NationStates Jolt Archive

Senator Stevens is Not As Dumb as He Sounds

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Posted on 7/18/2006
[Subscribe at email services, tell others, or Digg this story.]

Well, aren't we all having lots of fun heaping scorn and derisive laughter on Senator Ted Stevens for his hilariously uninformed commentary on how the internet works? The audio is all over the web, and doesn't he just sound ridiculous?

Actually, I'm not sure that a single elected official in this country, at any level of government, could speak about internet technology for longer than a few minutes without making a flub. The gap between what the private sector knows and what the government knows about technology has never been wider.

And yet, it takes some reading between the lines and a sympathetic ear, but the truth is that what he says is not entirely ridiculous. What is ridiculous is the expectation that anyone in government could be smart enough or wise enough or well informed enough to be put in charge of managing anything at all.

First let's grant the essential case of those who heap scorn on Stevens. Here is the guy who is in charge of the Senate committee that regulates communications and is charged with dealing with the problem of "net neutrality" — the burning question of how much pricing discretion service providers should have in dealing with content providers.

Stevens announced: "The internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes" — a phrase that now has its own Wikipedia entry. But had he substituted the word "pipes" he would have been right with the current jargon, so what's the big deal?

He continued: "And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material."

That sounds generally correct and he put his finger on an important problem.

He offered an anecdote of his own. "I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially."

Of course he meant email, not internet. Now, many of us have had emails delayed or bounced or culled by spamfilters or otherwise lost in the shuffle of life. We must all find the workaround for this problem, which exists precisely because there is no rationing in the technology that delivers emails.

Now, the proponents of net neutrality have effectively turned the Senator's gaffes into one nice point: how can the government be charged with regulating the internet when the decision makers themselves know next to nothing about the topic?

Of course this has been true for decades. It's been a very long time since the "best and brightest" were seen anywhere near the halls of government. Especially in the area of technology, the brains are in the private sector, and the government gets the people interested in power and manipulation of the public mind, which is to say, it gets the dregs.

Most people regret this trend. But in fact, it has its advantages. Why would we want a person with genuine talent to squander his or her abilities in the service of an unworkable system like government management? In the private sector, their brains serve the public; in the so-called public sector, their brains serve the state.

So there is no reason for regret when we find that a regulator knows less about the internet than the average MySpace maven. We ought not to regret that someone with talent stays in the productive private sector and out of the Senate. What we ought to regret is that the dregs who are on top presume to have power over us. Government is always and everywhere all thumbs. That's one reason its responsibilities ought to be as few as possible.

The irony of Stevens' comments are that they aren't as stupid as they first appear. He was drawing attention to the great failing of the internet, which is that there is no rational means of allocating the limited space that the internet provides for information flow.

What started this whole debate, to which his comments were addressed, was a few subtle hints from large communications companies that they might start charging companies like Yahoo and Google for access. Of course the content providers oppose this and are looking for a way to guarantee prime access at zero price (net neutrality).

Why are there such structural problems with the internet? Because it was designed by the government in the first place. Peter Klein explains that the problems have roots in history. So it is true that if we care about property rights and rational allocation of resources, the government should not interfere with the right of ATT and others to charge.

At the same time, Tim Swanson notes that the communications companies who are seeking to charge for access are themselves beneficiaries of monopolistic subsidies. BK Marcus explains that further complications are added by the overcrowding of the limited space on the spectrum of which the government owns all the beach-front property.


The only answer is a full-scale deregulation and privatization of the entire internet and all related services. But of course there are many interest groups that are devoted to preventing this from happening. And so long as that is true, government will continue to have its hands involved in regulating the net. And that means the likes of Stevens will have a hand in dictating its future.

So be on guard, advocates of net neutrality: your scheme guarantees a future where government will continue to police private firms, impose price controls, and impose an iron-hand on the desire of market participants to work out a rational system of exchange.

I don't know the details of what Stevens favors, but I'm sure of two things: his solution is imperfect and his proposal to keep the government out of pricing decisions doesn't go nearly far enough. Nonetheless, he is right to be suspicious of people who want something for nothing.

