The Obama Internet

And Someone started a thread about the oppressive policy without knowing whats in it - Even going so far as to warn us about a government choosing what sites we can access.

My internet works just fine. If Obama is for net neutrality than it must be a good thing..... for the rich that is. Always follow the money!

We on the right believe that capitalism is the best way for business to operate and that government intervention always only mucks things up.

Fortunately America had some great patriotic Americans who disagreed with that sentiment, like Theodore Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan.

In the late nineteenth century, when the railroad robber barons wanted to use discriminatory pricing to starve out farmers, so they could buy up the land for pennies on the dollar, America put a stop to it. When Western Union wanted to use discriminatory pricing to favor newspapers they liked, and to starve out newspapers they didn't, America put a stop to it. And fortunately those common carrier laws were applied to the phone companies also. I kind of like the result.

DonDiego and Boilerman: Have guys like you ever been on the right side of history?

If the govt was so good at controlling the economy why has communism failed everyplace it has been tried?

DonDiego requests pjstroh direct him to the thread in which the originator "warn[ed] about a government choosing what sites we can access." It was certainly not this thread, as poor old DonDiego said no such thing.
And the reason DonDiego said no such thing is because he knew that he did not know what was in the proposed regulations. Why well-known LVA poster forkushV even commented:"Could you be a little more vague?" on DonDiego original post, recognizing that poor old DonDiego was unable to comment on the content, but rather the motivation.

And whatever was in the proposal, given the report that there is disagreement about the regulations among the three FCC panel members likely to vote for the regulations, it seems right now nobody knows what is in the regulations.
DonDiego opines such haste to implement such regulations is unlikely to lead to an optimal result.

Of course a poster within this thread does know what was [is???] in the proposal, or at least the happy buzzwords to make those supporting the unknown regulations tingle in anticipation of their approval:
__No blocking.
__No throttling.
__Increased Transparency [Wait a minute! Increased transparency !!! Like the transparency in formulating/approving/implementing the regulations ???]
__No paid prioritization.

"If it ain't broke don't fix it. That's the trouble with government: Fixing things that aren't broken and not fixing things that are broken."
__Thomas Bertram Lance, in Nation's Business, May 1977:

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

I just thought that was how Washington worked?

For anyone with a serious interest in the pending regulation of the internets as a public utility, DonDiego recommends this exposition of the thoughts of one of the "nay voters" on the FCC Panel.
At least he does know what's in the proposal.

A Solution That Won't Work to a Problem That Doesn't Exist

Thank you for providing such a thoughtful link Don Diego. That interview mimics many of my original thoughts on the topic...Like regulations being a barrier to entry which reduces potential competition, fixing a problem that doesn't exist, population density as a cost driver for broadband infrastructure, regulated public utilities as an example of stifled innovation and a suggested focus for the FCC of reducing regulations rather than increasing them. I wonder if Commissioner Pai has been secretly reading this thread.

Documented examples of "the problem that doesn't exist":

Netflix files complaint against Comcast for throttling

historical incidents of isp's blocking, capping, throttling content of competitors and opponents

I'm at a loss as to how Comcast blocking access to Netflix improves Comcast's ability to invent or compete. Quite the opposite. Netflix competes with Comcast's on-demand service.

And Cell phone companies blocking access to Vonage (their competitor) would also seem to be the height of anti-competitive behavior.

The real world provides legitimate examples of corporate abuse of internet access. You can make policy based upon facts and actual cases....or you can make policy based on abstract ideology about the role of governments. I'm happy to choose the former.