Presidential Hopeful Carly Fiorina Displays Astounding Ignorance In Slamming Net Neutrality
from the that's-not-going-to-win-the-tech-vote dept
Carly Fiorina, whose claim to fame was basically presiding over HP while the company's value dropped in half, has made it clear that she's planning to run for President, despite her sole political experience being losing a Senate race in California against Barbara Boxer. To get ready, Fiorina has been ramping up her public opinion-spewing. She's gotten plenty of attention for blaming environmentalists for California's current water problems and accusing Apple's CEO Tim Cook of hypocrisy in his response to Indiana's controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Feel free to debate those claims all you want. The one that interests me is Fiorina's confused and ignorant take on net neutrality -- which seems to involve making a bunch of claims that are flat out false. I recognize that, as a Republican candidate, she apparently is duty-bound to hate on net neutrality (despite the fact that Republican and Democratic voters alike both overwhelmingly support net neutrality -- and Republicans who actually understand technology support it as well). It still remains a mystery to me why this is even a partisan issue, but it is. Still, if you're going to attack net neutrality, you should at least do so on a factual basis. Fiorina can't even muster up the effort to do that.Crony capitalism is alive and well. If you need proof, look no further than the Federal Communication Commission's new Title II regulations imposed in the name of "net neutrality" under pressure from President Barack Obama, and the big businesses that benefit.Um, no. The crony capitalism was on the other side, as nearly all of the pressure against net neutrality came from the giant broadband players, Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable and Verizon. There was almost no actual public support. Meanwhile, the push for Title II was driven heavily by public interest groups and the public itself. While there were some companies that got involved, most of the "big" businesses seemed to sit things out until late in the process and it was clear which way the wind was blowing. The companies that actually made a big difference were the startups (mainly in New York and San Francisco) that mobilized to talk about the harm that the FCC would do to the open internet if it didn't stop the broadband companies from messing things up. Kickstarter, Etsy, Tumblr and others played a really big role. Those companies are growing, but they're nothing like the big broadband companies.
Net neutrality proponents did a masterful job of marketing it with the help of late-night hosts and political spin, arguing that it would level the Internet playing field. The truth, however, is that it will insert Washington bureaucracy and control into the 21st century's greatest success story. The Internet, which has empowered hundreds of millions of Americans in so many aspects of life, will now be subject to the same types of regulations that governed telephone service in the 20th century.This is a massive exaggeration and is incredibly misleading. First of all, the rules are not the "same regulations," but rather they're just built off the same authority (Title II), but with clear forbearance on the parts of Title II that everyone agrees are problematic. The rules are not about treating the internet as a utility, but in preventing duopolists and monopolists from abusing their position. On top of that, if you talk to a lot of people, they actually remember when telephone service was super reliable, unlike broadband service today.
As someone who led a $87 billion company for six years, I know this: Only big companies can deal with vast, sweeping regulation like the 313 pages imposed by the FCC. This administration has had a habit of identifying a particular problem and then convincing the voters that we require enormous new swaths of government control to fix it.Almost everything in this paragraph is misleading. First of all, "leading" an "$87 billion company" -- well, here's the chart of HP's stock price during Fiorina's tenure:
Second, the rules are not "313 pages." They are 8 pages. You can see just those 8 pages right here. The rest of the document (which is actually 400 pages) consists of legally required supplemental material and the dissents.
Next, remember, that it was mostly small companies pushing for these rules and big companies fighting against them. As small ISP Sonic made clear, the rules are only a problem if you're trying to do something bad. So if the small companies are clamoring for this, and the big companies are against it, it defies basic common sense to argue that the new rules are good for big companies and bad for small companies. You either have to be woefully misinformed, or blatantly lying. I'm not sure which is the situation here, but neither looks for for Fiorina.
