• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

How White House Thwarted FCC Chief on Internet Rules

Status
Not open for further replies.

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Mar 19, 2012
60,819
0
685
yeah why?

A company like Google would have a lot to gain from the introduction of internet fast lanes. Sure they'd have to pay, but they'd also help create an artificial barrier that would keep out any competition. They'd be able to create a monopoly without having to do the hard work of driving everyone else out of business or buying them out, the ISP's would be doing their work for them. From a business perspective it absolutely makes sense for Google to oppose Net Neutrality.
 

ElFly

Member
Sep 3, 2006
16,567
0
0
A company like Google would have a lot to gain from the introduction of internet fast lanes. Sure they'd have to pay, but they'd also help create an artificial barrier that would keep out any competition. They'd be able to create a monopoly without having to do the hard work of driving everyone else out of business or buying them out, the ISP's would be doing their work for them. From a business perspective it absolutely makes sense for Google to oppose Net Neutrality.

That'd keep out the small guys but nowadays Google's competition can also foot the bill.

Going against net neutrality would leave them open to just rising costs for no benefit.
 

Theonik

Member
Aug 14, 2010
24,259
0
810
kininarima.su
Eric Schmidt was against it? The hell?
I was wondering the same thing. Any background on why? Google has been staunchly pro-net neutrality.
Google has the resources to pay for preferential treatment so they are all for stuff that stops people from competing with them.

Now they can publicly support whatever to help them look good. Doesn't mean it's what they want.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,903
4,867
1,905
Google Inc. Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt spoke with White House officials, urging them not to go through with utility-like rules.

What the fuck. There should be a thread about this. Complete bullshit.
 

kris.

Banned
Jun 17, 2013
7,140
0
0
obama da gawd

it's awesome how quickly he turned his presidency around and how much he's been able to do lately
 

Theandrin

Member
Sep 8, 2009
362
0
0
You have to wonder that if Obama had come out with all of these ideas his first two years in power if both midterm elections would have still been bloodbaths for democrats. Stuff like this and his other initiatives could have been enough to energize the base. So much wasted potential.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Jun 6, 2004
20,904
1
0
What the fuck. There should be a thread about this. Complete bullshit.

More proof that no matter who it is, enough power and wealth will corrupt.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Jun 18, 2009
62,433
10
1,115
You have to wonder that if Obama had come out with all of these ideas his first two years in power if both midterm elections would have still been bloodbaths for democrats. Stuff like this and his other initiatives could have been enough to energize the base. So much wasted potential.
His first two years were health care reform and an attempt at credit card reform, two things that were IMO as big or bigger than this. He was up to plenty. And then he got stopped in his tracks
 

Zeus Molecules

illegal immigrants are stealing our air
Jul 12, 2012
11,949
0
550
You have to wonder that if Obama had come out with all of these ideas his first two years in power if both midterm elections would have still been bloodbaths for democrats. Stuff like this and his other initiatives could have been enough to energize the base. So much wasted potential.

I still think Congress was what held him back. From the blue dog democrats to this last election when they were saying they didn't want Obama to stump for them because they didn't want to associated with his policies. Democrats in congress have consistently been shook of the things Obama has done or wanted to do.
 

Futureman

Member
Mar 17, 2005
17,473
0
0
Pittsburgh
www.gregburgh.com
Google has always spoken out for net neutrality. Without being able to read some article behind a pay wall everyone should settle down.

OP, do you mind elaborating on that issue?

Edit: well looks like the entire article is there (uhhh?). But there's so little information it's almost impossible to really tell what that means.
 

massoluk

Banned
Dec 19, 2011
22,034
1
0
Google has the resources to pay for preferential treatment so they are all for stuff that stops people from competing with them.

Now they can publicly support whatever to help them look good. Doesn't mean it's what they want.

Most likely.

I also think the whole utility thing make Google Fiber kinda lost its impact.

Google has always spoken out for net neutrality. Without being able to read some article behind a pay wall everyone should settle down.

OP, do you mind elaborating on that issue?

Labelling it as Utility is but one of the option toward Net Neutrality, may be Google was thinking of reaching the goal another way.
 

lastflowers

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
10,134
0
0
30
seattle
Obama's taking off the mask and will now be Cheat-Code Obama:

-Title II
-Change to Metric System
-NASA colony to Mars
-Decriminalization of all drug use
-Moves towards free college
-Bye Bye Death Penalty
-Deep Renewable energy refocusing
-Inner city infrastructure
-Raise taxes on rich
-Demilitarization of Polic
-Demilitarization of Military
-Turn Water in Wine
-Resurrect himself
 

Theonik

Member
Aug 14, 2010
24,259
0
810
kininarima.su
Most likely.

I also think the whole utility thing make Google Fiber kinda lost its impact.

Labelling it as Utility is but one of the option toward Net Neutrality, may be Google was thinking of reaching the goal another way.
I didn't think about Google Fiber. Actually it would allow them to treat their own traffic preferentially in those areas or charge for the privilege too.
 

