No. It's just a coincidence that the loudest opponents of net neutrality are also the biggest recipients of campaign cash from Comcast/ATT. Ted Cruz was like 2nd or 3rd on the list of anyone in Washington in disclosed contributions and he was the ONLY one in the top 10 that wasn't even up for election in the cycle. Think about that! I have a co-worker who is convinced that net neutrality is going to make it impossible for entrepreneurs to get into the telecom industry. Local radio here has sold this co-worker on the idea that right now anyone who wants to can compete with Comcast in Houston but Obama is making it to where nobody can get into the marketplace. I'm like, do you really believe that Comcast is contributing to the people (Ted Cruz, Thune, etc) that are trying to make it EASIER for Comcast competitors? Use your logic for a minute here folks.
all these idiots praising their new internet overlords will be shocked when they are hit with licensing/fees/taxes to create/operate a website
As opposed to throttling fees? As long as I have free access, my websites don't even have to be licensed in the US.
you clearly haven't run a "website" at scale to know how important site speed can be and how much power people who determine site speed factors hold. I've paid content delivery networks thousands of dollars to keep s**t together on site speed and content delivery 24/7. LOL at website fees what do you think running a "website" entails? The startups of the future all rely on "websites" at scale. You crow about bitcoin: do you even understand the implications of the technology at work here? That the entire blogosphere pushing forward the cryptocurrency discussion and cryptocurrency itself were at threat because of the archaic propositions you seem to be supporting?
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bW7Op86ox9g?rel=0&showinfo=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
my laughing was at the obvious sarcasm and the very obvious link between telecom donations and opposition to net neutrality
Nope. And if you enjoy your experience on the Internet today, you have no reason not to be. I don't get how our usual "business can never be wrong" group of posters here conveniently ignore how large Internet companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Wikipedia, Reddit, etc. are in favor of the proposed Title II regulations. Why do their billions of dollars and success not count compared to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast? I saw a nice analogy the other day for people who don't quite grasp what ISPs are seeking to do: Imagine you decide to open a small lumber yard. You've done the analysis and believe you can offer something new and unique to the people of your town. But, Home Depot is an established presence in your town and siphoning business away from them will be a challenge, but you're undeterred. Home Depot catches wind of your new idea and decides to buy all of the roads going to and from your lumber yard. You won't be able to make deliveries, and customers won't be able to visit you, without paying a fee. Suddenly, your business isn't given the chance to even get off of the ground because a company with a heretofore unchallenged market position decided to strangle you out of business.
You're just wrong here. Home Depot wants you to open your business. Home Depot encourages competition. It's that nasty Kenyan in the White House that hates your business! Trust me. I'm Ted Cruz, and I approved this message. This message brought to you by your friendly local Home Depot.
letting big telecoms decide what type of innovation should flourish on the Internet would be the equivalent of America shooting its claim to web supremacy with a shotgun.
I've actually seen several economists and guys like Andreesen oppose them. They're concerned the utility regulation model stifles investment (like it does in other industries). But keep knocking down those strawmen
Speaking of Home Depot I just went to an Ace Hardware for the first time ever. That place is incredible. Will never buy anything at Lowe's or Home Depot again.
Apparently Glenn Beck used the telephone analogy and said that pre-19something when the government turned the phone into a utility there was constant innovation. Since that date nothing has changed and it's all because the government's interference stifled innovation and entrepreneurs.
Here's an alternative question: why do anything then? What was wrong with the Internet before Verizon decided to sue in the hopes that they could charge people for prioritized traffic?
Mr.Netscape is against strong net neutrality but even he holds to the precept of discrimination by volume rather than content type. He's also against more Internet rules but then he wants to also break up power of the monopoly of telecoms by um... which is basically saying I'd rather the government break up the monopolies by force rather than enforcing a set of laws designed to check the monopolies. I'm not sure how the Tea Party types around here would feel about that. FYI this is why Europe has better broadband: oh no government no matter where you go! run and hide