Title II regulation gives the Federal Communications Commission nearly unlimited authority to micromanage how, when and where Internet companies innovate.This isn't even close to true. It only gives limited authority in how it makes sure that internet access providers handle their traffic. That's it. Not "internet companies." It's a cheap trick to conflate internet access providers and the internet companies that rely on an open internet, but that's the best Fiorina can do. And then she takes it to another level of ridiculousness:
Whereas the old Internet was "permissionless," the new Internet will require bureaucratic approval for the most mind-numbing minutiae and create huge areas of uncertainty . Major companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay and Netflix now have a government-conferred advantage over start-ups because they can afford the lobbyists and lawyers necessary to navigate the new Title II landscape. When influence trumps innovation, big entrenched companies benefit.This isn't true. The new rules do not require anything of internet companies. They don't need lobbyists or lawyers to navigate anything. The rules are directed at internet access providers, and startups offering services on the internet do not have to deal with the rules -- only those offering internet access.
And, really, let's just repeat this line for its sheer insanity:
When influence trumps innovation, big entrenched companies benefit.Yes, that line is true, but if you look at the past two decades, you'd see that the companies with the most powerful influence have been AT&T, Comcast and Verizon which have some of the most powerful lobbying operations in the world, and have driven broadband policy almost entirely on their own whims for the past two decades. This has resulted in less competition, terrible service and a variety of bad policies.
Who does Fiorina think she's fooling?
One, the Internet economy will no longer benefit from the competition that has steadily driven prices down over the past two decades.What? Has Fiorina looked at internet bills lately? They have not been going down. It's true that the prices of other things on the internet have gone down, but she is once again conflating internet services with internet access. And, in fact, under the new rules it looks like there may be more competition because it will make it easier to get pole attachments. Furthermore, because of the FCC's other big ruling we may finally see some real municipal competition. And, as AT&T has made clear, when there is real competition, then its prices go down. But it has spent years actively blocking competition, using its political influence.
Two, companies will devote more of their resources to lobbying and regulatory compliance, passing the costs of these activities directly on to consumers.Again, the rules only impact internet access providers and only if they're doing bad stuff to consumers. If they treat traffic neutrally, there are no compliance issues to worry about.
Ah, wait. It appears we left out a bit of Fiorina's bio. Before she took the helm at HP... she spent her career at AT&T and AT&T spinoff Lucent. Perhaps that has more to do with her position than anything. But if she thinks she's going to court the tech vote, directly misleading the public about an important issue like net neutrality isn't going to do her any favors.
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: carly fiorina, competition, fcc, innovation, net neutrality, open internet, permissionless innovation
Companies: hp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Met her once
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Errrm...Patriot Act? DHS? TSA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um...
The mirror.
Or literally anywhere and everywhere in the government. In fact, it's hard, if not impossible to look anywhere in the government without seeing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Follow the money
I also wonder what her stance on climate change is, or what it will be, once the lobbists get hold of her???
Anyone one want to take bets????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She knows she is fooling the only people that matter, her potential doners. She knows she will never actually be elected, but you know -> $
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the opposite of astute?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone is an idiot
Those who think net neutrality is bad are idiots. The IDEA of net neutrality is great. I would love it. Sort of like the "same road, same rules" idea. All traffic gets the same priority. No one gets to buy fast lanes.
Sad thing is, it won't work that way. PERIOD. It's the government. The government cannot touch anything without royally screwing it up AND charging people money for screwing it up.
Those who are against net neutrality is good are idiots. PERIOD. Why? Because the only way it can be done, they think, is by the government. BIG MISTAKE. Yah, again with the IDEA of net neutrality is good, but the ONLY way the government knows to do something is to regulate it. And once you give the government the power to regulate something - a) They'll screw it up, b) It will suck, c) They'll charge you for it, d) It will suck, e) Eventually, someone you DON'T like will be in charge of making the regulations, etc.
You really want the same government who puts forth the TPP, the same government who puts forth operation chokehold, the same government who LOVES civil forfeiture, etc. to be in charge of REGULATING the internet?
If so, you're an idiot. PERIOD.
The government cannot do anything right. NEVER. EVER. EVER. They may start out that way... but it will NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER stay that way. The government is the personification of the saying "The path to hell is paved with good intentions."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everyone is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everyone is an idiot
Of course it is. That's why without regulation these companies always do what's best for their customers and never reduce services, lock out competition, create monopolies, increase prices, etc.
