Netflix Executive Having Buyers Remorse on Net Neutrality

Netflix tries to explain its apparent sudden flip-flop on net neutrality.

Those who warned that the net neutrality being done by the FCC was a Trojan Horse for something not what it seems may already have a previous advocate of net neutrality joining their apprehension that the FCC wasn't passing a "legitimate" form of net Neutrality.

The company's chief financial officer, David Wells, told an investor conference Wednesday that Netflix isn't "pleased" about the Federal Communications Commission's recent vote on net neutrality, which slapped strong new rules on Internet providers.

...

"Were we pleased it pushed to Title II? Probably not. We were hoping there would be a non-regulated solution," said Wells, according to Variety. (A recording of the call is forthcoming and will be posted here.)

So when people said, "Keep government hands off the internet, especially when the government won't disclose the actual regulation they are creating" it seems, at least to Netflix's CFO, they had a valid point.

Netflix PR is already trying to mitigate it's CFO's flip-flop with word games. It wasn't a flip-flop, it was simply "evolution of thought" on the matter.

Out of context, Wells's quote certainly sounds damning on its own. But Netflix spokeswoman Anne Marie Squeo denied that Wells was actually condemning the strong measures.

"David was simply trying to convey the evolution in our thinking," said Squeo, "and give some sense of how our initial position evolved over time from an industry agreement to a regulatory solution."

Voting on something without even knowing what you are voting for is nothing less than stupid.

Corporations like Netflix used their power to get something that is going to come full circle and bite them in the ass so they will get exactly what they deserve. Unfortunately the people will have to pay the same price while having had no say whatsoever.

Peace

a reply to: GenerationGap

They always blame someone else when their plans come to fruition.

a reply to: GenerationGap

I have a feeling many other people are going to have a evolution of thought including many members on ATS.



THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED.

originally posted by: GenerationGap

The company's chief financial officer, David Wells, told an investor conference Wednesday that Netflix isn't "pleased" about the Federal Communications Commission's recent vote on net neutrality, which slapped strong new rules on Internet providers.

What he's saying is the same thing we've all said from the start which is that just leaving the internet alone like it has always been would have been the best option. But that was no longer an option anymore because the Telecoms weren't going to back down so Title II was basically the next best option available.

That article is trying to cloud up the issue yet again.

Yes i agree one they get their hands on something and the door is open there can be no end. But some things need regulation to protect the consumer from greed. Too much deregulation has went on since Reagan. Deregulating banks for example. Look what happened there. Regulation was put in after people were taken advantage of in the past for a reason. They deregulated and Banks did some corrupt crap and ripped people off. With permission of the fed of course. They got rich too off letting it happen. The individuals anyway.

a reply to: GenerationGap

In other words, now that the corporation has failed to get what it wanted, it's going into reputation damage control and attempting to pretend that it never actually meant to try to legislate the Internet to begin with.

The problem is, plenty of people will probably believe this BS.

They wanted to make billions of $'s out of telling you what you can and cannot access, selling off a service you already pay for to the highest bidders, and they lost. Now they're panicking and trying to pretend that they really didn't want to bend you over after all...

They started this fight through greed, and now they're bitching about the government having no choice but to set more regulations.

I trust a government more than I trust a cartel of corporations, that's what it comes down to. We can fire politicians, we can lobby them, we can hound and harass them - a corporation is not answerable to you, and a cartel can easily rig the game to make sure you have fewer options.

If your government tries to inflict any unfair regulation on the PEOPLE, you can expect there will be mass protests and heads will roll. You would not get the same defense of freedom and rights if the FCC had moved the other way.

From the article it looks like the Netflix CFO shares the opinion that myself, and many other level-headed people in the know have thought about the FCC deal from the start which is the following:

"We would rather have left the internet exactly as it has always been, but since telecoms insist on changing the way they play the game, we must look to Title II to preserve what we know as the internet today"

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: GenerationGap
If your government tries to inflict any unfair regulation on the PEOPLE, you can expect there will be mass protests and heads will roll. You would not get the same defense of freedom and rights if the FCC had moved the other way.

I wish that were true. The IRS targeted the people to affect an election. There have been no mass protests and no head has yet to roll.

I think it's far easier to escape corporate collusion than government corruption. That's just my own experience and the way I see it though. I don't have Comcast or Time Warner. I don't have a Face Book account, nor do I have Twitter. I bank with a local credit union. I've managed to mitigate the use of monopolistic corporations, though it does take more research and time to choose who I partner and do business with. When government takes over, I have no choice but to do business with the government. I have no choice, barring fines and incarceration, not to purchase government programs. It's that aspect of government involvement I do not like. I wasn't bothered by an unregulated internet. Corporations are greedy for my money, but government greedy for control for my freedom. It's always been that way, and it will always be that way. It is a lesser of two evils, and I rather live with expensive choices than no choice at all.

When it comes down to it, it's a philosophical principle that one must choose. Neither one is right, both are measured by degrees of wrong, but again that's just my opinion.

