Study: FCC To Kill 500,000 Jobs With Net Neutrality

MAO BE PRAISED – FOR WE ARE TOO DUMB TO HAVE UNREGULATED INTERNETS

Ars Technica reports:

If you’re looking for the Armageddon version of net neutrality analysis, search no further than a  new study released by New York Law School’s Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute. The assessment, titled Net Neutrality, Investment & Jobs, damns the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed net neutrality rules as “destabilizing” and suggests they could “place the nation’s economy at even greater risk.”

The passage of such rules “could have devastating impacts across the ecosystem between 2010 and 2015,” warn authors Charles M. Davidson and Bret T. Swanson. The assessment comes as the FCC released a Notice of Inquiry on its new Open Internet proposals on Thursday, and AT&T’s threat that such proposals could cause it to downgrade its investment in its U-Verse IP-video network.

How devastating would this impact be? The paper claims that wireless and wireline broadband could suffer huge investment losses as a consequence of the rules. A ten percent drop in investment could rob the United States of 502,000 jobs with a $62 billion impact on its Gross Domestic Product. Three times that decline could punish the economy with a loss of 604,000 jobs and $80 billion in GDP loss.

Of course, when ever the federal criminals involve themselves in a market, you can be sure a few things will occur:

1. Mega-corporations will be protected from competition

2. Existing services will go up in price

3. Existing services will decline in quality

These three fundamental facts of the universe have never – ever – been proven to be false.

The FCC is a criminal terrorist organization of power mad control freaks that will ultimately destroy a what is a healthy vibrant sector of the economy.  The kelptocrats are desperately anxious to get their paws on control over the internet and net neutrality is the perfect propaganda gateway for them.  As the study shows, the unintended consequences of net neutrality would be disastrous.

The market knows what is best.  If a service provider starts doing things that piss people off, such as unduly restricting their bandwidth or charging excessive usage fees, consumers will dump them for another provider.

The market will self-regulate what the appropriate business model for ISPs should be.  It has worked fantastically well up to this point.

In related news, the God King is claiming the power to shut down the internets in case of an “emergency”

Of course, there is no good reason to ever shut down the internet – ever.  We have survived over a decade of mass internet usage along with billions upon billions of cyber attacks on public and private networks without devolving into chaos.  The idea that the government has the right to shut down private networks to supposedly protect us from “cyber attacks” is outrageous.

There is only one reason they are declaring this power.

To shut down free speech.

Toms Hardware reports:

A legislation proposed on April 1 is no joke. The proposed bill would grant President Obama the authority to shut down public and private networks — including the restriction of internet traffic — as part of a cybersecurity emergency plan.

The bill was introduced by West Virginia Democratic Sen. John Rockefeller and Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Republican from Maine. The aim of the bill is to unite both public and private network operators to develop regulations for what to do in case of a cyber attack.

For obvious reasons, many are concerned about what such power could mean if the wrong actions were taken. Leslie Harris, president and CEO at the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), said in a NetworkWorld story, “This is pretty sweeping legislation. Seems the President could turn off the Internet completely or tell someone like Verizon to limit or block certain traffic. There is a lot to worry about in this bill.”

Of course, the criminal Rockefeller introduced the bill.

Who else would be so bold as to claim total authority over the internet other than a Rockefeller.

The actual bill can be found here.

  • Jimmy

    I would hesitate to say that service providers are any more dedicated to the free market than the net neutrality nuts (take Moby or the editors at Wired, for example). However, despite the current stranglehold providers have on telecommunications networks thanks to federal regulation, I do not think that MORE regulation will solve anything. It’s akin to saying the lake doesn’t have enough water because of a dam upstream, so let’s build another one downstream. That will solve everything.

    That may be the point, though. No net, no problem. I guess my point is that both sides of the argument appear to be wrong in this case. Both the state worshiping nuts on the side of “neutrality” and the fascist corporations on the side of “freedom” are both trying to use the government to get their way.

    What I don’t get is why any article I have come across about this issue hasn’t mentioned that the problem is current regulation. There is no freedom and there is no free market. I say deregulate the market completely and let the market do what it does best, natural selection. In other words, kill ‘em all and let God sort it out.

  • Jimmy

    I would hesitate to say that service providers are any more dedicated to the free market than the net neutrality nuts (take Moby or the editors at Wired, for example). However, despite the current stranglehold providers have on telecommunications networks thanks to federal regulation, I do not think that MORE regulation will solve anything. It’s akin to saying the lake doesn’t have enough water because of a dam upstream, so let’s build another one downstream. That will solve everything.

    That may be the point, though. No net, no problem. I guess my point is that both sides of the argument appear to be wrong in this case. Both the state worshiping nuts on the side of “neutrality” and the fascist corporations on the side of “freedom” are both trying to use the government to get their way.