Are you really that stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everyone is an idiot
The government is the only party that can even be remotely argued as potentially working in the broader interest. You cannot possibly argue that the free-market will fix that or even the companies themselves. Their interests simply do not intersect with the broader market or consumers enough to encourage and nurture unselfish behaviors.
So, as JF asks, what is your solution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everyone is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
It's because most of Techdirt readers are intelligent enough to have the ability to analyze the individual issues on their individual merits as opposed to lumping everything under "government interference is always bad!" umbrella.
Some governmental interference is good, some is not. It requires critical thinking to discern which is which for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
Not all government is bad, but limited government is best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
That said, the insult was over the top and uncalled for, and does deserve a report for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
Power should be in the hands of the people, not the government or the rich and powerful. I can "vote" much more effectively with my dollars to punish a corporation than I can at the ballot box to punish a government.
Government power is not with the elected officials, it lies with bureaucrats that were never elected. Very tough to bring down bureaucrats, witness the IRS scandal.
I think 'we the people' do a much better job fighting corporate corruption than we ever have fighting government corruption.
A corporation that provides bad service and charges prices that are too high will eventually fall. Much harder to dislodge regulations that stifles competition and impose unreasonable tariffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
Why do you think this? It appears to me that the opposite is true, at least based on what I've observed over my lifetime. It's interesting to note that the only time that corporate corruption has been curtailed at all has been because of government action.
"A corporation that provides bad service and charges prices that are too high will eventually fall. "
If that were really true, then we'd have MUCH less of a problem with corporations than we have. However, that also doesn't address the point: I wasn't talking about quality of service or pricing, I was talking about corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
How would you accomplish that? You think market forces will protect the people from abusive companies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
But, he also seems to be the kind of moron who won't consider what the government actually achieves for him in a positive way, so is almost certainly blind to half of what they actually do. That kind of person seems particularly vulnerable to any facts once the 'g' word is mentioned, let alone being open to the bad things corporations have been historically responsible for once government regulation is not present.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
But, you also seems to be the kind of moron who won't consider what the corporations have actually achieved for you in a positive way, so you are almost certainly blind to half of what they actually do. You seems particularly vulnerable to any facts once the 'c' word is mentioned, let alone being open to the bad things governments have been historically responsible for once the free market is suppressed through over regulation.
Okay, I just paraphrased your argument to make a point. Perhaps you can now see how arrogant your argument sounds.
But I hope you can see my point. Your mistrust of corporations blinds you to the benefits of the free market. Yes, we need limited government regulation to ensure a free market - no conservative I know of would argue for no government whatsoever (that's anarchy not conservatism). We already have laws on the books to address monopolies, we don't need to bring the Internet under regulations written for the telephone monopolies of the 1930's. Net neutrality is government overreach - not designed to ensure a free market but to bring the Internet, which has flourished because of limited government regulation, under government control.
It seems strange and sad to me that those that claim to champion freedom, appear now to be begging to put others in chains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
The point being that you don't understand the issues at hand nor the arguments presented to you here? Or that you're incapable of presenting or understanding a nuanced argument? Believe it or not, this is not a "we want everything under corporate control" vs. "everything should be run by the government" argument. I was merely going off your stated opinions here, that doesn't mean I want every ISP to be owned by the government. Fortunately, that's not what's being done here.
"Your mistrust of corporations blinds you to the benefits of the free market."
Which free market? Have you honestly not been following the issues that led to this discussion in the first place?
"Net neutrality is government overreach "
No, net neutrality is exactly what you've had for the last few decades. These words simply show that you don't understand what's going on at all. It's not something new, it's something we're trying to protect.
The call for it being regulated is because the "free" market is being abused by corporations. Corporations who collude and have shown no qualms about constricting your choice, service and bargaining power in favour of their own profits - in an industry where people already have few or even zero real choices if they don't like thier current provider.