Fiktion

Banned
Apr 18, 2013
3,539
0
0
Edit: well looks like the entire article is there (uhhh?). But there's so little information it's almost impossible to really tell what that means.

The information seems to speak for itself. Google tried to sabotage Net Neutrality on the low.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,903
4,867
1,905
Well the "information" is a single line in the article with no context or explanation. Really not trying to defend Google, I'd just be interested in an actual explanation as why Google was against it.

Might be the Utility aspects of it. They are now a service provider.
 

numble

Member
Apr 22, 2007
28,682
0
0
Well the "information" is a single line in the article with no context or explanation. Really not trying to defend Google, I'd just be interested in an actual explanation as why Google was against it.

Google has always spoken out for net neutrality. Without being able to read some article behind a pay wall everyone should settle down.

OP, do you mind elaborating on that issue?

Edit: well looks like the entire article is there (uhhh?). But there's so little information it's almost impossible to really tell what that means.

What the fuck. There should be a thread about this. Complete bullshit.

Eric Schmidt and Google have been pretty open about supporting prioritization for the past 5 years.
 

giga

Member
Oct 28, 2006
37,148
0
0
Busy reforming healthcare and killing bin Laden.
And, you know, the greatest financial crisis and resulting recession since the Great Depression. The ARRA and Dodd-Frank were extremely contentious pieces of legislation.
 

Azih

Member
May 31, 2004
19,276
3
0
39
Canada
Have you guys not seen the article Assange wrote about his meeting with Schmidt? Achindt is Libertarian more than anything else.
 
Oct 27, 2005
13,701
0
0
39
New Jersey
www.charliedigital.com
Where was this Obama 6 years ago

From lame duck to Duck Dodgers.

Man. Net Neutrality, illegal immigration, Cuba... why can't every president's "legacy building" period be this great?

If we had this Obama six years ago, holy shit

There are some cynics that say that Obama is just throwing this stuff out there knowing that it won't pass now with a Republican controlled Congress, but I actually believe quite the opposite.

With a Democrat controlled Congress, he took the throttle off of the Executive and looked to his colleagues in Congress to get work done. We've seen this approach before with same sex marriage where he strongly believed that the right course of action for long term change was not through the Executive, but through Congress or the judicial system. He's largely done the same on topics like legalization of marijuana, Guantanamo, etc.

Rather than simply moves aimed at appeasing or priming the base for 2016, I think that because he has no majority in either house of Congress now, he's taken a completely different approach that focuses on the powers of the Executive branch because he knows that there is no hope in Congress.
 

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
Jun 6, 2007
4,571
0
980
Further confirms my notions of Larry Summers being the biggest piece of shit in Obama's administration. It's like every behind the scenes story has that guy trying to reign in Obama and shilling for wall street and corporations.
That isn't my impression of Larry Summers from reading about him. Most of the views he's currently espousing are almost indistinguishable from a conventional Keynesian position. The following excerpt (from a Reuters article about secular stagnation) is so thoroughly committed to the idea of monetary and fiscal stimulus that it probably could have been written by Krugman. According to Summers:

The third approach — and the one that holds the most promise — is a sustained commitment of policy to raising the level of demand at any given level of interest rates through policies that restore a situation where reasonable growth and reasonable interest rates can coincide. To start, this means ending the disastrous trends towards less and less government spending and employment each year, and taking advantage of the current period of economic slack to renew and build out our infrastructure. In all likelihood, if the government had invested more over the last 5 years, our debt burden relative to income would be lower today given the way in which economic slack has hurt the economy’s long-run potential, so it would not have imposed any burden on future taxpayers.

Raising demand also means seeking to spur private spending. There is much that can be done in the energy sector to unleash private investment on both the fossil fuel and renewable sides. Regulation that requires the more rapid replacement of coal-fired power plants will increase investment and spur growth as well as help the environment. And it is essential to insure in a troubled global economy that a widening trade deficit does not excessively divert demand from the U.S. economy.


I think people on the left have become accustomed to projecting some of their frustration onto Summers for the administration's failure to live up to their idealism. Summers is an easy target because he's abrasive and his actions are easily misconstrued. But a shill he most definitely is not. Despite his conservative position on net neutrality, Summers was out in front of the administration on the issue of jobs, health care, and the auto industry, according to Jonathan Cohn.
 

Fiktion

Banned
Apr 18, 2013
3,539
0
0
I said this as soon as he took fucking Iowa in the primaries. He's the Democratic Ronald Reagan.
I think part of the most interesting thing about Obama's elections is that he proved you don't need the South to win. Before him it was conventional wisdom that any winning Democratic ticket had to have a Southerner on it; Clinton doubled down with Al Gore, Kerry made an attempt with John Edwards.

Obama was from the Midwest and although he carried Virginia and Florida he didn't need them when he had Iowa and Ohio and the rest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.