Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Truth About Net Neutrality Job Loss

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the watch-out-for-net-neutrality-death-panels dept.

Communications 187

snydeq writes "Robert X. Cringely investigates recent claims that passing net neutrality regulations will result in nearly 1.5 million lost jobs by 2020, finding the report at the center of these claims suspect. The report, put forward by The Brattle Group, conjectures that net neutrality adoption would curtail broadband growth by 16 percent, costing 342,065 jobs in that sector alone. The 'total economy-wide impact,' however, of such a policy would result in five times as many job losses by 2020, they say. The study is the latest of several weighing the economic impact of net neutrality, including those by law schools (PDF) and free-market think tanks alike. The Brattle Group report (PDF), however, should be met with skepticism, Cringely argues, in large part because the lobbying firm who paid for the report, Mobile Future, is anchored most notably by AT&T. Moreover, the report is 'based entirely on a single assumption: Regulating US telecoms in the late 1990s and early 2000s hurt them to the tune of about 15 percent per quarter, relative to the cable companies.' Yet, as he points out, regulation was not alone in causing this sector shrinkage. In fact, the Baby Bells' own bureaucratic intransigence was much to blame."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

you get fat and slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31990446)

after fifty years of being the boss hog. They just had to slim down like the rest of the companies in around that time. Oh yeah, and there was some real big booms and busts around that time. But surely gubment regulation was to blame; it sure does correlate!

How can maintaining the status quo cause job loss? (4, Informative)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990490)

So how exactly would passing a law that basically codifies current practices cause job loss?

I have yet to hear of any ISP charging Youtube extortion money. My files are still downloading at 2MB/s. Net neutrality legislation would just prevent future abuses by ISPs.

Outlawing all forms of traffic shaping technology, sure, I can see how that might cause a hit to ISP's profits, but the majority of proposed net neutrality legislation allows for some traffic shaping, it just prevents "pay up or else we'll make sure no one can access your website" levels of manipulation.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (4, Insightful)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990780)

It costs them jobs the same way minimum wage, hours regulations, vacation time, health insurance, OSHA, and all of the other restrictions on whatever the hell you want to do business do. Just because its true doesn't mean its the right answer.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31990874)

Your realism is most refreshing. I can't mod you up for "+1 SomebodyFuckingUnderstandsTheRealWorld" so "+1 Insightful" will have to do.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991126)

It costs them jobs the same way minimum wage, hours regulations, vacation time, health insurance, OSHA, and all of the other restrictions on whatever the hell you want to do business do.

So in other words, it does not cost jobs.

Remember, all those laws and benefits were in effect during a time when we had 4% unemployment (aka "full employment").

Minimum wage does not cost jobs. Vacation time, benefits, OSHA, etc do NOT cost jobs. In fact, after OSHA went into effect, total employment in the US went up for decades. Vacation time and health insurance started showing up in benefits packages after the big war, and the most prosperous decades for the US and for the middle and working-classes generally were yet to come.

Maybe it sounds "truthy" to you to say those things, CyprusBlue113, but that doesn't make it so.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (3, Insightful)

gangien (151940) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991342)

Minimum wage does not cost jobs.

umm yes it does.

It's an increase in cost that has to be paid. whether that's not hiring an additional worker, firing a current one, increasing prices to customers or whatever. it certainly does cost jobs.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (4, Insightful)

zifferent (656342) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991820)

May cost actually jobs but ends in a net increase of jobs.

Follow along, you might learn something.

Thought experiment:
Assume that we got rid of min wage, and according to your argument instead of hiring one person at min wage the business could get away at hiring 2 people at half minimum wage (it would never happen in the real world. ITRW a business would just cut wages and keep the employment the same; keeping the resultant increase in efficiency for themselves but whatever) Those two people would be earning much less and could only realistically afford to live in shanty-towns with barely enough money left over to feed themselves, much less add any utility to the greater economy. Hence, the money doesn't move around the economy. Hence, no multiplier; no extra goods bought and sold and importantly no jobs created upstream of the way-less-than-poverty wages.

It might even be argued that wages below a certain level have a negative utility to the economy. The externalities not picked up by the slave-wage employer are passed on to society as a whole contribute to a net-loss of real jobs. Obviously this kind of thing can snowball and pick off previously higher paid jobs as it goes, pushing wages further down as unemployment rises. Creating a real world with haves and have-nots without a buffering middle-class.

Keep believing that the free market fairy will come and magically make things right; leaving goodies under your pillow as you sleep.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1, Insightful)

gangien (151940) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992068)

Assume that we got rid of min wage, and according to your argument instead of hiring one person at min wage the business could get away at hiring 2 people at half minimum wage (it would never happen in the real world. ITRW a business would just cut wages and keep the employment the same; keeping the resultant increase in efficiency for themselves but whatever)

You're saying that if a buisness could cut the wages of employees, keep the employees, it would then keep the money for itself, and all that would happen is the buisness would make more money? You're making a lot of huge assumptions there, that ITRW, would not happen.

