1. 22
  1.  

  2. 6

    I know this is an unpopular opinion in these circles, but oh well…

    “Net neutrality” as proposed was garbage. It was probably worse (in the long run) than what we have now. Title II classification of ISPs would have given the FCC unacceptable power over the internet, including censorship powers.

    The forward-thinking way to fix this is A) changes to municipal fiber easement rules (to allow for many regional wired ISPs) and B) for the FCC to hold rolling bandwidth auctions where people can bid on regional wireless bandwidth allocations on a minute-to-minute basis.

    Bandwidth provision is exactly the sort of problem the market could optimize to insane levels of precision, if we set up some basic legal infrastructure allowing it to do so.

    1. 6

      And yet, it is definitely better than what will come out of this process. The point of this article is to correctly identify politicians who absolutely want you to suffer in order to enrich themselves and their benefactors, not to defend a globally sub-optimal status quo.

      1. 4

        Title II classification of ISPs would have given the FCC unacceptable power over the internet, including censorship powers

        Note that Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and the mainstream media are exercising “censorship powers” all the time, by choosing what (not) to show us and when.

        Also, it’s kind of misleading to talk about various “powers” that the government might have or get. Did the US government have “surveillance powers” before the Snowden revelations?

        Do they have “take-someone-to-torture-prison-without-due-process powers” even now? What about when they did exactly that to Bradley Manning?

        We can talk about “powers” this and “powers” that, but governments don’t give a fuck about what their laws say - they are after all, above them, by definition. They’ll just do whatever they think is “necessary” (for their own benefit).

        1. 1

          As much as I distrust google, facebook, and all the other data-mining companies, at least I’m not forced to use them and they can’t threaten me with jail or fines. They also have a better censorship record than the FCC in many respects (although that’s not a super high bar).

          I’m also not sure what your point is, since Title 2 classification would have had no effect on the behavior of any of the companies you mentioned.

          Same for the rest of your argument; is your claim that we should just grant the government the legal permission to censor or surveil whatever they want, since you think they’re just going to do it anyway?

          1. 1

            is your claim that we should just grant the government the legal permission to censor or surveil whatever they want, since you think they’re just going to do it anyway?

            Of course not?

            I was highlighting the fact that the government doesn’t need (to grant itself) any special “powers” to do - they’ll just do it regardless, if they think it’s necessary (for their own benefit).

            People don’t seem to be aware of this. A government is “just” a vehicle for mass exploitation, which shows in its behaviour whenever it needs to look after its interests in an urgent manner.

            1. 1

              As much as I distrust google, facebook, and all the other data-mining companies, at least I’m not forced to use them and they can’t threaten me with jail or fines. They also have a better censorship record than the FCC in many respects (although that’s not a super high bar).

              Can you expound on this bonkers statement regarding the FCC and censorship? Who besides the monopsonistic telecoms are are you forced to use? And going back to a previous comment:

              Bandwidth provision is exactly the sort of problem the market could optimize to insane levels of precision, if we set up some basic legal infrastructure allowing it to do so.

              This assumes that bandwidth is non-essential and it’s OK that people in more remote parts of the country where we all live together will be screwed in terms of available bandwidth. Of course, those people are currently screwed by the failure of the free market to provide this essential service, but you’re implying that that’s acceptable.

        2. 3

          With some vim trickery I’ve extracted the total sum of money mentioned in the article:

          US Senate: 3,538,971
          US House of Representatives: 5,617,841
          Total: 9,156,812