Netflix Executive Having Buyers Remorse on Net Neutrality

a reply to: GenerationGap

well...if one is to be honest, it isn't a flip flop.

Unregulated is what he supported. Since it came with regulations, he doesn't support it.

Sounds to me like calling it spin is spin in itself.

originally posted by: amfirst1
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...

To be fair, which I'm sure is your top priority of course, that money is the total from all the companies Soros has founded spanning from 2000 - 2013. So it's not like it was all just about Net Neutrality. Those donations went to groups like ACLU who are also Net Neutrality supporters, but this wasn't even an issue years ago. The media is just trying to point fingers and claim that Soros is trying to buy up the net but that is BS. That money has been donated to those companies since before there was even a Net Neutrality debate happening.

At the same time, Comcast, AT&T and Verizon have together spent nearly $120 million on lobbying expenditures since the start of 2007. Not just that but those companies have been buying up Congress for a while now and that is there next attack at net neutrality, just wait and see.

a reply to: Rocker2013

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.

The Third Reich and the Soviet Union were both governments. What about the North Korean government or the Communist Party of China?

Do you honestly believe that corporations are more dangerous than governments? Corporations can't write laws, corporations don't have militaries or the concepts of nationalism and patriotism to brainwash people with. Corporations can't arrest you or charge you with crimes. To persuade you to purchase a product or service a corporation has to use advertisements, a government need only make it illegal for you not to purchase government mandated goods or services.

Corporations have money. Governments have power, organization, and money.

I'm sorry, but, you push people enough and all the money in the world can't save you. I don't know about you, but I would much rather fight a corporation than a government.

I can't be executed for treason for fighting a corporation.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
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.

We didn't have to have the government do anything. We, the people of the US, could have done something about it ourselves.

Like burning down Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T's headquarters. It's not tyranny when civilians use violent force to stop corporations from being evil--it's our civic duty.

But arguing over which is worse--governments or corporations, is like trying to decide if Hitler was more evil than Stalin, or if Stalin was more evil than Hitler.

Yes, corporations can build monopolies, but those monopolies are only generating revenue. If a corporation wants real power, they have to buy politicians and the force of law.

Imagine what it would have been like if Microsoft paid legislatures to write a law that made it illegal to use any other operating system other than Windows. Imagine police officers performing a no-knock raid on your home and shooting your 7-year-old daughter because she's moved when they slammed down your door, simply because someone tipped them off that you were using Linux.

That is the power of government. Sure, corporations can build monopolies on specific products--but the very nature of government is the monopoly of power.

The internet is ruined. You want to start a website? Yeah, you'll need a permit, now. Oh, don't forget about that processing fee for your application. What? You have to pay government a tax per X number of users that frequent your website? How much is the fine for not being ADA compliant? Probably a lot.


Just a small caveat:

So, you didn't want corporations to make the internet more expensive for smaller websites. Sounds great.

Give it a few years, though, and I guarantee all of the authoritarians on this site will be singing praised to the government for taxing site owners big and small (basically praising government for doing wjaz they were afraid of the corporations doing).

Remember that we could have boycotted the evil ISPs, but we can't boycott government taxation.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

We didn't have to have the government do anything. We, the people of the US, could have done something about it ourselves.

Like burning down Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T's headquarters. It's not tyranny when civilians use violent force to stop corporations from being evil--it's our civic duty.

Well, that is certainly a different approach but I don't think many people are ready for that yet. Could be wrong though. How about you lead the charge on that one and let us know how well it went after.

But arguing over which is worse--governments or corporations, is like trying to decide if Hitler was more evil than Stalin, or if Stalin was more evil than Hitler.

Yes, corporations can build monopolies, but those monopolies are only generating revenue. If a corporation wants real power, they have to buy politicians and the force of law.

Imagine what it would have been like if Microsoft paid legislatures to write a law that made it illegal to use any other operating system other than Windows. Imagine police officers performing a no-knock raid on your home and shooting your 7-year-old daughter because she's moved when they slammed down your door, simply because someone tipped them off that you were using Linux.

It's not hard to imagine those things at all actually. The difference is only that you need to change the business from MS to Energy and Defense and Pharma.

That is the power of government. Sure, corporations can build monopolies on specific products--but the very nature of government is the monopoly of power.

Yah, but that is also the only way a Gov. is effective against opposition to the laws that are passed. What good is a Gov. without power???

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you. Government is the authority. What else would it be and if it wasn't how effective would it then be???

The internet is ruined. You want to start a website? Yeah, you'll need a permit, now. Oh, don't forget about that processing fee for your application. What? You have to pay government a tax per X number of users that frequent your website? How much is the fine for not being ADA compliant? Probably a lot.

Either provide evidence for those claims or admit they are your paranoid fears surfacing. Don't just say it as if it's true.

Just a small caveat:

So, you didn't want corporations to make the internet more expensive for smaller websites. Sounds great.

Give it a few years, though, and I guarantee all of the authoritarians on this site will be singing praised to the government for taxing site owners big and small (basically praising government for doing wjaz they were afraid of the corporations doing).

Remember that we could have boycotted the evil ISPs, but we can't boycott government taxation.

Sure you can, but it has to be a large enough boycott to make a difference. The same would go for boycotting ISP's. BTW, why boycott??? I thought you going to burn them down???

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: GenerationGap

well...if one is to be honest, it isn't a flip flop.

Unregulated is what he supported. Since it came with regulations, he doesn't support it.

Sounds to me like calling it spin is spin in itself.

Netflix should replace spokeswoman Anne Marie Squeo and hire you instead, since your explanation sounds better than hers.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

Imagine what it would have been like if Microsoft paid legislatures to write a law that made it illegal to use any other operating system other than Windows.

Imagine what it would be like if Comcast pays legislatures to write a law that made it illegal to put other competing cable providers in the ground?

Oh wait! That's exactly what's happened! And it's exactly the reason for the problem and the cause of the need to have net neutrality.

An actual free market would be to bust up all these agreements and force common carriage on the local physical infrastructure with multiple information providers using that. All the advocates have said that this is a superior solution.

But that would be using government force on economic interests of local governments and cable incumbents and no doubt the pseudo-libertarians would come up with some reason why it's awful. When in truth it's awesome as other developed nations who do this have great internet for cheap. Nobody in Europe is complaining, because there aren't bad ogilopolies like there are in most of USA and Canada (even worse than USA).

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

Give it a few years, though, and I guarantee all of the authoritarians on this site will be singing praised to the government for taxing site owners big and small (basically praising government for doing wjaz they were afraid of the corporations doing).

Why do you think that? Who is in favor of that?

What net neutrality prevents is a cable monopoly, for instance, from taxing SOME internet sites because OTHER internet sites are paying them off. And it prevents the cable monopoly from kneecapping service to SOME internet sites which didn't cough up the "bandwidth protection money", "Hey, nice packet stream you got there. Boy wouldn't it be a shame if something happened to the routing?"

Stuff that the scum were starting to do. If there were 10 cheap local competitors which could be switched by making a phone call (since they used the same infrastructure) then they wouldn't do that because they'd obviously lose business. But there aren't.

Remember that we could have boycotted the evil ISPs, but we can't boycott government taxation.

Yes you can, it's called voting.

And Congress had power to tax whatever it wanted on the Internet even before the Title II decision.

Why didn't it? Because voters really didn't want that. Not only that but Congress passed a law that prevents states and localities from taxing internet access, regardless of Title II classification.

Like it or not, average people got (some of) what they wanted: non-discriminatory internet and no new taxes. And that's because a responsive democracy is in fact better than a self-interested oligopoly.

www.bna.com...