There is no such thing as perfect neutrality in the world of economics. Information flows must be rationed somehow. Do we want it rationed by the market price system, or the likes of the US Senate? That is what the future of this technical debate is all about

He's actually far dumber than he sounds, but that's a whole other thread.

I'm wondering why it seems to be the United States government that is deciding the laws that govern the internet. Surely it ought to fall under some kind of international body. The internet is after all internationally distributed.

Forgive my ignorance.

I'm wondering why it seems to be the United States government that is deciding the laws that govern the internet. Surely it ought to fall under some kind of international body. The internet is after all internationally distributed.

Forgive my ignorance.

now that you mention it, I agree why is it that the US government doing all its as the net is multinational?:confused:

surely it would just drive the companies over seas.

It has authority over the Internet providers that reside within the US.

In the same way it regulates/bans online gambling.

Let's see, who is Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.? A libertarian in charge of some libertarian thinktank in Alabama. And big surprise, a libertarian support the corporations controlling the pricing scheme and availability of internet services. A perfect example of why I don't like the libertarians. Fuck Rockwell and fuck the telecoms with no one's interests in mind but their own and saving their own asses from having to realize they are in the future now, not in the past. Why do a number of other countries have better and cheaper internet than the US? Because the government controls and regulates it, not self-serving telecoms who havn't realized that they are the past and will fight tooth and nail to stay there.

now that you mention it, I agree why is it that the US government doing all its as the net is multinational?:confused:

surely it would just drive the companies over seas.

Ted Stevens doesn't believe in the rest of the world. That's Unamerican. :mad:

Now be careful, or he'll put on his incredible hulk tie and go after you.

(I wish I was making this up. :( )

You do realize there are nations with LESS regulated economies then the US that DO have much cheaper Internet?

Think of all of those nations ahead of America in the Index of Economic Freedom.

It has authority over the Internet providers that reside within the US.

In the same way it regulates/bans online gambling.

Which is a clear breach of its WTO obligations. But no-one seems to care about that.

Which is a clear breach of its WTO obligations. But no-one seems to care about that.

Silly. International law only exists when it SUPPORTS the demands of advocates of big government.

You do realize there are nations with LESS regulated economies then the US that DO have much cheaper Internet?

But imagine what our zombie telecoms would do if not prevented from price gouging and extorting competitors.

But imagine what our zombie telecoms would do if not prevented from price gouging and extorting competitors.

Lower prices until you can get Internet, VOIP, and IPTV in a single, efficient package at $5 a month. This will also murder Big TV with a spork to the face, kill the FCC (through oh-my-god-we-don't-need-that-anymore), and stomp on the fresh grave of Big Landline Phone Companies.

Lower prices until you can get Internet, VOIP, and IPTV in a single, efficient package at $5 a month. This will also murder Big TV with a spork to the face, kill the FCC (through oh-my-god-we-don't-need-that-anymore), and stomp on the fresh grave of Big Landline Phone Companies.

I'm not convinced. If only because I went to school with people who ended up working for the phone company.

Lower prices until you can get Internet, VOIP, and IPTV in a single, efficient package at $5 a month. This will also murder Big TV with a spork to the face, kill the FCC (through oh-my-god-we-don't-need-that-anymore), and stomp on the fresh grave of Big Landline Phone Companies.

Don't count on it skippy. The telecoms are trying to kill off independent VoiP companies and then without competition they can charge whatever the fuck they want or kill it altogether so people have to go back to using their inefficient systems and pay them more money. And if telecoms have the ability to charge companies for internet service as they see fit as opposed to for bandwidth as it is now, they can easily shut down their "newguard" competitors in a large number of areas because legislating them to death doesn't work with big companies like Google.

Sorry I don't trust the Private sector. You can hide in your magical land where private corporations CARE about people, I'll be over in the real world.

Yes, this is exactly the problem. Regulation kills off the small competitor first.

This is why big companies ARE funding net neutrality, skippy.

I'm not convinced. If only because I went to school with people who ended up working for the phone company.

It's happening in my country now.

The Big Phone Company just got itself privatised and already there are competitors nipping at it's heels - and 500,000 people using skype out of a 6 million population.

They can't beat the VOIP people unless they get the government to help.

Yes, this is exactly the problem. Regulation kills off the small competitor first.
You arn't listening. The prevention of the telecoms from ripping competitors off helps small competitors.

