. Now, it seems everything I look at, I find myself wondering, "Why TF did they do it that way?!?"
        
        Meh. Life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rapnel (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 2:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I read your post and got stuck on the word revolution for a second and it occurred to me that revolution is continuous in nature and so it must be when applied to society. Revolutions do not end. They can not because once power has been ceded it will invariably consolidate which will invariably limit or otherwise oppress the increasingly less privileged of larger society. Heat and pressure, expansion and contraction, wax on and wax off - the revolution is infinite and does not stop. Thus - Welcome to the Revolution - Long Live the Revolution. Indeed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
rebrad (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:30am

Not Another Government Operation
All you have to do is look around and look at other government operations (post office, VA, Obamacare, NSA, IRS, EPA, etc) to understand why letting the government run the internet is a bad idea. Agreed, Big Business is no better. So how about all parties (gov, business and users) agreeing on a list of users rights that internet provider must guarantee and let the fed enforce only.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:34am
  
  Re: Not Another Government Operation
  All you have to do is look around and look at other government operations (post office, VA, Obamacare, NSA, IRS, EPA, etc) to understand why letting the government run the internet is a bad idea.
  
  Such a bad idea that nobody is actually proposing that. If you think net neutrality is "the government running the internet" then you either didn't read or didn't understand the linked article. Here it is again if you want to take a look.
  
  http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 11:06am
  
  Re: Not Another Government Operation
  letting the government run the internet is a bad idea.
  
  How about this - let me sue the individuals in Government who break the rules laid down.
  
  An example - someone is letting in these counterfeit products. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/6/va-surgeons-risk-danger-by-using-unauthorized-pote/ To let me, the aware citizen, sue the administrator who approved it.
  
  Standing? Bah, I have it because I paid taxes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:33am

I think we just found kenichi tanaka!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:35am

This is the perfect example of how the government is not operating in the interests of the people. This shouldn't be an issue at all as it can only benefit the public, yet people in power are fighting over it for their own interests and benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lucidrenegade (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 9:41am
  
  Re:
  "This is the perfect example of how the government is not operating in the interests of the people."
  
  Oh it is. Corporations are people, don't ya know?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:39am

anti-big government & zero tolerance
One of the chief concerns of the conservative/libertarian mindset is that once the government gets its foot in the door regulating any industry, it won't end there, but will continue to slowly expand until every business is literally drowning in red tape and regulations, and a large bureaucracy has grown (like a cancer) conducting audits, enforcing rules, and in ins extreme, requiring a business to submit (and keep track of) so much additional paperwork that it needs to create and staff a dedicated department just for that.

Their opposition to network neutrality may be more a fear of the monster it might eventually grow into rather than what is currently proposed.

Ideally, ISPs, like any other business, should be allowed to do just about anything they want, and if customers don't like it, they can go somewhere else. The problem is that, for broadband providers, there typically isn't anyone else, so it's either their local cable company or nothing at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jackn, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:44am
  
  Re: anti-big government & zero tolerance
  Sounds slippery.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 8:27am
  
  Re: anti-big government & zero tolerance
  Their opposition to network neutrality may be more a fear of the monster it might eventually grow into rather than what is currently proposed.
  
  And the current regulatory regime won't grow to strangle them... really?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pragmatic, 12 Nov 2014 @ 5:26am
    
    Re: Re: anti-big government & zero tolerance
    The gravy train will grind to a halt if it does, buddy.
    
    The people who whine the most about regulation are the ones who do the most damage. Am I the only one who's noticed that?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 8:28am
  
  Re: anti-big government & zero tolerance
  Ideally, ISPs, like any other business, should be allowed to do just about anything they want, and if customers don't like it, they can go somewhere else. The problem is that, for broadband providers, there typically isn't anyone else, so it's either their local cable company or nothing at all.
  
  Exactly. Look at the European market, where there's very strong competition. They don't have net neutrality issues, because any ISP caught messing with it would get dropped immediately. Since the FCC/Congress is unwilling to do what's necessary to ensure actual competition, Title II is the best alternative. But I'm pretty certain the same people making ridiculous claims about Title II regulation would flip out about letting companies compete on shared infrastructure as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tqk (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 3:28pm
  
  Re: anti-big government & zero tolerance
  One of the chief concerns of the conservative/libertarian mindset ...
  