If you don't understand that, you understand none of the arguments at hand. If you perhaps listened to them instead of throwing a fit because someone said "government"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
“It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world.”
Net Neutrality in principle is a great idea, but the way it's being implemented by the current administration gives the government too much control. The Internet has benefited from relatively light government regulation since its inception, Obama's approach to Net Neutrality is a fundamental break from this approach.
I'm not anti-government, I'm for limited government. Which, I believe, is what the founders were aiming for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
Whatever bullshit source you'#re using for your information, please stop. This is a well debunked talking point that depends on the intellectual incuriosity of readers. Debunked in the very article you're commenting on here, in fact.
"Net Neutrality in principle is a great idea"
It is, it's given us the internet you're using to spread misinformation right here. But, you're all for net neutrality being removed just so long as you think you're being raped by a corporation rather than a government.
"The Internet has benefited from relatively light government"
It's also benefited from a lack of corporate control and the proprietary crap they try to inflict, the collusion and cronyism, the high barriers to entry for any potential competition, etc. What will stop them from going further with those things now that they're visible doing them? The "free" market? Please...
"I'm not anti-government, I'm for limited government."
No, you're yet another right-wing nut who's ignored a decade of discussion and been taken in by the rubbish spread by people who threw a fit once Obama mentioned he'd be for keeping net neutrality.
You haven't even understood what net neutrality actually is, so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't believe your concern over the scope of the regulation necessary to keep it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
If you read the plan and used information in the plan to refute my points it might be more effective. Why is it that those on the left seem to resort to attach mode rather than discussing the issues? Your comments seem more designed to shutdown debate rather than discuss the issues.
"You haven't even understood what net neutrality actually is"
I like the definition on the ACLU web site. I thought it was fairly concise and accurate. If you'd like to read it and tell me where it deviates from reality, I'm open to that.
In order to understand my objection to what the FCC is doing to implement net neutrality, you'll need to research what Title II actually gives the government the power to do. While Title II may appear to be the only legal basis that the FCC could use to justify its authority to implement net neutrality, it probably won't hold up in court. There are currently seven lawsuits challenging the new rules. If one of these succeeds (like Verizon's challenge to the Open Internet Order did in 2014) we may end up worse off in the long run.
So what's wrong with using Title II to regulate the Internet rather than anti-trust law? Here is an example as published in The Hill (comments of the policy counsel for the New America's Open Technology Institute in an article arguing for using Title II to regulate the Internet rather than anti-trust law).
Net neutrality is a pro-competition ideal, but competition alone cannot fully protect the values of Internet openness and freedom. A net neutrality regime that relies solely on antitrust analysis would be narrowly focused on pricing harms, such as those found in cartels and monopolies. Such a legal theory may prevent some paid prioritization schemes, but it cannot address the non-economic goals of net neutrality such as free speech, political participation and viewpoint diversity. The FCC is empowered to protect this broader array of social benefits.
That's what a non-partisan (left leaning?) group believes the government will now have the power to do under Title II. It's the non-economic goals that are troubling. Interested in the government deciding on what constitutes "viewpoint diversity"? I guess that's okay as long as its not your viewpoint that's being suppressed in the name of "diversity".
What needs to happen? Congress needs to pass a bi-partisan bill that addresses the issue once and for all. Of course while a bill that limits the FCC's power in this area to just enforcing net neutrality could pass congress, I doubt Obama would ever sign it. What we're facing now are years of court battles and the fact that if a republican is elected president in 2016 a new FCC could easily undo the current FCC's rulings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
You made a typo that made 8 into 400? Or, you understand so little of what you actually read, you didn't realise that most of the pages were not in fact the rules in question, only supporting material to help explain and justify them?
"Your comments seem more designed to shutdown debate rather than discuss the issues."
I debate facts, not long-debunked assertions such as the lie that there's nearly 400 pages of rules. Feel free to present facts in place of myths, if you wish. You certainly haven't presented facts here.
"Interested in the government deciding on what constitutes "viewpoint diversity"?"