Those two people would be earning much less and could only realistically afford to live in shanty-towns with barely enough money left over to feed themselves, much less add any utility to the greater economy.

And unless economic conditions were horrible, they would leave, or their production would fall. Or you truly believe you can get something for nothing, so easily? Hey why don't you start a buisness, you can hire only women as they only make 2/3s of what men make, you can make a killing and become rich. That obviously will not work, just like your situation.

Keep believing that the free market fairy will come and magically make things right; leaving goodies under your pillow as you sleep.

no need for any fairies. I'll type this on my computer that goes through the internet, then i'll leave work, drive in my car, to my apartment, eat some nice food, ect ect. Why? because of the market. Not because of some stupid belief that we can regulate success and a better life. Free markets are not perfect, but they are far better than anything else we've tried.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992540)

I'll type this on my computer that goes through the internet, then i'll leave work, drive in my car, to my apartment, eat some nice food, ect ect. Why? because of the market. Not because of some stupid belief that we can regulate success and a better life.

Oh, this is fun! Let's take this piece by piece:

my computer

... based on technologies developed for government contracts ...

that goes through the internet

... that used be called ARPAnet ...

then i'll leave work

... at a company that relies on the courts to enforce its contracts ...

drive in my car

... in a car that probably won't kill you because of DOT safety regulations, on roads built with public funds ...

to my apartment

... that would be an unsafe rat-trap if not for housing regulations, and where you have a reasonable assurance that you'll be able to continue living because the government won't let your landlord throw you out on the street any time he feels like it ...

eat some nice food

... that's been certified by the FDA ...

ect ect.

... well, okay, clearly there are some failings in your education, but that's probably your fault, not the fault of the underpaid and overworked public school teachers who tried to drum some knowledge into your thick skull. The rest of it, you enjoy courtesy of your local, state, and federal government whether you are capable of understanding this or not.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (-1, Flamebait)

gangien (151940) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992868)

This argument was about min wage. not about any and all government regulation/spending. offtopic.

Funny, when I do that, I get modded down. YOu get modded up lol. But I'll respond anyways.

my computer

... based on technologies developed for government contracts ...

that goes through the internet

... that used be called ARPAnet ...

Both because of defense spending, which is a legitmate function of government. It's even in the constitution.

then i'll leave work

... at a company that relies on the courts to enforce its contracts ...

enforcing contracts, another legitimate function of government.

drive in my car

... in a car that probably won't kill you because of DOT safety regulations, on roads built with public funds ...

Ahh here we go. I would be for privatizing highways/freeways. But, oh the deadliest thing we encounter on our day to day lives, and one of the biggest sources of frustration, and also the biggest involvement with government in our day to day lives. hardly coincidental. But then, atleast congress is allowed to create postal roads, so it's legitimate.

to my apartment

... that would be an unsafe rat-trap if not for housing regulations, and where you have a reasonable assurance that you'll be able to continue living because the government won't let your landlord throw you out on the street any time he feels like it ...

eat some nice food

... that's been certified by the FDA ...

  Gee, i'll get right into moving into that rat nest place, and eating food that will kill me. Good thing those government agencies are protecting me! Except, they're not. The fact that no one would return to a grocery story that consistently served spoiled food, keeps that from happening. The fact that no one wants to live in a horrible apartment, keeps the apartments nice. But hey, i did sign a lease, and breaking of a contract, would be a place for government to get involved.

... well, okay, clearly there are some failings in your education, but that's probably your fault, not the fault of the underpaid and overworked public school teachers who tried to drum some knowledge into your thick skull. The rest of it, you enjoy courtesy of your local, state, and federal government whether you are capable of understanding this or not.

Obviously, I bow down to your superior intellect. But hey, government schools are doing so well, let's keep them! oh wait, another case of government run stuff, failing. Wait let's give them more money, that will fix the problems! except it's been tried, and doesn't.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (4, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992998)

The fact that no one would return to a grocery story that consistently served spoiled food, keeps that from happening. The fact that no one wants to live in a horrible apartment, keeps the apartments nice.

Unless, of course, you were working at Walmart in Mexico prior to 2008, or in mining and logging towns in the 19th century. You might want to look up the concepts of company towns and scrip.

Obviously, I bow down to your superior intellect.

I don't know about your intellect, but your knowledge seems to be a bit lacking.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31993068)

Oh, this is fun! Let's take this piece by piece:

Yes! Let's!

my computer

... based on technologies developed for government contracts ...

... but not even remotely practical until *commercial* uses were discovered for the technology...

that goes through the internet

... that used be called ARPAnet ...

... that remained a niche technology until DARPA stopped preventing it from being used for commercial purposes...

then i'll leave work

... at a company that relies on the courts to enforce its contracts ...

... even though in the English tradition of law, the courts preceded the State and in fact were coopted by them to evil purpose...

drive in my car

... in a car that probably won't kill you because of DOT safety regulations, on roads built with public funds ...

