Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: A$$hole America Previous entry: Kids These Days aren’t Kids These Days

WARNING: The Government Will Do Unspecified Incoherent Things To You

Telecoms have gone full Tea Party on net neutrality:

The FCC has released a national broadband plan recently, part of which included very, very mild proposals about net neutrality, focused almost entirely on preventing content discrimination by ISPs (short version: any resource a user wants to access should be treated equally by the ISP, regardless of its content). 

As government regulations go, this is about as benign and pro-consumer as you can get.  However, ISPs really, really hate this because it makes their shiny new pipelines slightly less profitable, mainly in the sense that it prevents them from extorting money out of both consumers and content providers to get the same service they’d be entitled to under the service the ISP says it’s supposed to provide anyway.

Basically, the government is Robert Mugabe, ISPs are white farmers and I think you’re someone trying to buy a newspaper with a trillion Internet dollars or something. 

There’s a reason this ad provides no specifics and its script could double as a sign at a tax day rally in Sarasota: the actual specifics of net neutrality (the government ensuring that the Internet works the way it has since you were arguing what powers Thor’s hammer had on AOL forums in 1996) so entirely undercut the telecom position in such an embarrassing way that an actual defense of their position would be the equivalent of revealing that the real reason you want to go to Dairy Queen is to stuff Oreo chunks and soft serve into your underwear and tell small children about your Chilly Willy.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Jesse Taylor on 04:39 PM • (18) Comments

This is an ad designed to short-circuit actual thinking and tap into the “government is bad” mode of “logic”.  Plus, it’s a lie.  The internet has flourished BECAUSE of the government, not because they got out of the way.

Comment #1: Antigone  on  05/13  at  05:28 PM

Yeah it started playing here a few days ago.  I became frothing mad and screamed at my television and that’s a rarity.  I’ve been calling my senator to point out if he votes against net neutrality I will vote him out.  Its not even remotely accurate.  The internet has flourished as antigone pointed out because the government kept the playing field even.  Hell that is the exact reason why Youtube & Facebook can exist.  Only the major corporations could afford internet bandwidth without the rules in place.  The internet would become a dark commercial hellhole that would most likely wither heavily without net neutrality.

Comment #2: Xeranar  on  05/13  at  05:41 PM

So how long have ypu been saving that Chilly Willy line?

Comment #3: Robert  on  05/13  at  05:47 PM

mainly in the sense that it prevents them from extorting money out of both consumers and content providers to get the same service they’d be entitled to under the service the ISP says it’s supposed to provide anyway.

It’s much more that just them charging Google extra to provide search.  Right now the broadband ISPs are nearly always also cable or phone providers, and both of those services make far more money for them than Internet ever can.

A customer is easily willing to pay $50/month to get a decent ‘Net connection and then use zero-cost VOIP for phone calls and streaming media ala hulu for cable TV.  But telecoms are used to charging $100+ for those same features: $40 phone + $30 net + $40 cable.  To the telecoms, net neutrality means someday losing half (or more) of the revenue they get now.

Of course, for anyone who isn’t a telecom, propping up their various duopolies is bleeding good money out of the economy for no real benefit.  Considering that taxpayers have paid over and over again for the same damn phone and cable lines, I say screw the fuckers.

Comment #4: boring old dude  on  05/13  at  05:53 PM

that an actual defense of their position would be the equivalent of revealing that the real reason you want to go to Dairy Queen is to stuff Oreo chunks and soft serve into your underwear and tell small children about your Chilly Willy.

So they’re going with the 4chan defense.  IC.

Comment #5: Zifnab25  on  05/13  at  06:04 PM

stupid telephone/cable companies.

All of those basic infrastructure things should be strictly regulated like utilities or just nationalized. They are the modern equivalent of the post office; there is no social benefit to private control (and lots of costs when social needs get in the way of profit margins).

Comment #6: Tree  on  05/13  at  06:20 PM

The Net Neutrality battle is going to expose some strange bedfellows in this debate, and it will also create nother rift between the MoneyCons and the SocialCons… both the National Rifle Association and the Christian Coalition of America have taken public positions strongly SUPPORTING Net Neutrality.

And even among the corporate overlords, there is strong disagreement.  ISPs like AT&T;, Verizon, and Comcast are all firmly driving the opposition to Net Neutrality, but a lot of powerful tech and web companies are going in the complete opposite direction and supporting Net Neutrality - namely Google, Yahoo, Amazon, and even Microsoft.