No, but neither is the FCC. The term refers to the fact that net neutrality guarantees that diverse opinions will be seen and heard. Without it, corporations will tend to drive people to their own preferred services, which tends to shut out smaller services and those which can't pay larger fees. Diversity is only guaranteed by ensure that all services are treated equally - which is exactly why preserving net neutrality is so important.
"I guess that's okay as long as its not your viewpoint that's being suppressed in the name of "diversity"."
*sigh* The only people trying to suppress viewpoints are the corporations you're so valiantly defending. Net neutrality is about preventing suppression. You understand so little of what this is about, you're attacking the people trying to protect what you claim that you believe is so valuable.
Stop cowering at the government boogeyman, and try to address facts. I'm sorry that the wording of a few handpicked articles is confusing you and scaring you, but look past those and read the objective facts. Somehow, you've managed to read the entire report and other reports discussing it, but you still haven't grasped the nature of what's being discussed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
I've read a good piece of the FCC document and while the FCC is careful to point out that they have no intention of taking control of the Internet, increasing taxes, and regulating pricing, Title II gives them that power. If allowed to stand, it is a broad expansion of government power. And just because the current FCC says they won't do something, doesn't mean that it won't change its mind later or that a future FCC won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
Where did you get this idea? Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious what sources of information you used to come to this understanding of net neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
Techdirt has already discussed what Pai, a former Verizon regulatory lawyer, has said concerning Net Neutrality and his probable motivations for doing so:
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150219/07100630069/fcc-commissioner-ajit-p ai-is-leading-incoherent-facts-optional-last-minute-war-net-neutralityfor-american-people.shtml
Do you have anything that supports your claim that Title II is "government overreach" from any kind of reputable source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
Using Title II to regulate the Internet is blatant government overreach. The FCC goes to great pains to say that they won't exercise all the regulatory power that Title II implies, but there is no guarantee that they (or another group of FCC commissioners) won't in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
Why?
Difficulty: keep to honest analysis and verifiable facts, not whatever "waaah guvmint" screed you picked up from some easily debunked source..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
You never heard that shit from me. I refuse to look at things as simply Red vs Blue or Liberal vs Conservative (or whatever other useless labels you feel like using) because, IMHO, that is what idiots do.
Not all government is bad, but limited government is best.
Maybe, maybe not. There is quite a bit of government "interference" that I am happy we have. Some examples are child labor laws, highway safety laws, food & water quality laws, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
That's a typical tactic which attempts to paint those who advocate for limited government as advocates for no government.
Government shouldn't regulate activities unless there is a compelling reason. I set that bar fairly high, sounds like you set a fairly low threshold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
I wouldn't say "equate" because, like I said, I try to look at specifics. I would say similar to electricity or water, though. Internet has become a necessity to survive these days.
Government shouldn't regulate activities unless there is a compelling reason.
Agreed.
I set that bar fairly high, sounds like you set a fairly low threshold.
No, I just happen to think that us allowing monopolistic internet providers to write the rules for themselves is not a good idea that we should allow to continue. Just like we don't let the electric or the gas companies do whatever they want, whenever they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
One easy "there should be regulation" is in an area that has a natural monopoly structure or competition is otherwise lacking. After all, if there's little or no competition, then what incentive does a market actor have to run an efficient or even acceptable-quality service?
You lose all the benefits of a 'free market' in such situations. As an example, Comcast often has a monopoly or close enough to it for competition to be no threat to its operations, and its pretty consistently one of the most loathed companies in the US for their lackluster bandwidth offerings and truly abysmal customer service.
And they have no incentive to become either more efficient or deliver a better value to customers unless there's competition - or governmental regulation. Preferably, the regulation is of a form that allows competition to naturally arise and be able to compete with the monopolist, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
The reason I'm against net neutrality is because I'm serviced by a provider that takes great care of me and if they ever make me unhappy - I can switch to another provider. I don't see the government making things better for folks that like their current Internet service.