... even though DOT "safety regulations" are heavily influenced by manufacturers (see "regulatory capture"), and even though public roads are a legendary sinkhole of waste, graft, fraud, and mismanagement...

(note: the existence of "safety regulations" has very little indeed to do with whether or not your car will "kill you", a fallacious trope anyway if ever I've heard one)

to my apartment

... that would be an unsafe rat-trap if not for housing regulations, and where you have a reasonable assurance that you'll be able to continue living because the government won't let your landlord throw you out on the street any time he feels like it ...

... except for all those places that *aren't* unsafe rat-traps, because people actually like to not live in rat-traps (and if you haven't got any money, is it better to live in a rat-trap, or on the street?)...

Oh, and: ... even though the "free-market" instrument that prevents the landlord from throwing you out is called a "lease"...

eat some nice food

... that's been certified by the FDA ...

... "regulatory capture"; see policies like "beef farmers cannot test their own cows for mad-cow disease", that sort of thing.

ect ect.

... well, okay, clearly there are some failings in your education, but that's probably your fault, not the fault of the underpaid and overworked public school teachers who tried to drum some knowledge into your thick skull. The rest of it, you enjoy courtesy of your local, state, and federal government whether you are capable of understanding this or not.

Clearly there are many failings in your education; instead of learning how things really work and how all of the above are produced by individual people working for their own benefit, you believe in a world of lemonade rivers and lollipop trees, where government makes good things come about just because it says so. I will gently suggest that this is a ludicrous belief-system on its face.

Here's a hint: People buy what they *want*, given the resources available to them at the time. This, and nothing else, is the definition of the "free market". All of the regulations you cite have the side-effect of removing choices from those with fewer resources; your wishing that everybody could afford goods of the same quality does not make it true. Men without cars make a choice to drive unsafe automobiles all the time, because the alternative, "not having a car", doesn't work. Men who live in "rat-traps" do so because it is preferable to living in the street. Denying people things because it offends your sense of "social justice" that those things are not of the best possible quality is wickedly unfair to *everybody* concerned.

I do give you points for being able to parrot the anticapitalist talking-points verbatim. Clearly you spent plenty of time listening in *those* lessons.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (2, Interesting)

yuberries (1766190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993400)

I should also add that government can never produce anything to raise the standards of living. It can only shuffle resources around trying to look good, but even on a collectivist standpoint, its just a zero-sum intervention.
Only people freely being able to transact and produce can increase a society's "value", if such a thing were to exist externally at all (does not).
Only individuals can decide what's best for themselves. An involuntary collective certainly cannot.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (0, Flamebait)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992738)

You're saying that if a buisness could cut the wages of employees, keep the employees, it would then keep the money for itself, and all that would happen is the buisness would make more money? You're making a lot of huge assumptions there, that ITRW, would not happen.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. What a clown...

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (2, Insightful)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992748)

You never worked for fast food. Entry level shit job managers care about nothing but the bottom line knowing if, you don't like what they make you do for how much they want to pay you there are 100s of applications waiting in there office with the numbers of desperate unemployed people willing to do your shit job for less (at least for awhile before the cycle starts again)

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1, Interesting)

gangien (151940) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992948)

You never worked for fast food. Entry level shit job managers care about nothing but the bottom line knowing if, you don't like what they make you do for how much they want to pay you there are 100s of applications waiting in there office with the numbers of desperate unemployed people willing to do your shit job for less (at least for awhile before the cycle starts again)

So you're not willing to do a job for a certain amount of money, so you leave. There's something wrong with this? The people working these jobs are making a trade. I've never personally worked fast food, But many people have, the majority of people i've met, don't speak so negatively about it. Some who had shitty managers do.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992534)

Thought experiment:

Well said, friend.

I only wish I could have made the point so clearly and convincingly.

Conservatives just don't want to admit that the years of greatest growth and economic strength across class lines occurred in the US after some of the strictest regulations, most socialistic programs, and widest influence of organized labor were in effect. Social safety nets, strong regulation, public works and collective bargaining make for a better, more equitable society, but they also make for a more dynamic and successful private sector.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

yuberries (1766190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993130)

Has humanity also thrived due to slavery for a portion of time?

Who are you to say in history, that the forceful actions of a mob was good or bad for a collection of individuals?It certainly wasn't good for the slaves. And it certainly isn't good for the taxpayer. For the slave would rather be free, and the taxpayer would rather not pay taxes.

How is it that the collectivist cannot allow its neighbors to run a business in peace, but then insist that those same ignoramuses should participate in much more influential politics? Which is it, are people free to do as they may or not? Are we all so dumb that we need overlords, yet smart enough to vote the right ones in?

Sorry for going offtopic.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31992672)

Why should one follow your thought experiments when there is whole body of research done on the topic of minimum wage? Economists don't necessarily agree on this 100% but the lion share of the researchers in the field would agree that a minimum wage above the market price for labor increases unemployment (especially for low-skilled workers). You can look up the work of David Neumark for example who has done much research in that field.