This is why big companies ARE funding net neutrality, skippy.
Oh of course, they are funding it, that is why they are fighting tooth and nail to stop it. :rolleyes:


The Big Phone Company just got itself privatised and already there are competitors nipping at it's heels - and 500,000 people using skype out of a 6 million population.
Well, here's a surprise, THE US IS FUCKING DIFFERENT AND SHIT HAS BEEN PRIVATIZED FOR DECADES. Net Neutrality is not a move to nationalize or regulate telecoms, it is a move to stop the telecoms from having a legal means from extorting their competitors to death.

Oh of course, they are funding it, that is why they are fighting tooth and nail to stop it.

Look at the people funding net neutrality efforts.

It's Google. Microsoft. Amazon. Not exactly 'the little guy'.

Well, here's a surprise, THE US IS FUCKING DIFFERENT AND SHIT HAS BEEN PRIVATIZED FOR DECADES.

So, you can choose your landline-phone company now? For short-range calls as well?

I'm wondering why it seems to be the United States government that is deciding the laws that govern the internet. Surely it ought to fall under some kind of international body. The internet is after all internationally distributed.

Forgive my ignorance.

Because in the US, especially the State Governments, they are trying to figure out how to place a sales tax on internet purchases. If I buy an item at a store, I have to pay sales tax. But if I buy it on line, if that company does not have a location in my State, I pay no sales tax. The States stand to gain several billion dollars on internet sales taxes.

Vic

Oh of course, they are funding it, that is why they are fighting tooth and nail to stop it. :rolleyes:

Telecoms are against it, while other companies like Allanea mentioned are for it.

Telecoms are against it, while other companies like Allanea mentioned are for it.

Because those are the people the telecoms would be ripping off and aim to extort. They have named Google and Amazon, but the rest of them are targets too. Telecoms are trying to hold on to a long-outdated world that they control and now, half-way realizing this is the future, they realize they still control the internet pipes, they are going to try and use that fact to extort money from big companies, who already pay their fair share for service.

He isn't in the US and has no idea what the fuck he is talking about.

He isn't in the US and has no idea what the fuck he is talking about.

Yes, because one clearly can't be informed unless IS in a country.

Here's a hint:

Thomas Paine wasn't in the US when he wrote 'Common Sense'. Every word was still true though.

Yes, because one clearly can't be informed unless IS in a country.
You have shown again and again in this and the other thread that you understand neither the situation nor the facts relevant to it.


Thomas Paine wasn't in the US when he wrote 'Common Sense'. Every word was still true though.
That has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

No, you have merely STATED repeatedly I do not understand. You have yet to prove it.

Oh, and here's a guy that IS in the US. (http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2006/ps2.24voiceofcautiononnetneutrality.html)

No, you have merely STATED repeatedly I do not understand. You have yet to prove it.

Let's see, repeatedly addressing the wrong issues; trying to compare it to your nation where telecoms have only been nationalized, thus implying this is a movie to nationalize and regulate telecoms; confusing the telecom's corporate targets with the telecoms (yes, you did when you said they support regulation because it gets rid of their small competitors. The telecoms are not small and are trying to get rid of ALL competitors big and small and the death of net neutrality would let them). Etc.

PS. Kahn is either confused or being purposefully ignorant, like the other people opposing network neutrality. Those who use more bandwidth pay for more bandwidth, the end. What the telecoms want is to be able to charge that fee and an extra fee on the pretense that those corporations are jamming up lines for the average user, which is egregious bullshit. Prices for the average user will not drop. This is just an excuse for the telecoms to charge more while providing the same level of service all around. They have done this shit before and Kahn should know better.

The telecoms are not small and are trying to get rid of ALL competitors big and small and the death of net neutrality would let them).

Yes, I say it again. Telecoms support existing telecom regulation (NOT NN, but the already EXISTING stuff) because it protects their status.

And there's no 'death of net neutrality' because net neutrality DOES NOT EXIST YET. The relevant bill has not yet passed.

So far the doomsday bullshit of the NN advocates has not come to pass.

