Same here. It almost seems to good to be true. I don't want to sound gloomy doomy when this is excellent news, but I can't help but think what are we missing. I keep waiting for the "but...".
Ok, here it comes: but AT&T and Verizon are going to bring lawsuits immediately in response to this action, and due to years of stonewalling judicial appointments by Republicans, this suit is very likely to land in a court that is corporation-friendly, even if it does not wind up in the (also corporate friendly) Supreme Court.
There is also the separate-but-related political reality that the Internet, as a vehicle of basically free information, is opposed by those who depend upon their influence over the flow of news and information in order to maintain political and economic power. This policy shift will make it more difficult for them to keep their influence, and will therefore be fought against by very powerful people who face a long-term threat from its continuation.
> Ok, here it comes: but AT&T and Verizon are going to bring lawsuits immediately in response to this action, and due to years of stonewalling judicial appointments by Republicans, this suit is very likely to land in a court that is corporation-friendly, even if it does not wind up in the (also corporate friendly) Supreme Court.
A lot of the big proponents of net neutrality -- including specifically proponents of the FCC using Title II -- are also big corporations, and will inevitably file briefs supporting the FCC action (which they lobbied for.)
"Corporation-friendly" matters less when there are big corporations on both sides.
What defines the defeat of net neutrality (like deregulation in general) as a corporate interest is that the predominant interest against net neutrality comes from big corporations, while the predominant interest for net neutrality is the general interest of individual consumers and other small fry. It makes no difference if a few competitors to Comcast come out for net neutrality, or if you can dig really hard to find that WeirdCorp of Boulder, Co argues for regulation that will reduce its own business opportunities. That's a minor footnote. The defeat of net neutrality is still a corporate interest.
"Business-friendly" is politically coded language for favoring capital holders over employees, consumers, and unrelated but affected individuals.
> What defines the defeat of net neutrality (like deregulation in general) as a corporate interest is that the predominant interest against net neutrality comes from big corporations, while the predominant interest for net neutrality is the general interest of individual consumers and other small fry.
Actually, I think the predominant interests -- at least, in terms of concentrated money devoted to lobbying and overall political pull -- for net neutrality comes from big online service and content providers that want to continue to be able to operate profitably rather than having the oligopoly of broadband ISPs engaging in rent-seeking behavior that extracts the profits from those service and content providers and uses the extracted profits to develop services that compete with them, and then outright blocks the other content/service providers to protect the ISPs own competing services.
> The defeat of net neutrality is still a corporate interest.
The interests of Google, Facebook, Netflix, et al., are as much corporate interests as those of Verizon, AT&T, etc.
> "Business-friendly" is politically coded language for favoring capital holders over employees, consumers, and unrelated but affected individuals.
Sure, but net neutrality isn't an issue that puts capital holders, in general, on one side and employees, consumers, on the other.
This argument doesn't make any sense. The court ruling that overturned the old rules specifically did so because ISPs were not classified as a common carrier and they deemed net neutrality rules can only be applied to a common carrier.
Indeed! I was leaning towards this thinking myself. But the optimist in me keeps refuting it.
>> There is also the separate-but-related political reality that the Internet, as a vehicle of basically free information, is opposed by those who depend upon their influence over the flow of news and information in order to maintain political and economic power. This policy shift will make it more difficult for them to keep their influence, and will therefore be fought against by very powerful people who face a long-term threat from its continuation.
Sorry couldn't resist this quote. Any one else see the similarities with MGS2?
I think the most likely possibility is that the telcos attack this to the point where it gets de-fanged or turned away entirely. Part of congress is already mobilizing against this movement.
>> Part of congress is already mobilizing against this movement.
An unusually large segment of the public is paying attention to this. To kill it will require actively voting in favor of a bill. Seems like a big career risk for a politician.
America's post-facto bribery and sinecure system will ensure that politicians who lose their office for efforts on behalf of their corporate overlords will be well cared for.
Opponents of net neutrality can probably get a majority in the House, but probably not a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and in any case not veto-proof in either House, which, given that the President has made this publicly a priority, limits the prospect for any legislative rollback.
The "but" is that the next FCC appointment by the next president (and approved by the next congress) can overturn these rules. Also, congress is broken and incapable of legislating.
