SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the it-takes-300-pages-to-redefine-neutrality dept.
The bloom may have already fallen off the Net Neutrality rose. As reported yesterday in the Wall Street Journal (paywalled):
When Google's Eric Schmidt called White House officials a few weeks ago to oppose President Obama's demand that the Internet be regulated as a utility, they told him to buzz off. The chairman of the company that led lobbying for "net neutrality" learned the Obama plan made in its name instead micromanages the Internet.
Mr. Schmidt is not the only liberal mugged by the reality of Obamanet, approved on party lines last week by the Federal Communications Commission. The 300-plus pages of regulations remain secret, but as details leak out, liberals have joined the opposition to ending the Internet as we know it.
It seems as though, in their zeal to "stick it" to the ISPs, most proponents didn't consider that when you allow 3 unelected people to issue rulings on something as large and ubiquitous as the Internet, bad things can happen:
Until Congress or the courts block Obamanet, expect less innovation. During a TechFreedom conference last week, dissenting FCC commissioner Ajit Pai asked: "If you were an entrepreneur trying to make a splash in a marketplace that's already competitive, how are you going to differentiate yourself if you have to build into your equation whether or not regulatory permission is going to be forthcoming from the FCC? According to this, permissionless innovation is a thing of the past."
The other dissenting Republican commissioner, Michael O'Rielly, warned: "When you see this document, it's worse than you imagine." The FCC has no estimate on when it will make the rules public.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mth on Tuesday March 03 2015, @12:58PM
The problem with this submission is not that it's against regulation, but that it contains nothing but spin: "Obamanet", "secret", "3 unelected people", "worse than you imagine". If there would be a story of net neutrality blocking innovation that benefits the public (not just innovative ways of increasing cable industry profits), I'd like to read about it: while I am in favor of net neutrality, that doesn't include being deliberately deaf to potential negative effects.
In general, I think the whole left vs right take on politics is unhealthy. It tries to make people into loyal followers of a political brand, instead of actually thinking about what policies would benefit them and society as a whole.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:46PM
The way I read the crazy summary was "some Republicans are terrified of this", to which I immediately thought, "good, then that must mean it's actually a good idea."
Yeah, I know, mod me down as flamebait. But the difference between me regarding anything the Dems do with extreme suspicion and anything the Reps do as probably lies in the service of big business, the frothing and screaming and finger-pointing is a major contributing factor.
As with a fair number of things in the last few years, the viewpoint can be succinctly summarized as "we lost and we're pissed about it."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"