Having said that. I think the argument that net neutrality would cost that many jobs is bogus.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (2, Insightful)

Moridin42 (219670) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992728)

Follow along with this thought experiment.

Lets say that minimum wage is $7 even. Joe is earning $7.50. Minimum wage is raised to $7.50. Joe probably isn't going to be getting a raise. But now prices have gone up a little to pay for the increase to the minimum wage earners who got a legislated raise. So Joe is poorer than he was before. And so is every one else who wasn't earning minimum wage, but you probably have more empathy for somebody earning on the low-but-not-minimum part of the pay scale.

Minimum wage might be economically neutral (that is to say, gains by the minimum wage earners would be offset by losses to everybody not a minimum wage earner) if all work was entirely necessary. But minimum wage work probably isn't absolutely necessary. So if unskilled work that isn't necessary to a business is worth some flat amount of money, when minimum wage is raised, they'll respond by dropping a position to pay the remaining positions the new minimum. Or by keeping the staff, but telling them to knock off earlier. Any unfinished work, say sweeping the floors, is a non-monetary cost passed on to consumers.

Actually, there are lots of ways to pass on the costs of minimum wage. As mentioned, dropping a position and having your current staff work a little less. Employers could also respond, instead of dropping minimum wage positions, by extending the period between renovation/redecoration. Such a response causes the job losses to be felt in construction and associated industry. There is also inflation, which obviously not controllable by the employer, but is a natural artifact of the prices of goods and services going up when no actual additional value has been contributed.

Keep kidding yourself that legislating a raise in cost for anything, doesn't lead to less of something complementary in response. Minimum wage legislation can't make workers more efficient or more resources available. It could, but doesn't, mandate the number of positions or the hours those positions must work.

the tl;dr of it: If workers don't become more efficient, or more resources (not money) are not available, legislation that raises the cost of labor will result in less labor. Either through fewer hires or fewer hours.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (3, Insightful)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993074)

Even if we presume everything you say is true, I would much rather live in the situation you describe than that of sweatshops paying a few cents an hour. This, too, would have negative ripple effects. By failing to set a "floor" on what a wage is, you lower the wages of higher wage workers as well. If fast food is paying fifty cents an hour, a buck an hour for management is a nice raise. It also limits the ability of corporations to "externalize" the cost of not paying a living wage to social welfare systems funded by the public, while enjoying all the benefits of cheap labor.

At least with a minimum wage, it matters if you get hired or not. I'll gladly trade a slightly lower chance of getting hired for a better wage once I do. And if my hours are fewer, is that really a loss either? Am I better off working sixty hours a week at fifty cents an hour (with no overtime regulations), or forty hours a week at $7 an hour (with overtime if I'm periodically needed more)? Which would you choose, given the option?

Reality isn't economic theory. The people being hired are human beings. Given that, there are interests of human dignity and basic needs, not just the "optimal economic outcome". If the "optimal" outcome crushes a bunch of people under its wheels, it isn't the optimal outcome. As it stands, until the economy hit the crapper, most people were able to find work just fine, minimum wage notwithstanding.

The same is true of many other regulations. I'm very happy to take higher prices in exchange for safety in both products and the workplace. Lower prices don't do me a whole lot of good dead, and they certainly don't do me much good if I've got to regularly pay massive hospital bills to recover from illnesses and injuries caused from unsafe work environments and products and don't have a mechanism to recover damages from those responsible.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

Moridin42 (219670) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993450)

Perhaps you didn't notice, but I made no ethical judgements in what I said. Zero. But this odd belief that somehow government intervention frees us from the problems of resource allocation does not serve us well.

Not all "lost jobs" are necessarily bad. But a failure to acknowledge the losses tends to lead to overapplication of the protocol generating the losses. That can be bad.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (2, Insightful)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991948)

No, it means that the business will have the same 5 workers at $7.50 instead of $0.03 per hour. Would you really want to have companies with the ability to keep pay rates the same for 60 years with nobody forcing them to pace with inflation?

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

gangien (151940) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992152)

No, it means that the business will have the same 5 workers at $7.50 instead of $0.03 per hour. Would you really want to have companies with the ability to keep pay rates the same for 60 years with nobody forcing them to pace with inflation?

Well gee, i can imagine all the employees you'll have offering 3 cents an hour! lol. Of course, if you offered other benefits(such as the case of an internship), you might get some. But then the pay wouldn't really just be 3 cents an hour.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993252)

And in your brilliant comment have you thought that history shows this to be the natural way of a free market? 19th century America is full of lessons you seem to have manage to not learn. Do you think history wouldn't repeat itself by doing the exact same thing?

The problem with your thought process is that it wouldn't be one company suddenly paying $0.03 per hour it would be the majority that currently pay minimum wage. In every country where no minimum wage exists even today you wind up with company owned towns and basically sweatshop labor.