To that affect, I'd rather live in a Chicago run by Al Capone than a Chicago run by Rahm Emanuel. Even at it's worst, the Al Capone era of Chicago can't touch the crime and corruption of today; and I think that says a lot.

I'd also like to add, that we have laws barring companies like Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon from colluding together in their industry. The problem is that our government prosecutors do not prosecute these crimes. One must ask why that is. With monopoly law and collusion law, it would be rather effective at maintaining consumer advocacy through government. But again, government hasn't used these existing laws, instead they create more regulation that hinders freedom.

Also, if Comcast throttled Netflix, Netflix could then sponsor an alternative company that doesn't. If Comcast is the only provider in your area, that's not a federal issue; that's an issue to take to your city council and county boards to provide growth incentives to other providers to bring local choice. In the end, Comcast would surely fold to consumer demand. Who wants to purchase the partial internet?

But now with the FCC putting it's foot in the door, I fear the partial internet is going to be levied on all. It'll start with something obvious, that we all agree is worth censoring. Just like the 7 words you can't say on radio and TV. It's only a matter of time before the FCC tells ISPs not to provide access to websites with ISIS ties; i.e. websites that provide instructions on how to create homemade IEDs and roadside bombs. By title II, the FCC already has that power, which they didn't have three weeks ago. To meet title II regulation you have to get certified by the FCC to be an industry provider. That regulation, and thus the certification, is required by the FCC.

It's a slippery slope with the potential for gobs and gobs of mission creep.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

This.

Yeah, now Netflix knows how the left feels about Obamacare. It's not really what we wanted, but it's better than it was without anything.

a reply to: GenerationGap

It's quite obvious: net neutrality benefits competition. Netflix is now the wealthy and powerful incumbent. They have an interest in making it more expensive and difficult for new competitors. With net neutrality, they cannot pay anybody to get preferred terms or speed that others can't get.

Good.

Net neutrality is working already.

As has been pointed out by many, the only need for this is because of the lack of local competition. In other nations, which once had worse internet than USA, and now have much better internet, the local physical pipe is regulated nationally like the utility that it is, with competitors providing service on it. In USA, this regulation, and lack thereof, is heavily devolved to localities which are even easier to corrupt.

Net neutrality won't get USA good internet, just preclude additional abuses.

(There is a spurious but very common emotional notion in the USA that state and local government is more effective and honest than Federal, but in fact it is the reverse).

a reply to: jude11

Voting on something without even knowing what you are voting for is nothing less than stupid.

What? Who voted on something without knowing what they were voting for?

a reply to: mbkennel

Um. Rather the opposite, I think. Now, Netflix can't pay an ISP to have "exclusive" access on that ISP, effectively throttling or disabling completely the competition on certain ISPs. After all, if ISPs have exclusive control on the content they provide, Netflix can simply pay out the nose to be the ONLY option.

Title II prevents this from happening. It also prevent barriers of entry to small start up websites who otherwise may have to pay for "premium" bandwidth in order for their sites to load at the same speed that say, youtube does.

a reply to: GenerationGap




I think it's a good thing and won't be abused to silence people, but it will be used to banish trolls who damage lives, damage business and spread negativity. And negativity can be infectious. Let us not be infected.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: mbkennel

Um. Rather the opposite, I think. Now, Netflix can't pay an ISP to have "exclusive" access on that ISP, effectively throttling or disabling completely the competition on certain ISPs. After all, if ISPs have exclusive control on the content they provide, Netflix can simply pay out the nose to be the ONLY option.

I think we agree---net neutrality prevents that.

Netflix doesn't like it when Verizon and Comcast want to start charging them money for doing the same thing as usual just because Netflix has money, but if there were a powerful internet TV competitor coming up, then Netflix would take that option as long as they colluded with the telecoms to be the only one to get it.

Regulation will prevent some monopolistic abuses by both sides.

Title II prevents this from happening. It also prevent barriers of entry to small start up websites who otherwise may have to pay for "premium" bandwidth in order for their sites to load at the same speed that say, youtube does.

I think we agree---that's the whole point!

To the political point: with these results, think whether living with "Big Government" regulation vs living subject to Big Corps?

Would Comcast or AT&T ever voluntarily decide to implement something like this? Obviously not. When have they done something good for you?

Of course, a really bad government regime is even more dangerous than monopolistic powerful companies, but that should never be the choice in a democratic republic. (In Putin's Russia, e.g. monopolistic dictator colludes with monopolistic corporations allied with the dictator)

And who won?

a reply to: mbkennel

Ahhh. I must have misinterpreted your post. My sincere apologies!

I wonder how long before Skeptic shows up.

2nd.

a reply to: IntroduceALittleIrony

He has a vested interest in Net Neutrality. As a small (comparably) website/company, he stands to lose out quite a bit if Title II isn't implemented and ISPs can ring him up for more money if he wants to keep his current bandwidth.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Then u must forget that George Soros spent 196 million dollars to lobby the FCC to control the internet. So much for trusting government more...