Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacoblyles | Hacker News Reader

People who oppose net neutrality don't trust the FCC to be a benevolent regulator of the internet. For example, this blog post has links to a number of longer form pieces that make the case against it:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-fcc-should-not-regulate-t...

And here's a post refuting the "money" argument:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/siding-with-the-geeks-on-netw...

View on HN

Of course, once the right-wing gets its way on net neutrality, insuring that corporations can do whatever they want, they will then ALSO argue, as soon as Republicans hold the White House again, that the government has to be able to regulate the Internet as well, in order to make the world safe for Jesus and protect us from the terrorists.

This BS about opposing government control really just means they oppose government control that comes from Democrats.

I upvoted you because I agree that this true of many/most conservatives, especially those with an actual political career. But it's sad that this is the case. And it's certainly not by itself a very good argument for net neutrality or government control.

I agree that corporate rapaciousness and Republicans' pattern of serial lying is not a reason to support net neutrality. Net neutrality must stand on its own merits. I feel it does; others obviously will disagree. :) My only point was, it's laughable to think that Republicans are telling the truth about this, or to believe they will keep their hands off the Internet once they have enough power to mess with it again. I believe the recent historical record provides incontrovertible proof of this.

>as soon as Republicans hold the White House again, that the government has to be able to regulate the Internet as well, in order to make the world safe for Jesus and protect us from the terrorists.

I don't agree with the political "back and forth" that is prevalent on both sides of the spectrum, but certainly this could have been rephrased to be a bit more objective.

Unfortunately on the Internet, Republican has become synonymous with racist radical Christian.

It's not without cause.

ummm I'd just prefer neither. I cringe to think of net neutrality in place next time there is a Republican majority.

The energy being applied advocating net neutrality could be a lot better spent lobbying for real freedom in the telecom space and undo'ing the legally enforced monopolies there.

Cato supports its corporate masters:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries#C...

And Sourcewatch (AKA Center for Media and Democracy, AKA PRWatch) supports its union masters: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/02/10080/koch-denies-intere...

What's your point?

My point is that Cato's professed ideology is contrary to the fights it actually undertakes, while the fights it undertakes are in service of those who pay its bills. Cato's corporate funders are opposed to free markets, and so is Cato. Cato uses the rhetoric of free markets to advance the interests of its funders in keeping control of their markets.

How exactly is preventing the government from regulating the internet anti-free market? I agree with Cato most of the time. I haven't given them any money. Isn't it possible that they get financial support from the Kochs and vocal support from myself because of their support of freedom (i.e. limited government)?

"Preventing the government from regulating the Internet" is not on offer by anyone. Existing government regulations give certain companies oligopoly power, whose rents they are using to finance (via Boehner) opposition to further regulations intended to reduce those rents. "limited government" is Orwellian language. Again, I don't doubt your sincerity; I question your understanding of the motives behind the appealing rhetoric you quote.

"Existing government regulations give certain companies oligopoly power"

So your answer is additional regulations? Cato's solution for a more efficient and freer internet should be more regulation? I am not using "Orwellian language". Neither is Cato. When they say they want less regulation, they mean less regulation. Cato has always been opposed to Federal power not explicitly granted in the Constitution. Can you site me an example where they haven't been?

What supernatural power do you have to know the true motives of the Kochs and Cato? Just because their interests are aligned with AT&T's in this instance do not mean they work for AT&T. But I'm pretty confident if Net Neutrality wins, AT&T will still win. They have so many protections (laws and sympathetic politicians) in the government that they can only lose if the government loses power. The consumer and citizen who has benefited so much from an unregulated Internet will suffer with more regulation. Big companies don't mind regulation, because compliance and lobbying are so much more costly for their smaller competitors, mostly due to economies of scale.

Evaluating regulations by count is like evaluating software by lines of code.

Cato is DEFINITELY using Orwellian language: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/the-kochs-and-the-...

So Kochs = Cato, now? I think they have more than two people: http://www.cato.org/people/directors.html

And if you're going to make a wild accusation like Cato is DEFINITELY using Orwellian language, please use a little more brain power than just posting a link to someone else's stretch that not buying into man-made climate catastrophe means you don't care about property rights as a whole.

Cato gets 97% of its annual operating budget from individual donations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com