  Oh FFS. Go read this. It's short:
  
  http://reason.com/24-7/2014/11/11/presidents-online-regulatory-scheme-is-o
  
  TL;DR Libertarians are not the same as conservatives/Republicans. They're as embarrassed by Cruze's Obamacare for the Internet as pretty much all of we are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tqk (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 4:48pm
    
    Re: Re: anti-big government & zero tolerance
    Actually, please ignore that. I went back and looked into this a bit further, and I'm a bit confused. Reason appears to have gone over to the dark side, or they're as clueless/ignorant as Cruz, dunno. To hell with them. I'll find something better.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pragmatic, 12 Nov 2014 @ 5:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: anti-big government & zero tolerance
      I was going to ask if you'd read the comments, @tqk.
      
      http://reason.com/24-7/2014/11/11/presidents-online-regulatory-scheme-is-o#comment
      
      Hilarity ensues. Please note:
      
      There is no such thing as a free market and pretending that there is won't free it up.
      
      We can't spend our way to freedom if we don't have spending power.
      
      Corporations will not willingly break themselves up to create consumer choice.
      
      Government has a role in our society, but as our servant, not our master.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - tqk (profile), 12 Nov 2014 @ 7:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: anti-big government & zero tolerance
        I guess I'll have to go back to calling myself a "Classical Liberal" then, now that libertarian has become as diluted of meaning as liberal and conservative are.
        
        Is this Orwell's Newspeak, or just plain old dumbth?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:44pm
    
    Re: Re: anti-big government & zero tolerance
    Over the past 15 years or so, things have changed enough that it's more accurate to say that libertarians aren't the same as conservatives/Republicans, but Libertarians are.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pragmatic, 12 Nov 2014 @ 5:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re: anti-big government & zero tolerance
      I get along with the small "Ls" as a rule because they tend to be more reasonable than the "ideologically pure" big "Ls."
      
      Ideological purity means "extremist."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:52am

99% of the population probably doesn't know or care what net neutrality is, and for half those people simply calling it "Obamacare for the internet" is all they'll ever need to know to be against it. It won't affect them until it's too late to change things anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 11 Nov 2014 @ 12:39pm
  
  Re:
  I remember the street interviews of people who were staunch opponents of Obamacare while being strongly supportive about the Affordable Healthcare Act.
  
  I think it must be something in the drinking water.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Suddenly, all those fluoridated water conspiracy theories make sense.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
limbodog (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:53am

Why not?
The reason they're reaching deep for the crazy, is that's what works. There's now tons of rabid tea partiers who are violently opposed to the socialism of obamacare for the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Namel3ss (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 8:15am

Really disappointed w/ Cruz
I actually agree with him on some issues (Obamacare and immigration to name a couple) but he's really screwing the pooch on this one. The ISP's have demonstrated that they will f**k with the internet to no end if it means more $$$ for them, and they need to be reined in or the internet as we've come to know it will cease to exist.

Really really disappointed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Allan R. Wallace (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 8:17am

Net Neutrality False Flag
Are Comcast, AT&T, etc. smart enough to have Obama favour Net Neutrality so an incoming Republican majority can fight it for them? pwned politicians of the #oneparty & politigasim sock puppets in comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watchit (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 8:34am

Man, I really wish other sites were as easy to comment on as Techdirt... There's so many idiots I want to give a good verbal drubbing about this topic on other sites, but I can't!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roman, 11 Nov 2014 @ 8:50am

Not partisan
The net neutrality debate is not a partisan one. It is a debate between people who understand the technology and people who don't. The fact that Obama supports it doesn't mean much - his support of Title II reclassification makes him the broken clock that's still right twice a day. Why did he appoint an industry lobbyist to head the group making the decision on this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roman, 11 Nov 2014 @ 8:50am

Not partisan
The net neutrality debate is not a partisan one. It is a debate between people who understand the technology and people who don't. The fact that Obama supports it doesn't mean much - his support of Title II reclassification makes him the broken clock that's still right twice a day. Why did he appoint an industry lobbyist to head the group making the decision on this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JWW (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 9:17am
  
  Re: Not partisan
  Yeah, thats another irony in this.
  
