But lo and behold, the right is starting to wake up to the fact that the end of net neutrality is every bit as bad for them as everyone else. Today the FEC was warning about regulating content on the net, especially when it comes to right wing information sites, like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity. While I don't exactly like any of these sites (although Drudge does have links to great stories sometimes, other times it's Benghazi/IRS/Obama pseudo-scandal of the day 24/7), this is America and people should be allowed to get information from any source they want, even if it's wrong. Our MSM is certainly responsible for a nonstop litany of nonsense, why shouldn't the rest of us?
That being said, there are Democrats pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban media outlets from endorsing candidates. I have long believed that newspapers/TV news themselves should remain non-biased and only accept endorsements from op-ed pieces and not editors themselves, which as someone who worked for years in the newspaper business, are usually much more conservative than the reporters. Sean Hannity would still be free to endorse who he wanted and do so on his show. However, Fox News should get out of the propaganda business and stop influencing elections as a result. This way free speech is protected and we get better quality news.
But with the end of net neutrality, comes the realization that if corporations run the show, information they don't want out will have a hard time being released. Cliven Bundy would never have been heard of twenty years ago, as the government would have controlled the information completely. The end of net neutrality says they could do the exact same thing with no information getting out they do not want and that has a lot on the right rightfully worried. Now not all Republicans have realized this, with some still spouting doomsday scenarios that are utter nonsense, especially in Congress. Shocker as they bought and paid for. Has anyone noticed that the right says x is going to happen, but if I look back at a, b and c, I see that their argument is provably wrong from a historical perspective? Their future doesn't match the past.
In response to people becoming rightfully worried about the end of the Internet, the FCC released a typical compromise in today's society: IT SUCKS! Just like Obamacare was compromised within an inch of it's life, so goes this latest proposal that all say is moose puckey. How do we continue to hire people for positions of power who are woefully inadequate at their job? I thought Bush was bad with his appointments but Obama is nominating the same class of clowns as his predecessor. Tom Wheeler is a corporate stooge now destroying the Internet to help his CEO buddies. His latest proposal is just what you would expect from this dick.
Now using this new idea of all scientific studies using past and present real-life examples for their hypothesis, thus eliminating fear mongering and wild conjecture which the right has gotten way out of hand with, is this bon mot from Yahoo news and MIT Technology Review:
MIT Technology Review on Wednesday issued a report that really is quite horrifying.
In a nut shell, the report notes that the mere possibility that the FCC’s new net neutrality proposal will pass is causing venture capital firms to stop funding startups with services that rely on fast Internet connections for videos, music or other services. The fear is that such companies may need to pay a ransom to large ISPs in the future, and those fees could dramatically impact their profitability.
Pause for a moment to consider how truly terrible this situation is. The next YouTube, Vimeo, Spotify or Pandora might never come to be, simply because the company’s founders were unable to secure funding in a world where the little guy can get squeezed out by big companies ready and willing to pay for faster connections.
From MIT Technology Review’s report:
The cable industry says such charges are sensible, especially when a few large content providers like Netflix can take up a large fraction of traffic. But if deep-pocketed players can pay for a faster, more reliable service, then small startups face a crushing disadvantage, says Brad Burnham, managing partner at Union Square Ventures, a VC firm based in New York City. “This is absolutely part of our calculus now,” he says.Burnham says his firm will now “stay away from” startups working on video and media businesses. It will also avoid investing in payment systems or in mobile wallets, which require ultrafast transaction times to make sense. “This is a bad scene for innovation in those areas,” Burnham says of the FCC proposal.
This is how the world ends
This is how the world ends
This is how the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
We can see with actually examples that the end of net neutrality may lead to information being withheld, both the FEC and FCC giving the corporations a lot of power while regulating the rest of us out of existence, just like they do now with small businesses which are almost extinct according to latest job data. Small business cannot compete on Main Street and now they are trying to shut down the Internet for them as well. This is beyond right or left and this point. It is about freedom. Europe and Latin America have net neutrality and that isn't killing their economy. As a matter of fact, in some places, it's the only thing keeping them afloat. The new rules will be out on the 15th. Chances are, they are going to make no one happy, unless you are CEO of Netflix, Google or Verizon.