Don't expect companies to display behavior that is good for society as a whole, they will show you again and again that they have their own interests first and that's exactly what we expect.

Strong regulation still allows companies to compete so it doesn't degrade the idea of a free market because as we know, nothing is ever free. What good is a free market when the natural progression is for one company to own everything? Then it ceases to be a free market. Do you see the catch there?

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993454)

I seriously don't understand how people don't realize that government regulation and intervention is the only thing preventing one corporation from, quite literally, owning everything from government to housing to your time and your mind. This is why government needs to be separated from corporate influence in the strongest ways possible, and government needs to promote unbiased policies regardless as to the "goal" of the legislation. Environmental and national security policy need to be just as unbiased as economic policy, and there needs to be a fairly clear indication of when corporations have gotten too big and need to be broken up. We have quite a few companies that are somewhere in the area of that borderline; they may be just under or over it, but we can't hesitate to act.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992284)

No, it doesn't. And I wish that people would quit claiming that it does. The minimum wage laws have little if any effect on the number of jobs or the standard of living.

In the US, the minimum wage is set so incredibly low that it's more or less below the cost of living in many areas. Around here, I'm making nearly $13 an hour and I have a hard time finding a place to live that doesn't eat up half my take home. Here in WA, we've got the highest minimum wage in the nation, and it's still below the cost of living in parts of the state.

What does have an effect on jobs though are things like work place safety standards and currency manipulation.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

gangien (151940) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992388)

OK you can just increase the costs of business, and there are no side effects!

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992790)

No, it doesn't. And I wish that people would quit claiming that it does. The minimum wage laws have little if any effect on the number of jobs or the standard of living.

Cool. So increase the minimum wage to $100 an hour and everyone will be rich.

The only time that the minimum wage has no impact on jobs is when people are already paid that much or more... in which case it's useless. Any time it pushes wages above market rates, is merely insures that people whose labour isn't worth that much will be unemployed all their life... in which case it's evil.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992406)

Minimum wage does not cost jobs.

umm yes it does.

It's an increase in cost that has to be paid. whether that's not hiring an additional worker, firing a current one, increasing prices to customers or whatever. it certainly does cost jobs.

That's what you think it does. But do you have any hard evidence to this effect? GPP provided actual data; you're providing a model. If there's a conflict between model and data, then it's probably not the data that's wrong.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

gangien (151940) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992616)

That's what you think it does. But do you have any hard evidence to this effect? GPP provided actual data; you're providing a model. If there's a conflict between model and data, then it's probably not the data that's wrong.

where did GPP provide data?

So feel free to provide some. Of course the problem is, these sorts of things are always really murky. And there are plenty of other external factors potentially in play.

here's an opinion expressed far better than i can http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk [youtube.com]

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31992424)

yes it does

No it doesn't.

Minimum wage doesn't cost jobs, it just makes those governed by minimum wage ineligible for employment below that wage. The sub-minimum wage jobs still exist, just not where the minimum wage applies.

Minimum wage doesn't cost jobs in the same way that environmental regulation doesn't cost jobs; the jobs still exist, just not anywhere near the regulations.

Now you understand why China's GDP grows by 10% a year.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

gangien (151940) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992496)

Minimum wage doesn't cost jobs, it just makes those governed by minimum wage ineligible for employment below that wage. The sub-minimum wage jobs still exist, just not where the minimum wage applies.

OK it took me a few times, but I think i finally understand what you're saying, which is that basically the jobs don't disappear they go overseas.

But it's still costing us jobs, since we live where the min wage rules apply (well I do, and i'm assuming you do).

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

Brian Boitano (514508) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992764)

They don't want it, so they find any old reason they can tie to it (however remotely) to say it shouldn't be implemented. I bet if they could say net neutrality causes paedophiles, they would.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (3, Insightful)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991358)

funny enough - hours regulations created more jobs in the factory sector. 40 hour work weeks meant that instead of having 2 workers per day for 7 days a week, they now had to have at least 3 workers per day for 5 days, plus extras to cover the hours on the 2 remaining days. So by my quick look - that was an extra 3 people employed, or 150% addition.

Did it put a crimp in the employer? I'm sure it did. But so does having to pay their employees anything.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993218)

I wish I said that. It's truth at so many levels. There is a cost to civilization. For most of us, it's a tax. For others, it's a cost of opportunity.

I think that hours regulations and vacation time are pretty key aspects of keeping a workforce healthy and a population sustainable. Just look at Japan. They work like no one else on the planet works. Overtime is the social norm. No one has time for families and relationships. Their population is on the decline so much so that the government is paying couples to have children and they are desperately trying to build robots to take care of the elderly which even now outnumbers the younger. They are working themselves into extinction.

But also, we know what not having a minimum wage leads to... what not having safety regulations lead to.