  Obama wants this but the man HE SELECTED to decide this doesn't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 11 Nov 2014 @ 12:46pm
    
    Re: Re: Not partisan
    Obama may want to be known to want this. There are few issues in his presidency where one was not in danger of whiplash when trying to look at his mouth and his hands at the same time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 4:37pm
    
    Re: Re: Not partisan
    Maybe that's the whole point?
    
    Have you seen how quick local shills are to jump to the defense of corporations when they fuck up? "Left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing" and all that?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Fenderson (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 9:20am

Give something, take something
The cynic in me says that the reason Obama is talking like this now is to try to win points that he knows he's losing because of his suppose of widespread domestic surveillance.

He probably hoping that people will get happy enough about this that they'll forget to be mad about the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 10:26am
  
  Re: Give something, take something
  That and he has essentially nothing to lose at this point, which hopefully means he'll start delivering on some more of those stump speech promises.
  
  I think these last two years are going to be the most telling of his presidency. He has a real opportunity to make a few key things right, and doing so will help determine whether he actually meant the things he campaigned on or he was just a brilliant liar and panderer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 11 Nov 2014 @ 12:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Give something, take something
    I think these last two years are going to be the most telling of his presidency. He has a real opportunity to make a few key things right, and doing so will help determine whether he actually meant the things he campaigned on or he was just a brilliant liar and panderer.
    
    Oh nonsense. What he did so far was quite contraproductive regarding the votes he could hope to gather with that, so he has less rather than more reason to behave honorably.
    
    The powers that be don't mind a Democratic president as long as he is in their pocket. They don't assassinate presidents because they might get reelected but because they might stop behaving themselves.
    
    Now that Obama does not need to look after voters any more, retiring peacefully with a big stack of cash will be more rather than less on his mind.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 1:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Give something, take something
      Then why bother with the net neutrality position? You honestly think the powers that be as you call them are pro net neutrality?
      
      It's like John said in the parent, he's trying to score some points by taking that position. According to your theory he wouldn't even bother because he's just fantasizing out his stack of cash.
      
      How do you know he's not making some kind of attempt at redemption? Do you have a crystal ball?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 12 Nov 2014 @ 7:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Give something, take something
      "Now that Obama does not need to look after voters any more"
      
      But he does.
      
      Obama is a party man, and he cares a great deal about how the Democrats will do in the next presidential election.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 9:43am

"...no idea who 'Roslyn Layton' is..."
A kinswoman of Les Wynan or Chief Stalking Horse perhaps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ysth (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 10:28am

the Oatmeal is nice, but I like this better:
https://www.eviscerati.org/comics/comic/osw/2010/12/net-neutrality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 10:46am

Not all wrong
Like everything, the detractors aren't all wrong. Neither are they all right (I would say more wrong than right in the case of Cruz).

Title II is not an optimal solution for the current problem with ISPs and network neutrality. Unfortunately, it appears to be the best solution that can be readily implemented in the current time frame.

Perhaps we should take a longer look for this issue. Title II reclassification is a reasonable short term solution, but we will still have systemic problems with the ISP structure in this country, which mainly stem from the lack of players in the market and overall lack of competition. In my opinion, this lack of competition is the root of the net neutrality issue.

Even if title II reclassification happens, I think that we will still be left paying too much for substandard service. We need a solution that will deal with this issue, and I'm not sure what the solution will be.

