I'm sure this is a stunner to all and sundry...

[agilebrit]

But, shockingly, my child, yes, I do actually care more about something in my industry that may affect me down the road much more than I care about something that probably (a) will not affect me at all, and (b) I cannot affect in the first place

Comments

[texanfan]

The problem with the loss of net neutrality is that it allows a few large corporations to throttle smaller businesses thus killing the very free market capitalism of which you speak. Allowing a few to control the Internet is bad for business, it's bad for the consumer and it's bad for the free flow of information. That is what net neutrality is about. The regulations that are being done away with barely keep the playing field level as it is but for them to go away entirely I'm more than a little scared of what access to the Internet will look like in a fairly short amount of time.

[agilebrit]

Well, and see my addendum above, "make it easier for more private businesses to move in." From what I'm seeing of an admittedly cursory look at an article on the subject, it's actually local municipalities making it harder for new companies to come in and use the public light poles and things for the wiring needed, so something needs to be done about that.

But I do not trust the government that wants to take Rush and Hannity off the air via the Fairness Doctrine, the government that weaponized the IRS against conservative nonprofits, the government that thinks I'm a "danger" because I'm a life member of the NRA, to decide what "fair" means. In any context.

And, like I say, if bad things do happen, well, fine. Do something about it. Breaking up the monopolistic hold some of these companies have would be a good start, I think, because, hey, I don't like megacorps any more than anyone else does, really, because I think they get too big for their britches and are anti-competitive. But I saw net neutrality as a sort of pre-emptive strike

[texanfan]

I understand the distrust of the government. Their ability to bungle things is quite legendary. As I understand it, what we're losing with the loss of net neutrality is the ability to stop major telecommunication corporations such as Comcast or Spectrum from throttling the signal of competitive voices. Possibly Netflix and Amazon Prime are now too big to throttle, possibly not. But just for arguments sake, let's say the wheel turns and left wing liberals are in control. Suddenly you find your access to conservative voices shut down.

I must admit, I've been researching Theodore Roosevelt recently and it's got me thinking of the damage lack of competition can do in the marketplace.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm also seeing far too many of these politicians being bought and sold by megacorporations making something of a mockery of a system that was already pretty broken.

[werewolf_hacker]

I just don't trust the FCC, under any administration, to do right by anyone. It will always be political, especially from here on out, because somehow, while I wasn't looking, everything became political. And it sucks. But I trust the market (especially if we can free it up more! I agree that lack of competition is very damaging) far more than I trust the government. Like I say, if something egregiously awful happens, then we can take a look at yet another law. But I instinctively fall on the side of less regulation, especially from the Federal side, every time. We're drowning in regulation, and it's got to stop.

[texanfan]

Oh, and the fire your agent publisher are people I'd run away from very fast. It's a shame so many predators are out there in the publishing industry.

[werewolf_hacker]

It's one thing to say "We will not work with your agent if you sign with us because we prefer to work one on one with the author." It's quite another to say "If you have an agent for other properties that we're not publishing, and we're not even dealing with your agent, you have to fire them anyway." Like, wtf, dude, you are not that important.