We most certainly need limits to the harm we can do to one another ... and we need limits to the harm we can do to ourselves as well. Without those limits civilization will only be available to a fortunate few.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990856)

But your ISP needs to hire people to enforce their abuse and create more abusive practices; those are the lost jobs.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991680)

That is like saying

"By not legalizing roving death squads, you are costing us jobs!"

Because hey, roving death squads obviously have employees!

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

yuberries (1766190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993056)

Except that there is no abuse nor violence in offering a service, one that you voluntarily engage with a contract.

If you want to find a true gang, look at the government. Everything it does, it does by force.

It is no issue for me identifying who's wrong. The shoe-seller, or the mob?

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990862)

So how exactly would passing a law that basically codifies current practices cause job loss?

Not to mention that it isn't even job loss that they're talking about. They're merely speculating that growth will be 15% less than without regulation - and somehow, that translates into 300000 jobs that will not be created.

Can we please, please stop talking about not getting what you think you should get as being the same as a loss or theft? Because if we're going to go down that route, I'm gonna argue that a lack of net neutrality regulation will cost me 2.74 gazillion dollars, and sue the Federal Government for that amount.

Then again, we're talking about lobbyists here. If the money is right, they'll argue that cigarette smoke freshens your breath and turns babies into geniuses.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991048)

I'm gonna argue that a lack of net neutrality regulation will cost me 2.74 gazillion dollars, and sue the Federal Government for that amount.

That's a nice thought, but a real number would be more effective.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (2, Funny)

pitterpatter (1397479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991794)

That's a nice thought, but a real number would be more effective.

How about "1.21 jigadollars"?

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992178)

That's a nice thought, but a real number would be more effective.

Lobbyists and politicians simply won't know any better. They just won't know that it's not a real number while the lawyers will look at it as a new definition to be used for billing their clients even moar.

All the while, people on Slashdot will be complaining that it's not really a real number while they are working 9am to 7pm in their little cubicles with their shitty red staplers just like the good little sheeple they are...

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (2, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991212)

They're merely speculating that growth will be 15% less than without regulation - and somehow, that translates into 300000 jobs that will not be created.

It's called a "talking point", Neutron, and in the new post-media-consolidation world, they don't have to be anything like true.

All net neutrality does is keep a small handful of companies from turning the Internet into TV. But TV was a big moneymaker for years and years, and it's now the most effective way to get out pro-corporatist agenda messages, so big business and corporatists politicians want to turn the Internet into TV. It's the answer to their prayers.

And anti-government dopes are doing the work of the corporatists for them. "Keep the government out of my Internet". Can you imagine anything so stupid? Without the US federal government, there would never have been an Internet. But that's something you won't read about in any Texas history textbook.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991624)

All net neutrality does is keep a small handful of companies from turning the Internet into TV.

Unfortunately, I share your position on this. It is exactly why I love net neutrality, and why the telecoms sponsoring these white papers hate it. I am convinced that the best years of the Internet are behind it... I'd love to be wrong on that, but somehow doubt it.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991850)

it's now the most effective way to get out pro-corporatist agenda messages, so big business and corporatists politicians want to turn the Internet into TV.

Shut down Facebook, Wikipedia, and YouTube, and you don't have much of an internet left.

Large corporate sites have never been all that popular. Turns out most people would rather read about each others dinner on twitter than visit the GOP or DNC homepage. Imagine that! :P

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992334)

So, what do you call the thing I'm on during the 98% of the time that I'm not on any of those sites? I spend maybe a half hour there a week, if not less. I don't even have a Facebook account for reasons related to privacy.

From where I stand, there's a huge internet that's formed outside those 3 sites.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991502)

Because clearly all regulation is precisely the same in both magnitude and direction. I'm surprised these kinds of blatant bullshit get any recognition outside the echo chamber in which they're conceived.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

carp3_noct3m (1185697) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992036)

You hit the nail on the head. It is now common business practice that if we don't always grow grow grow then for some reason it is horrible. If your company is making 50+ million net profit, you do not need to require +20% next quarter! Sustain what you have and refine practices and efficiency, fuck I hate lobbyists. I think they are one of the single most responsible entities for the current corruption of our governmental system, but I see no solutions that would be met with any kind of seriousness due to the lobbyist foothold with congress.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (0, Troll)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990966)

The status quo is NOT "net neutrality" in any way.

Cable companies are allowed to reserve frequencies on their wire for phone usage only where Internet traffic can't go... and competing VoIP products have to contend with the other Internet traffic on the wire.

Some ISPs pay Disney for the right to show ESPN3.com and ABC News Now content that other ISPs don't get. MTV has threatened to make it's website pay-by-ISP in the past, but has been convinced that'd leave MTV.com with no audience.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (3, Insightful)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991802)

Some ISPs pay Disney for the right to show ESPN3.com and ABC News Now content that other ISPs don't get.

That is not the main debate surrounding net neutrality. The primary concern of net neutrality is an ISP charging websites money in order for the website to be able to get through to the ISP's users, or an ISP not allowing video streaming protocols unless users "pay up" extra money.