What I know is that we cannot lose sight of the bigger picture in pushing for immediate term actions. We cannot afford to win the battle while we lose the war, not with something as critical as the open internet. We must engage in the longer term war of improving competition, lowering barriers to entry, and ensuring an open and neutral internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 11:04am

This is what you get with rabid anti-Obama crowd. They're like petty children who are oppositionally defiant due to their blind hatred of Obama. This is of course ironic since I've seen plenty of derisive statements claiming that Obama is trying to implement a Big Brother government, but they seem to have a 2 minutes hate fixation starring Obama as Emmanuel Goldstein. So whenever Obama comes out in support of something, they'll reactively come out against it. Obama pursued the Affordable Care Act, which he copied from the Republicans, but suddenly they're against their own plan when he comes out in favor of it. He could propose a bill to increase the punishment for kicking puppies and they would probably come out against it and try to spin the argument that kicking puppies is a God-given patriotic American freedom that should not be subject to more bloated, taxpayer-funded government regulation... Or else the terrorists win. If you believe that Obama is evil and everything he does or says is evil, you'll likely find yourself opposing your own freedoms and self-interest at some point. That seems to be the case here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 2:51pm

Our Society Is full Of Sheep
unfortunately facts mean nothing these days with enough money to spread fear even the most sound ideas get voted down.
take here in Oregon and the GMO debate those for the labeling only spent 7mil those against spent over 25mil guess who won, you guessed it the fear mongers with the deep pockets did.
o well who wants to know if that steak is from a real cow or a laboratory.I for one DO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zonker, 11 Nov 2014 @ 3:33pm

Obamacare for the Internet?
So Ted Cruz is saying that Title II will increase internet access to 10 million Americans in the first year and that it was originally a Republican idea now adopted by the Democrats? Sounds great to me! I'm all for greater internet access and ideas that cross party lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 4:40pm

If this really was Obama Care for the Internet, then people would be required to buy an internet service plan every month. If a person refused to buy internet service every month, then they'd be forced to pay thousands of dollars in taxes at the end of the year.

Until that happens, net neutrality can't possibly be considered Obama Care for the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:12pm

Goodbye
Astoundingly, for once takes Pres. Obama at his word unlike the past record and a moderate unblemished record with most any other politico. Did the meme resonate so much that prior performance matter not a whit? Whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2014 @ 7:12pm
  
  Re: Goodbye
  I agree. Coherence is overrated.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheogorath (profile), 11 Nov 2014 @ 6:31pm

Net neutrality isn't 'Obamacare for the Internet', it's more like the Equality Act 2010 for the Internet before the ConDems got their hands on that piece of legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poorker, 11 Nov 2014 @ 11:09pm

Express Toll
So you are cruising on the highway at 75 mph paying all your tolls, thinking you are getting to your detination on time, and you hit traffic 5 miles from your destination. After driving for two hours through that traffic yam you notice, one mile from your destination, that the three lane highway has a sign dividing the road into two express lanes with a $100 toll, and one lane with a $5 toll. The two lanes which used to cost $5, and now $100, are empty. How would you feel about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gamesmith94134 (profile), 12 Nov 2014 @ 12:33pm
  
  Re: Express Toll
  You may be right on necessity, but it is not safe. For the best and safest way to such application is then, you must buy the Volkswagon's Jetta, now they had cruse control that bear no liability on accident and no accident allowed. Its operator is the remote; so you do not pay insurance yourself,blame it on the driver on any event; but GPS answer only direction and distance. Why pay toll? Evidently, it is the cruse control that you need---75 mph paying all your toll, try cruse control in Jetta only.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BigKeithO, 12 Nov 2014 @ 2:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Express Toll
    Best. Comment. Ever.
    
    I have no idea what you're talking about but it was surely entertaining. Wow.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2014 @ 6:37am

When you posted an article a few weeks back announcing that you would be exploring NN in depth I hoped against all hope and experience that just once all sides of an issue quite difficult to easily understand would be presented in a sort of honest-broker fashion. Sadly, it seems my hope was mere wishful thinking as the tone, tenor, and substance of articles here have devolved into advocacy pieces for a specific outcome, with virtually zero examination of the merits and demerits of the multiplicity of relevant issues.

While I cannot vouch that other authors having different views are necessarily any better, at least I have found a few others who appear to be trying to articulate in an easily understood manner why they subscribe to approaches that do not represent what is being openly advocated here, and they do so in a manner that is largely devoid of snarky cheap shots at anyone who may harbor an opinion that differs from them. In short, they present information that appears to be quite relevant and convinces me that things are not as obvious and simple as you would have your readership believe.