Let's see, repeatedly addressing the wrong issues; trying to compare it to your nation where telecoms have only been nationalized,

Observe again what I am saying: In my nation, landline telecoms have been nationalised. Then they were privatised and there was ONLY ONE company. Then it changed.

thus implying this is a movie to nationalize and regulate telecoms

It's a move ot FURTHER regulate telecoms which are already regulated..

On Kahn again, the FCC's stopping of the antitrust moves against Vonage are under the current system, a net neutrality system. With that gone, a new game begins. Why does he oppose changing the current structure if the current structure obviously works? The new structure would benefit who? The telecoms, not the average user. If Kahn believes that natural bidding wars for content would stop telecoms from trying to screw over user access to Google or Amazon, why are all the telecoms together on this issue? Why would they make the threats against them specifically if they knew denying user access to them on their exclusive network would endanger their business?

Availability and short reply times is important for every business. The removing of net neutrality will lead to higher investment costs for every newly-founded netbusiness to bribe the telcos into not making the pages crawl, it will severely hurt the Linux-sites, which on pro-bono basis offer CD-images and the average surfer will be pissed off more often at the lack of speed.

The current system is NOT a Net Neutrality system - note that hte Net Neutrality bills in congress HAVE NOT passed yet.

And, Rejis: If I were a provider, and I guaranteed to you on a free-market basis that I would not discriminate or block websites from you in any way, would you prefer me over the guy that blocks Amazon? BINGO.

Yes, I say it again. Telecoms support existing telecom regulation (NOT NN, but the already EXISTING stuff) because it protects their status.
No, they don't. The current system is a net neutral system. Telecoms are not allowed to charge some companies more than others or some people more than others for the same service and have to let everyone access the same service equally. They oppose this system and have tried to get in oppositional legislation to change it.

And there's no 'death of net neutrality' because net neutrality DOES NOT EXIST YET. The relevant bill has not yet passed.
You are neither listening nor are in the US, stop.

So far the doomsday bullshit of the NN advocates has not come to pass.
Because we are in a net neutral system, pay some fucking attention or shut the fuck up.


Observe again what I am saying: In my nation, landline telecoms have been nationalised.
This isn't your nation, shut up. Maybe I should start a topic and start discussing your nations telecom situation like I know what I am talking about? Maybe then you would get the point.


It's a move ot FURTHER regulate telecoms which are already regulated..
It is not a move to further regulate anything, it is a move to keep the status quo and prevent the telecoms from legislating through stuff that would benefit them.

The current system is NOT a Net Neutrality system - note that hte Net Neutrality bills in congress HAVE NOT passed yet.
Since I know you don't read anything I say, define net neutrality without quoting me.

The current system is NOT a Net Neutrality system - note that hte Net Neutrality bills in congress HAVE NOT passed yet.

Net Neutrality is a fact, even though not a law yet.

And, Rejis: If I were a provider, and I guaranteed to you on a free-market basis that I would not discriminate or block websites from you in any way, would you prefer me over the guy that blocks Amazon? BINGO.
Actually, could you block Deutsche Telekom as well? and certain other layer-ads-pages? tyvm!

In other news, you are missing the point.

If the telecoms know limiting access to Amazon and Google would hurt their business, why did they out and out threaten them? Because they are united on the issue and know that if this doesn't pass and the telecom's legislation does, there is nothing Amazon and Google can do but pay and then Google would no longer be able to start pressuring the telecoms with potentially free internet for the average user and would have stop offering so much free stuff and Amazon would have to increase prices and the telecoms could enter into partnerships to offer their own substitutes.

Net Neutrality is a fact, even though not a law yet.

What is debated is: Should the government enforce, by law, a practice where a company has no control over the stuff that goes through it's infrastructure. Note: at current a situation exists in the US where the companies, BY AND LARGE, do not discriminate content.

That is, net neutrality exists as a fact, but there is no law about it.

The point I am trying to make I oppose such a law.

So far, people Congress repeatedly tried to make it a law. The following attempts got to vote so far:

Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 - Net Neutrality provisions removed, bill dead by virtue of 109th Congress ending.

Network Neutrality Act of 2006 - PWNed in comittie, 31-22.

Communications, Consumer’s Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 - PWNed in comittee.

Three other bills are pending.