I know, nothing about the net neutrality will force me to change service providers, of course we've all heard something similar before as in "if you like your current healthcare insurance you can keep it". Ask any one of the millions of people who had to switch carriers how that promise worked out. It's true that more people have health insurance now, which is a good thing, but the cost to the majority of folks who liked their current provider before Obamacare has been high. I'm paying more for worse coverage. Hate to see that happen with the Internet just so folks can watch Netflix without paying a bit more for it to cover the enormous amount of backbone bandwidth it consumes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
So if things are working for you, you're against change regardless of how bad the situation is for millions of others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
Of course, he doesn't seem to consider how worthless his "choice" will be if all the ISPs in the area violate the principles of net neutrality. But then, he also seems to think that net neutrality is some kind of government program, rather than the current concept that we need to have protected. He also seems to be under the delusion that it has something to do with overall bandwidth speed and cost, rather than how that connection is managed.
In other words, just another "conservative" idiot who addresses fictions and rejects those who introduce facts as "liberals". He doesn't care, so long as he, himself, appears to be benefiting from the current situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
Indeed I have, but I've only ever heard it from rabid conservatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everyone is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everyone is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everyone is an idiot
First Amendment? They fucked that up? I'd argue they did pretty good on that one.
Section 230 of the DMCA? I'd argue they did pretty good on that one.
Both actually involve keeping things free and open and that's what these new rules are designed to do as well.
In other words, yes, the government often messes stuff up, but they can do a good job in clearing out safe areas for free expression and innovation, which is exactly what the new rules are designed to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
If the new rules simply said "When we send or receive data over the Internet, companies must transfer that data from one end of the network to the other. Period. No analysis, no manipulation, of that traffic allowed"
I'd be for that, but it doesn't take 332 pages to say that. According to one of the FCC commissioners who has seen the proposed rules, they give the government unprecedented power over every aspect of the Internet. If that doesn't scare you at least a little bit, then you have too much faith in the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
The rules are eight pages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
It looks like a lot more than 8 pages, of course there's quite a few pages dedicated to saying how the FCC will not implement pieces of Title II (at least until they change their minds or they can "envision" a different path). The power over the Internet the FCC is assuming is very broad and goes way beyond just Net Neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everyone is an idiot
Yeah, most of that document is commentary, history, dissents, etc. I haven't managed to wade through it myself, I'm glad to hear you're reading it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HPQ_Stock_Price_Since_2000.png
Which one is correct, Techdirt's or Wikipedia's?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Graphs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HPQ_Stock_Price_Since_2000.png
Which one is correct, Techdirt's or Wikipedia's?
As stated in the article my chart shows the time only while she was in charge of HP. My chart shows from 1999 when she was hired until early 2005 when she was fired. The charts over the same time period are identical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That woman couldn't manage a busker's spot in a tube station without screwing it up royally.
She only got the HP job because she basically lied her way into it, claiming abilities she simply doesn't have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's redundant, of course. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On The One Hand...
On the other hand, companies which defined internet services are soulless monsters:
You really can't have it both ways. Of course this is a political statement; expecting sense is akin to eating cabbage and firmly believing that this time, you will not break wind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fiorina destroyed that in what has to be one of the canonical case studies in how not to run an already-successful business. There is no way this woman should EVER be allowed near the machinery of power -- in business, in government, or anywhere else -- because she is simply not smart enough to handle it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"competition that has steadily driven prices down over the past two decades"
I pay less for content and get great value from services such as Netflix. In the past few months Waze has shown me that 'solved' problems such as maps could have major improvements.
I'm pay far, far more for Internet access than I did in the past, and it's much less reliable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ZING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its amazing how a politician can sneak in how lobbyist are evil when it suits them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fudd's first law - what goes in, must come out....
They have all the moron candidates lined up - the ones that nobody in their right mind would vote for, like the Corporate Bimbo-4-hire Hillary - leaving the ticket open for the only "Sane Choice", which is just someone nobody knows much about and whose past can be whitewashed by the corporate media prior to insertion into the Offal Orifice....
They need a relatively unknown female candidate to replace the exiting relatively unknown black puppet....
Could this be the new Corporate President of the United Stakeholders of Ameri Co......
Time will tell.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]