I believe this is a matter that we just can’t allow to be won by Dick Armey and his fuckhead friends.  The sad thing is, I’ve discovered that when you remove mention of the political players involved in the debate and explain the issue in full detail to middle-class conservatives who haven’t yet been indoctrinated by Glenn Beck on what to think about it, it’s hard to find any average citizen who actually opposes Net Neutrality.  However, once it’s portrayed as a battle of “Us vs. Them” pitting the Real Americans™ against President Obama and the Democratic Congress, it’s easy to get these rubes to support a position that would actually harm them as much as it would hurt the DFHs.

Comment #7: DTG in STL  on  05/13  at  06:31 PM

Is this the same ad that was debunked on Slahsdot here: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/05/12/1928214/Telecom-Plan-To-Take-Over-the-Internet-Isnt-Real

Comment #8: VilleVicious  on  05/13  at  06:34 PM

Let’s see. 1st it was Wall Street, and frankly, I was glad they stopped the collapse (even if it was handled badly), and now I hope they regulate the fuck out of them.

2nd, the car companies were going to go bankrupt, and I’m glad the government stopped the complete ruin there, and now I hope they regulate the fuck out of them and force them to build half decent cars. (Seriously, I’ve just spent a whole lot of quality time with Consumer Reports researching cars, and the only American car still sort of in the running is the Ford Fusion, but the Hondas and the Subarus are in the lead).

3rd, healthcare reform might have been some nasty sausage, but insurance companies are still pure evil, and they deserve to have the fuck regulated out of them (and their executives deserve to be slow-roasted over hot coals).

So, for me, this commercial had exactly the opposite effect of what they were going for. Really, if you want to give the impression that corporations should be trusted to look after our best interests, you DON’T put up the logos for Goldman Sachs, AIG, Citibank, GM and Chrysler. Those guys are the poster children for corporate incompetence and malfeasance. If they would have added a BP logo, it would have been perfect.

Comment #9: Phoebe Fay  on  05/13  at  06:46 PM

Hey, anyone else search “net neutrality” from their ISP’s home page and get 0 results?

Comment #10: ThresherK  on  05/13  at  06:50 PM

#9

So, for me, this commercial had exactly the opposite effect of what they were going for.

Ah, but you are the informed consumer.  Ie - Not their target audience.  This ad is made to scare the bajezes out of little old ladies and crusty 50-something tech illiterates.  It was never made to fool the 20-something netizen.

Comment #11: Zifnab25  on  05/13  at  07:06 PM

But, even the little old ladies and crusty 50-something tech illiterates don’t trust Goldman Sachs, AIG, or Citibank. If they’ve been loyal to their Buicks for the last 50 years, maybe they’ll feel warm and fuzzy about GM, but not the bankers.

The organic teabaggers (as opposed to the astroturf groups) may be ignorant, rabid anti-government types, but that doesn’t mean they like Wall Street. Maybe they don’t hate Goldman Sachs as much as they hate Obama, but they wouldn’t mind taking their pitchforks to the bankers, too.

Comment #12: Phoebe Fay  on  05/13  at  07:24 PM

Why is it that the last line makes me want an Oreo Blizzard, but sans penis??

Comment #13: Liz212  on  05/13  at  07:29 PM

Net neutrality is all well and good, but it won’t solve the real telecom nightmare: the physical infrastructure itself is going on 50-75 years old (or older, in some places) and it’s basically falling apart around us.

Like so much else in our society, what we really need to do is tear it all down and rebuild it from the ground up. Too bad that’ll never happen.

Comment #14: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  05/13  at  09:12 PM

YES! This is a freakin’ UTILITY.

And as such, it deserves to be available to everyone at set, regulated, costs. Baal on toast, this is as important as water now; try to get a job without it. By the time your mailed resume gets there, the job has been filled!

Ijits.

Comment #15: WereBear  on  05/13  at  09:27 PM

“Is this the same ad that was debunked on Slahsdot here:”

Well, that was a “power-point presentation,” and this is a “tv ad,” so…no?

Comment #16: preying mantis  on  05/13  at  10:14 PM

preying mantis:

Sorry about the mix-up. It was late here in Europe when I wrote the question and didn’t notice that the Slashdot article referred to .ppt file. I thought the cases were close enough that there could have been a mistake, but apparently (also sadly) the mistake was mine and and american ISPs are really lobbying against net neutrality

Comment #17: VilleVicious  on  05/14  at  09:38 AM

I have a suspicion that the vast majority of people don’t even know what net neutrality is.  Several years ago there was a vague commercial that said nothing about what net neutrality actually means; it just said “Net neutrality means you pay”.  And then Michele Bachmann was on some interview (I forget where) and she seemed to think that net neutrality was mean to force people to have neutral views and opinions on the internet.  Does anyone else remember that?

Comment #18: bananacat  on  05/14  at  10:55 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.