So far:

America: 3, Regulators: 0

If the telecoms know limiting access to Amazon and Google would hurt their business, why did they out and out threaten them?
If they feel that the two companies are not paying them their worth, do you think they are just charitably going to acquiesce? It is not as if either Amazon or Google are poor. Their problem with this is that their costs will be pushed up to reflect their real value. Do you think they will give up the bargain they have right now?

Because they are united on the issue and know that if this doesn't pass and the telecom's legislation does, there is nothing Amazon and Google can do but pay and then Google would no longer be able to start pressuring the telecoms with potentially free internet for the average user and would have stop offering so much free stuff and Amazon would have to increase prices and the telecoms could enter into partnerships to offer their own substitutes.
"Free", at whose expense?

What is debated is: Should the government enforce, by law, a practice where a company has no control over the stuff that goes through it's infrastructure. Note: at current a situation exists in the US where the companies, BY AND LARGE, do not discriminate content.

Because it is a net neutral system. Stop arguing if you don't know what you are saying.

If they feel that the two companies are not paying them their worth, do you think they are just charitably going to acquiesce? It is not as if either Amazon or Google are poor. Their problem with this is that their costs will be pushed up to reflect their real value. Do you think they will give up the bargain they have right now?
They pay for what they use, actually. They pay for more than what they use because that is the only way to stop services from being interrupted.


"Free", at whose expense?
Google's.

The only people that oppose net neutrality are ignorant foreigners, telecoms, and libertarians. Go figure.

Because it is a net neutral system. Stop arguing if you don't know what you are saying.

No, the law in America does not mandate net neutrality.

The fact most internet access is not discriminatory means such a law is unneeded.

No, the law in America does not mandate net neutrality.
Net neutrality is not legislation. You again show your ignorance of the facts, you lose again.

The fact most internet access is not discriminatory means such a law is unneeded.
I would agree if the telecoms hadn't overtly threatened to change the current net neutral situation.

Net neutrality is not legislation. You again show your ignorance of the facts, you lose again.

Considering the original article used the term to define 'a set of legislation to legally mandate neutrality', I win. At life.

They pay for what they use, actually. They pay for more than what they use because that is the only way to stop services from being interrupted.

Some evidence of this?

Out of curiosity, should companies like Sony and Nintendo be able to bring in legislation that would force the providers of their components (and distribution networks) to keep costs down? It is a well known fact that Sony sells its consoles at a loss.


The only people that oppose net neutrality are ignorant foreigners, telecoms, and libertarians. Go figure.
How unexpected, an argument from intimidation.

:rolleyes:

Considering the original article used the term to define 'a set of legislation to legally mandate neutrality', I win. At life.

Oh, the article by some Alabamian libertarian? Libertarians are already crackpots by default, but one from Alabama? He has some extra problems. And you can't define net neutrality, still. You fail at this argument until you can. Knowing what net neutrality is is at the core of the debate.

So I'm in company with America's most successful corporations AND Nobel prize winners. Yay.

How unexpected, an argument from intimidation.

Agrumentum ad hominem for a comeback? Wouldn't have expected that :rolleyes:

So I'm in company with America's most successful corporations AND Nobel prize winners. Yay.

Most successful corporations? Telecoms? If they are the most successful corporations it is because of their lobbying the government to keep them in business and decades of antitrust and monopolistic maneuvers in combination with lobbying to get legislatures to ignore them.

Funny thing, I can't seem to find where Rockwell has won a Nobel prize.

Oh, the article by some Alabamian libertarian? Libertarians are already crackpots by default, but one from Alabama? He has some extra problems
Because you disagree with them?

He's actually far dumber than he sounds, but that's a whole other thread.

Yes and yes. I don't believe that he knew what he was talking about. Even if articles like this can be found all over the internets, he said... well...

But this service is now going to go through the internet and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.

Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.

They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.

It's a series of tubes.

And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?

Do you know why?

Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.

Because you disagree with them?
Because I see the libertarian's policies regarding corporate regulation as absurd and ignorant, especially from a bunch of elitists who should know better.

Speaking of people who should know better, Dr Kahn should know better than to oppose net neutrality from reading his editorial.