What you are describing is premium content. Hell I am all in favor of that. If an ISP wants to gain a competitive advantage by working in conjunction with some media provider who has a desired resource, then that is just called good business all around. Users can, if they so wish, choose an ISP which has a partnering agreement with some desired media partner, and that media partner has a revenue stream which allows them to offer services which they may not otherwise be able to profitably offer.

Not everything can be supported by Adwords. :P I have no issue with people paying for premium content, I do have issue with ISPs holding content that is on the public internet hostage unless users or website operators pay up an additional fee.

MTV has threatened to make it's website pay-by-ISP in the past, but has been convinced that'd leave MTV.com with no audience.

Hey so the free market does work now and then. :)

The status quo is NOT "net neutrality" in any way.

The status quo is de facto net neutrality. Comcast pushes the boundaries now and again, but consumer backlash has so far been sufficient to halt further encroachments. Unfortunately smaller ISPs do not get the massive negative press that large ISPs such as Comcast receive, thus allowing the smaller ISPs to at times get away with BS that larger ISPs would get publicly chastised for.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

Cutting_Crew (708624) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993398)

Users can, if they so wish, choose an ISP which has a partnering agreement with some desired media partner, and that media partner has a revenue stream which allows them to offer services which they may not otherwise be able to profitably offer.

actually most people dont have a choice which provider they choose because there is usually only one ISP available. if espn wants to offer espn360 then they should do so through its website as an agreement between individuals, not through ISP's(most cable companies these days) who will be spread the cost of paying espn360 for this premium content to every customer, whether the customer watches espn360.com or not. you are already paying $X amount for internet service. who wants to pay more for internet service to subsidize a set group of people who will be visiting one particular website? thats a pretty scary thought.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991858)

but has been convinced that'd leave MTV.com with no audience.

It has one now?

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

Type-E (545257) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991086)

China has 800,000+ internet police, if they op for net neutrality (meaning all contents available for the rest of the world should be available in china) then 800k people will loose their jobs. Is that a bad thing? hell no. It is somewhat similar to the Broken window fallacy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window [wikipedia.org]

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991426)

This is "costing jobs" in the same way a tax cut "costs money", if anything at all. That is, they're claiming it will prevent them from expanding - thus prevent those jobs from being created.

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (2, Informative)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991670)

That is the claim, but what they are not talking about is that it would prevent them from *expanding* their profits via a content access extortion scheme.

Money, money, money, mo money.

Must ... resist ... ... gah! (3, Funny)

HiggsBison (678319) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992330)

Money, money, mo money...

Banana, fanna, fo funny...

Re:How can maintaining the status quo cause job lo (2, Funny)

Nahor (41537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991530)

So how exactly would passing a law that basically codifies current practices cause job loss?

1. The legislation passes
2. People get angry at their ISP and set their HQ on fire
3. The ISPs build bigger meaner bunk^H^H^H^H HQs which requires manpower
=> more jobs

1. The legislation passes
2. The ISP demands their protection money
3. The CEOs and other members of the boards become richer
4. They buy bigger houses
5. They requires more maids and gardeners
=> more jobs

1. The legislation passes
2. The ISP demands their protection money
3. The customers become poorer and can't pay their bills
4. The customers are evicted
5. The customers now homeless lose their jobs
=> more jobs (for the others)
6. The customers get depressed and kill themselves
7. They are buried or cremated
8. Graveyards and crematoriums flourish
=> more jobs

I love how putative free market advocates (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990514)

are promoting an approach that sustains oligarchies.

Re:I love how putative free market advocates (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990548)

The key point here, as usual, is "putative".

Re:I love how putative free market advocates (1)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991026)

Yeah, imagine if ATT had not been broken up, cable companies had been kept out of CLEC competition and the big global carriers like Level3 had not been allowed to grow...

<sarcasm>Yep, life at 56kB would have really rocked! Man I LOVE ATT they really know what's best for us. </sarcasm>

Re:I love how putative free market advocates (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31992148)

ATT had not been broken up

The AT&T that you speak of was a product of the Communications Act of 1934, not some unregulated robber barons run amok. That fact that you believe the latter is evidence of your indoctrination.

1.5 million lost jobs (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31990536)

At least 1,499,999 of them being lobbyists.

Re:1.5 million lost jobs (3, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990930)

Exactly. What exactly is the benefit of a society where you are worried about "Job Loss" in a sector that won't promote any growth? Who is not going to have a job? People who are working against net neutrality, and that alone. Its not like the Lawyers don't have skills to apply law in other fields. Its not like Technicians don't have skills to work in other IT Fields. Its not like Lobbyists can't lobby in other fields.

It's like the idea that we need to have a secretary for every employee because without it there would be job loss.

Re:1.5 million lost jobs (3, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991328)

This is the Telephone Operator fallacy. When automatic switching equipment was invented, operators whined that they would lose jobs. If we accepted that mentality we would now need to employ more telephone operators in the U.S. than the entire population.