    What I don’t get is why any article I have come across about this issue hasn’t mentioned that the problem is current regulation. There is no freedom and there is no free market. I say deregulate the market completely and let the market do what it does best, natural selection. In other words, kill ‘em all and let God sort it out.

  • Jimmy

    I would hesitate to say that service providers are any more dedicated to the free market than the net neutrality nuts (take Moby or the editors at Wired, for example). However, despite the current stranglehold providers have on telecommunications networks thanks to federal regulation, I do not think that MORE regulation will solve anything. It’s akin to saying the lake doesn’t have enough water because of a dam upstream, so let’s build another one downstream. That will solve everything.

    That may be the point, though. No net, no problem. I guess my point is that both sides of the argument appear to be wrong in this case. Both the state worshiping nuts on the side of “neutrality” and the fascist corporations on the side of “freedom” are both trying to use the government to get their way.

    What I don’t get is why any article I have come across about this issue hasn’t mentioned that the problem is current regulation. There is no freedom and there is no free market. I say deregulate the market completely and let the market do what it does best, natural selection. In other words, kill ‘em all and let God sort it out.

  • Jimmy

    I would hesitate to say that service providers are any more dedicated to the free market than the net neutrality nuts (take Moby or the editors at Wired, for example). However, despite the current stranglehold providers have on telecommunications networks thanks to federal regulation, I do not think that MORE regulation will solve anything. It’s akin to saying the lake doesn’t have enough water because of a dam upstream, so let’s build another one downstream. That will solve everything.

    That may be the point, though. No net, no problem. I guess my point is that both sides of the argument appear to be wrong in this case. Both the state worshiping nuts on the side of “neutrality” and the fascist corporations on the side of “freedom” are both trying to use the government to get their way.

    What I don’t get is why any article I have come across about this issue hasn’t mentioned that the problem is current regulation. There is no freedom and there is no free market. I say deregulate the market completely and let the market do what it does best, natural selection. In other words, kill ‘em all and let God sort it out.

  • Jimmy

    I would hesitate to say that service providers are any more dedicated to the free market than the net neutrality nuts (take Moby or the editors at Wired, for example). However, despite the current stranglehold providers have on telecommunications networks thanks to federal regulation, I do not think that MORE regulation will solve anything. It’s akin to saying the lake doesn’t have enough water because of a dam upstream, so let’s build another one downstream. That will solve everything.

    That may be the point, though. No net, no problem. I guess my point is that both sides of the argument appear to be wrong in this case. Both the state worshiping nuts on the side of “neutrality” and the fascist corporations on the side of “freedom” are both trying to use the government to get their way.

    What I don’t get is why any article I have come across about this issue hasn’t mentioned that the problem is current regulation. There is no freedom and there is no free market. I say deregulate the market completely and let the market do what it does best, natural selection. In other words, kill ‘em all and let God sort it out.

  • Jimmy

    I would hesitate to say that service providers are any more dedicated to the free market than the net neutrality nuts (take Moby or the editors at Wired, for example). However, despite the current stranglehold providers have on telecommunications networks thanks to federal regulation, I do not think that MORE regulation will solve anything. It’s akin to saying the lake doesn’t have enough water because of a dam upstream, so let’s build another one downstream. That will solve everything.

    That may be the point, though. No net, no problem. I guess my point is that both sides of the argument appear to be wrong in this case. Both the state worshiping nuts on the side of “neutrality” and the fascist corporations on the side of “freedom” are both trying to use the government to get their way.

    What I don’t get is why any article I have come across about this issue hasn’t mentioned that the problem is current regulation. There is no freedom and there is no free market. I say deregulate the market completely and let the market do what it does best, natural selection. In other words, kill ‘em all and let God sort it out.

  • Jimmy

    I would hesitate to say that service providers are any more dedicated to the free market than the net neutrality nuts (take Moby or the editors at Wired, for example). However, despite the current stranglehold providers have on telecommunications networks thanks to federal regulation, I do not think that MORE regulation will solve anything. It’s akin to saying the lake doesn’t have enough water because of a dam upstream, so let’s build another one downstream. That will solve everything.

    That may be the point, though. No net, no problem. I guess my point is that both sides of the argument appear to be wrong in this case. Both the state worshiping nuts on the side of “neutrality” and the fascist corporations on the side of “freedom” are both trying to use the government to get their way.

    What I don’t get is why any article I have come across about this issue hasn’t mentioned that the problem is current regulation. There is no freedom and there is no free market. I say deregulate the market completely and let the market do what it does best, natural selection. In other words, kill ‘em all and let God sort it out.