Because I see the libertarian's policies regarding corporate regulation as ignorant and absurd, especially by a bunch of elitists who should know better.
Funny, I'd say exactly the same of government regulators and economists and their supporters. I'm not going to continue this - there is no point.

Funny, I'd say exactly the same of government regulators and economists and their supporters. I'm not going to continue this - there is no point.

Corporations, especially in the US, have no history of doing what is best for the consumer or for their employees. The idea that if the government didn't regulate them they would magically be more interested in doing those things than they were previous to the enactment of the regulation is stupid, at best.

Corporations, especially in the US, have no history of doing what is best for the consumer or for their employees. The idea that if the government didn't regulate them they would magically be more interested in doing those things than they were previous to the enactment of the regulation is stupid, at best.
Libertarians need to get out of this magical world in which they believe the Company CARES more about people than profits.

Corporations, especially in the US, have no history of doing what is best for the consumer or for their employees. The idea that if the government didn't regulate them they would magically be more interested in doing those things than they were previous to the enactment of the regulation is stupid, at best.

Says who?

Wasn't it eeeeeeevil Ford that made cheap, affordable cars while raising wages?

My staff sent me an internet on friday, and I didn't get it until today. Why?

I'll tell you why. When people are streaming a dozen movies, or even a WHOLE BOOK (:eek:), you can't get your internets on time. :(

Funny thing, I can't seem to find where Rockwell has won a Nobel prize.

Other libertarians did, though. For their libertarian views, no less. Google Friedman.

Other libertarians did, though. For their libertarian views, no less. Google Friedman.

Again, nothing to do with the topic.

Says who?

Wasn't it eeeeeeevil Ford that made cheap, affordable cars while raising wages?

Sure, when he could make a profit doing it. As soon as it became cheaper to have the manufacturing done overseas, it was "Nice working with you, we're moving the plant to [fill in the appropriate country]." Corporations will always take care of themselves first and the workers second (or third or fourth). They hire public relations firms to make them appear to care, but they don't unless they are threatened by unions or governments. It's just the nature of the beast. Your boss is not your friend, trust me on this.

Says who?

Wasn't it eeeeeeevil Ford that made cheap, affordable cars while raising wages?

Henry Ford died a long time ago.

Sure, when he could make a profit doing it. As soon as it became cheaper to have the manufacturing done overseas, it was "Nice working with you, we're moving the plant to [fill in the appropriate country]." Corporations will always take care of themselves first and the workers second (or third or fourth). They hire public relations firms to make them appear to care, but they don't unless they are threatened by unions or governments. It's just the nature of the beast. Your boss is not your friend, trust me on this.

Well, that's because people aren't willing to pay more to have that product made in the United States. Really, all that corporation is doing is giving people the product they want at the price they are willing to pay; if they didn't do that, they would sell almost no cars and everyone, not just the production workers, would lose their jobs when the company went under.

In fact, the main reason why the US automakers have to ship those jobs overseas in the first place is because they can't compete...and there's nothing wrong with that because the other alternative is being forced to buy an inferior product for a higher price, like we were in the 1970's when quotas kept superior Japanese and European products out of the market, giving Ford and GM the ability to overcharge and abuse the consumer.

Clearly what some of you are failing to understand is that as of right now, the US is still in a net neutral system. BUT THIS IS BEING CHANGED.

THAT is why this legislation is necessary. The telecoms KNOW this move is unpopular, so they're trying to get Congress to pass laws to support this move. Not to permit it: It's already possible and legal. They'd just rather have someone else to blame when the public complains. "Not our fault! Congress SAID we could!"

This legislation is essentially there to BLOCK the other legislation.

Well, that's because people aren't willing to pay more to have that product made in the United States.
Guess where all the foreign manufacturers' cars are made.

Clearly what some of you are failing to understand is that as of right now, the US is still in a net neutral system. BUT THIS IS BEING CHANGED.

THAT is why this legislation is necessary. The telecoms KNOW this move is unpopular, so they're trying to get Congress to pass laws to support this move. Not to permit it: It's already possible and legal. They'd just rather have someone else to blame when the public complains. "Not our fault! Congress SAID we could!"

This legislation is essentially there to BLOCK the other legislation.

Exactly, one other person that actually knows what the fuck is going on.