Who makes the better arguments? I honestly do not know because I am still trying to assimilate a large amount of information. I do believe, however, that what people such as, inter alia, Chis Neuman, Geoffrey Manne, and Joshua Steimle are trying to do is inform, as opposed to propagandize.

If you truly want to help people understand what is taking place (and believe that your views are the far superior ones), then it seems to me you would want to provide them and others with similar views an equal opportunity for their views to be heard here and discussed respectfully and thoughtfully. Anything less and articles appearing here are nothing more that desired outcomes supported with cherry-picked information that all too often conveys non-objective data.

Frankly, I would enjoy a face to face debate involving persons such as you with your take on NN and persons such as them with their take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BigKeithO, 12 Nov 2014 @ 2:58pm
  
  Re:
  What is left to debate? This topic has been debated to death. Pretty much the only option left to the US is to reclassify under Title II. You can either leave things as they are and turn the (US portion) of the internet into something more like cable TV or you can reclassify and keep the internet functioning like it has been forever.
  
  The debate is over.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - gamesmith94134 (profile), 12 Nov 2014 @ 5:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    My only regret is American missing the spectrum of opinions and ideas that is not traditional.they like diner with steak and mashed potatoes that gives obesity and alternative like rice or sushi are Chinese or Japanese......even Al Qaeda
    we create bubbles to keep disease out and lost its immunity for the same reason.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John85851 (profile), 12 Nov 2014 @ 8:03am

People looking silly? But...
"Reacting like this just makes everyone making such claims look really, really silly."
I disagree. The more people look "silly" with their outrageous claims, the more laypeople will believe them. After all, which sounds better on the 11:00 news:
"President allows expansion of Title II to provide more net neutrality" (boring)
or
"Net neutrality will turn the US into Russia or China" (alarmist and click-baiting)

It doesn't matter if the second statement isn't true or if the details will be explained later in the story: this headline is all people will see or hear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 12 Nov 2014 @ 9:14am
  
  Re: People looking silly? But...
  John Hodgman was going to run three headlines for the three main internet constituencies. I'm paraphrasing from memory.
  
  Liberal: Obama frees internet, saves world
  Conservative: Obama strangles internet, turns US into China
  Cat lovers: Meow-bama can has internets?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sangaman (profile), 12 Nov 2014 @ 1:50pm

What about stronger arguments against Net Neutrality?
Picking on Ted Cruz tweets is easy. I'd be more interested in seeing proponents of net neutrality respond to more nuanced critiques. Here are two links for starters:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/12/net-neutrality-is-a-lousy-idea
http://reason.com/archi ves/2014/05/26/net-neutrality-dont-let-the-fcc-control

It seems to me that the risks and downsides of net neutrality outweigh any potential benefits. Most arguments in favor of net neutrality I've read seem to have too much faith in regulatory agencies like the FCC to handle something as complex as the internet responsibly and intelligently. Until I see any major and tangible harm coming from allowing ISPs to vary their speeds based on content, I'd be extremely hesitant to give regulators any more power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tqk (profile), 12 Nov 2014 @ 2:44pm
  
  Re: What about stronger arguments against Net Neutrality?
  Yeah, I tried that yesterday. Was I surprised. Reason appears to have been bought by the telcos.
  
  Their assumption is the industry is a free market and the big players aren't mono/duopolies. Neither of these are true.
  
  In most of north America, customers have one or two possible providers, if any. The industry is hardly a free market. The *opolists have bought protectionist laws that prohibit competition from counterparts or startups. State laws insist on referendums for cities who want to do municipal infrastructure despite the *opolists having no intention of rolling out their own there.
  
  Guess who runs the agency that regulates this. A former lobbyist for the telcos.
  
  Reason's now a slut in my eyes. A whore. Apologies to sluts and whores. They provide far better service. If this is what it means to be libertarian, I'm going back to calling myself a classical liberal. The word's now as valueless as liberal and conservative.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - sangaman (profile), 12 Nov 2014 @ 5:01pm
    
    Re: Re: What about stronger arguments against Net Neutrality?
    If what you're saying is true about the ISPs having protectionist laws & regulations to stifle competition - thereby allowing them to get away with egregious throttling of certain content - then why should more laws and regulation be the answer? State laws may be primarily to blame, but I am assuming that the agency that's run by a former lobbyist you're referring to is a federal one? Therein lies my largest fear with net neutrality proposal, if you give more power to regulatory agencies it's just a matter of time before those regulatory powers are usurped by entrenched businesses and interests.
    
