Net Neutrality If Obama is for is, Is it bad?

[muir]

As the clip i posted above says the idea behind this move is 'regulatory capture' which means that the government will take control through regulators and then the corporations will corrupt and control the regulators just as they did in the financial sector in the run upto the 2008 crisis and just like Monsanto has done with the food regulators

fascism is when corporate and government power merge

if people think Obama is doing this to push back corporate power then they are deluding themselves

Why corporate power loves fascism is because what the powerful people behind the corporations want is a strong government that they can control SO THAT THEY CAN USE IT AS AN ENFORCER AGAINST THE PUBLIC

The corporations will take control of the internet through your government because your government (both democrats and republicans) are complety controlled and compromised by the corporations

Your government IS NOT your government...it is the corporations government so don't believe a word they say

 

[Erlian]

This picture feels fitting for those against net neutrality.


Title of picture was something like: How Europeans see Americans.

 

[Lark]

Politics shouldnt be a kind of celebrity endorsement.

 

[sprinkles]

As the clip i posted above says the idea behind this move is 'regulatory capture' which means that the government will take control through regulators and then the corporations will corrupt and control the regulators just as they did in the financial sector in the run upto the 2008 crisis and just like Monsanto has done with the food regulators

fascism is when corporate and government power merge

if people think Obama is doing this to push back corporate power then they are deluding themselves

Why corporate power loves fascism is because what the powerful people behind the corporations want is a strong government that they can control SO THAT THEY CAN USE IT AS AN ENFORCER AGAINST THE PUBLIC

The corporations will take control of the internet through your government because your government (both democrats and republicans) are complety controlled and compromised by the corporations

Your government IS NOT your government...it is the corporations government so don't believe a word they say

Yet if nobody stops them the corporations will take control regardless and divvy up the internet into channels like they did with cable television. They'll make it so that you have to pay to use Google, or Wikipedia, or whatever they feel like. At first they'll claim that they need to do this to relieve congestion or whatever but soon enough they'll be making you pay for anything they feel like just because they can.

They easily can do it too, and competition won't save us because there's hardly any to begin with. What's more likely is competitors will just simply say "Hey! Those guys are doing this! We can get away with it too because there's no other alternatives" I mean why do you think bad practices become so standard in every major industry?? Competition in the mega corporate world doesn't fix problems, it homogenizes them.

 

[Lark]

Yet if nobody stops them the corporations will take control regardless and divvy up the internet into channels like they did with cable television. They'll make it so that you have to pay to use Google, or Wikipedia, or whatever they feel like. At first they'll claim that they need to do this to relieve congestion or whatever but soon enough they'll be making you pay for anything they feel like just because they can.

They easily can do it too, and competition won't save us because there's hardly any to begin with. What's more likely is competitors will just simply say "Hey! Those guys are doing this! We can get away with it too because there's no other alternatives" I mean why do you think bad practices become so standard in every major industry?? Competition in the mega corporate world doesn't fix problems, it homogenizes them.

Who pays for it now? How is it financed presently?

 

[sprinkles]

Who pays for it now? How is it financed presently?

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about funding the content - Wikipedia for example wouldn't see a single penny of that money.

What you'd be paying for is the unquantifiable "right" to pass through the ISP to reach the desired destination. Even though they don't own the content, or own the part of the network it lives on, they can still block you and hold it hostage. At that point you're not even paying for the service to run, you're paying for them to step out of the way and let you get to it.

Or look at it this way. ISPs are like a road network, and services are like shops along the road. They're two distinct entities. The ISP's job is to take care of the roads, and only the roads. The threat we're looking at is that the ISP sees popular destinations and starts charging for their roads not based on upkeep, but based on where they lead to and how badly you want to get there.

 

[Lark]

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about funding the content - Wikipedia for example wouldn't see a single penny of that money.

What you'd be paying for is the unquantifiable "right" to pass through the ISP to reach the desired destination. Even though they don't own the content, or own the part of the network it lives on, they can still block you and hold it hostage. At that point you're not even paying for the service to run, you're paying for them to step out of the way and let you get to it.

Or look at it this way. ISPs are like a road network, and services are like shops along the road. They're two distinct entities. The ISP's job is to take care of the roads, and only the roads. The threat we're looking at is that the ISP sees popular destinations and starts charging for their roads not based on upkeep, but based on where they lead to and how badly you want to get there.

I still think the question of how it is presently paid for is important if the need to finance it is going to be central to the introduction of charges.

In ROI the government attempted to privatise water and in the process introduce a water charge, there has been a mass protest movement making the point that they have already paid for it, practically it could not have existed without being financed and the same goes for anything currently in existence which anyone could introduce charges for.

People should move away from thinking of things as "free" such "at no extra cost" is a much more accurate way of describing what is actually the case and may be a better place to begin with when countering demands for more money than being framed as insisting upon a free lunch.

 

[sprinkles]

I still think the question of how it is presently paid for is important if the need to finance it is going to be central to the introduction of charges.

In ROI the government attempted to privatise water and in the process introduce a water charge, there has been a mass protest movement making the point that they have already paid for it, practically it could not have existed without being financed and the same goes for anything currently in existence which anyone could introduce charges for.

People should move away from thinking of things as "free" such "at no extra cost" is a much more accurate way of describing what is actually the case and may be a better place to begin with when countering demands for more money than being framed as insisting upon a free lunch.

Finance what? The content or the network? Unlike water utilities we have two different things here.

How the network is paid for is through your subscription fee. That is easy enough to answer. This has nothing to do with the cost of running destination services, and the cost of running destination services has nothing to do with net neutrality.

If services want to charge you, they can, and maybe should. But that takes place on the server end of the network and is a different issue.

 

[muir]

Yet if nobody stops them the corporations will take control regardless and divvy up the internet into channels like they did with cable television. They'll make it so that you have to pay to use Google, or Wikipedia, or whatever they feel like. At first they'll claim that they need to do this to relieve congestion or whatever but soon enough they'll be making you pay for anything they feel like just because they can.

They easily can do it too, and competition won't save us because there's hardly any to begin with. What's more likely is competitors will just simply say "Hey! Those guys are doing this! We can get away with it too because there's no other alternatives" I mean why do you think bad practices become so standard in every major industry?? Competition in the mega corporate world doesn't fix problems, it homogenizes them.

If the government were genuine about reining in the corporations and 'too big to fails' then they would use RICO anti-trust laws to break them up like has been done in the past

THIS LATEST MOVE IS A TRAP TO ALLOW THE CORPORATOCRACY TO CONTROL THE INTERNET