    If a freer and more robust internet is the goal, why not target the anti-competitive laws and regulations and attack the problem at the root?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tqk (profile), 12 Nov 2014 @ 6:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What about stronger arguments against Net Neutrality?
      ... if you give more power to regulatory agencies it's just a matter of time before those regulatory powers are usurped by entrenched businesses and interests.
      
      What part of "the agency that's run by a former lobbyist" didn't you understand?
      
      I would love to rip it all out and start over with a level playing field. I despise corps getting cozy with government to stick it to consumers. Unfortunately, that's what we have to work with today. My plan ("rip it all out and start over") isn't going to happen in my lifetime, so we're left with mitigating the damage and holding the rightsholders (in effect) to account.
      
      "The market" has been corrupted and hamstrung via regulatory capture. IF the regulators have any power to make this mess work for consumers, that's where we should look for redress. If it still can't be fixed in consumers interest, perhaps emigration, or revolution, is the only solution.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 5:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What about stronger arguments against Net Neutrality?
      why should more laws and regulation be the answer?
      
      Is your understanding of the situation limited to "more regulation" vs "less regulation", or can you see that it's actually a matter of which regulations will be in place?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 13 Nov 2014 @ 6:17am
  
  Re: What about stronger arguments against Net Neutrality?
  http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/12/net-neutrality-is-a-lousy-idea
  
  That one had two main points, one that the free market should decide, which given the state of competition in the broadband market is a bad joke. And secondly, that if we give the federal government more regulatory authority, the broadband companies will cooperate more with the completely unrelated parts of the federal governments' spying efforts. I don't see how it's possible for them to cooperate more than the giving them everything they want every time they ask that we have now, so I'm not too concerned about that fear.
  
  He also pretends that nothing bad has happened yet, ignoring Comcast's and Verizon's bad actions that have already occurred.
  
  http://reason.com/archi ves/2014/05/26/net-neutrality-dont-let-the-fcc-control
  
  "Goodbye fast-moving innovation and adjustment to changing technology on the part of companies, hello regulatory morass and long, drawn-out bureaucratic hassles."
  
  What country is he talking about, because that doesn't sound familiar to me. This guy also claims that nothing has happened yet.
  
  He points out that the FCC basically tried to strangle cable TV while not really explaining why. It seems the most likely explanation is regulatory capture. The old guard didn't like the new guys and tried to used the FCC to shut them down. How does that play into the current debate?
  
  "(many of the strongest proponents for net neutrality represent bandwidth-hogging companies and services such as Netflix, YouTube, and Skype that ISPs would likely hit up for extra fees)."
  
  Why is it necessary to use the loaded term "hogging", which indicates that they're using more than their fair share when in fact they're delivering what ISP customers are asking for? Why not use the neutral term "bandwidth-intensive"?
  
  "But if Netflix is increasing demand for bandwidth "
  
  Wrong - customers are increasing demand.
  
  "why shouldn’t an ISP tap them for extra money to build more capacity or help in managing it?"
  
  If there were strong competition in this market, that would be no problem. Then ISPs could choose how to deal with Netflix, and customers could choose which ISP to use. With the situation we have now, the big ISPs have the ability to extort content providers even when there's no reason they can't easily and quickly accommodate the demands of the traffic.
  
  "If letting a thousand flowers bloom online is a good idea (and it is), there’s no clear reason that ISPs offering fixed and mobile Internet access shouldn’t be allowed to experiment and innovate too when it comes to accessing and managing the Internet."
  
  Choking off Netflix traffic until they pay up is innovative?
  
  I didn't read page 2.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
alex01 (profile), 17 Nov 2014 @ 8:50am

Who is John Galt?
I guess Mark Cuban, cleary a smart guy, agrees with Sen Cruz.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/mark-cuban-brutalizes-obama-with-twitter-rant-on-an-issue -that-impacts-every-american
[ link to this | view in chronology ]