If you keep growing the network this "job loss" is negated by orders of magnitude. Again... another report that trying to exploit the ignorance and lack of reasoning ability in the masses (and our legislators).

How strange (2, Interesting)

ProdigyPuNk (614140) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990560)

How strange that the study paid for by AT&T et al. is a complete 180 from the study mentioned in the article that is NOT paid for my any carrier: http://policyintegrity.org/documents/Free_to_Invest.pdf [policyintegrity.org] Of course there's something "suspect" about the study claiming that net neutrality will cost the carriers billions - especially when it's PAID FOR by the groups it claims are going to be hurt.

Are they really making a point? (5, Insightful)

Dalzhim (1588707) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990590)

People learning more than one language in school cause job loss in the translating field. People learning how to cook cause job loss in restaurants. Free trade costs a lot of jobs at the customs. I mean, I can create a shitload amount of jobs by having people work on many stupid things. It doesn't make those things worth working on.

No it doesn;t, it creates 100 million jobs (2, Funny)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990606)

Despite hating that whole net-netrual thing this is just plain silly. It would create a lot of jobs. Millions and millions to be precise. Someone has to do the police-work you know... Neh, this is just silly.

FFS (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990622)

Report by a lobbyist outfit is suspect? GTFO! Why are you even mentioning the "paper" not worthy of toilette duty?

Re:FFS (3, Insightful)

ProdigyPuNk (614140) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990692)

This has been going on for ages. Industries always pay for one-sided studies. They are still doing it. It must work to some extent, otherwise they wouldn't be spending the money. Hence the necessity of articles like this to expose this form of dishonesty to a few new souls.

Rhetorical Arguments (1)

gibson123 (1740752) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990656)

Wow, I suppose you can fund a report and create whatever information you want.... if Tim Berners-Lee is for network neutrality, so be it as far as I am concerned.

I can do it too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31990662)

50 trillion people will lose their jobs if Jessica Biel doesn't go out with me on Saturday... study says. There, it's true now and no one can deny it!

Re:I can do it too (1)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991098)

50 trillion people will lose their jobs if Jessica Biel doesn't go out with me on Saturday... study says. There, it's true now and no one can deny it!

Are you counting dead people or people that haven't been born yet? Or maybe you've broadened your definition of people to include horses and sheep.

YHES! fP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31990672)

new facEs and mFany as little overhead

Can I have a job - a six figure one? (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990688)

A telecom lobbying firm called Mobile Future, which sports a weird hodgepodge of member organizations, including Alligator Planet, Climate Cartoons, Goomzee, and the League of United Latin American Citizens.

Here's my audition:

If net neutrality goes through, this country would face a disaster of biblical proportions.

Riots in the streets, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

There will toads from the sky, blood flowing in rivers, first born children dieing, etc.. etc...

Re:Can I have a job - a six figure one? (2, Funny)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990758)

here will toads from the sky, blood flowing in rivers, first born children dieing, etc.. etc...

In other news, second born children in families with large inheritances found to be largely in favor of net neutrality legislation.

Who said this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31990768)

Nothing like the sweet plastic smell of newly manufactured, made to order mind-share.

a simple idea (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990824)

Maybe they can take those people and switch them away from throttling people's bandwidth, and put them on the job of installing new fiber. It's a win-win situation. No jobs are lost, fiber is installed. Unless somehow these people aren't actually going to lose their jobs......

You'd think they got their lesson after Wall St. (0, Flamebait)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31990848)

didnt it just come out that private ranking organizations collaborated with wall street to show otherwise worthless and risky investments as A grade and helped them peddle these and SCAM the entire world. entire effin world ?

and now, a private company puts out a report saying 'regulating this is bad', which is funded by a subsidiary of a big corporation JUST like the bastards in wall street.

i cant even begin to tell how shitty and stupid this is. private corporations vouching for private corporations, and people trusting them. yea.

WOW ! (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992778)

actually there was someone modding this down as flamebait. get a load of that.

News flash: the future is unknown (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991042)

Projections of future events are always "suspect".

If the government would mind it's own business instead of trying to meddle in ISP network management, we can be pretty sure that non-action would cause no extra loss in jobs. Not forcing people at ISPs to do business against their will is probably a good policy.

I'm a big fan of the government not forcing people to do things against their will.

Meh (1)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991204)

Like maybe the government should have just "stayed out of it" and allowed the ATT monopoly to continue...

I mean 14kB modems, paying a lot of money for ISDN (128kB), or a whole ton of money for T-1 (1.44MB), that was just AWESOME, and GOD DAMN those pushy gov'ment types for breakin up ATT and lettin them nastly little cable, dsl and bandwidth providers go and provide dramatically increased bandwidth for less and less money.

The free market is great, until it reaches equilibrium. At that point you just have a few winners looking to expand their profit margins.

A decent 'free' market, like a nice sauce, needs to be stirred every now and then to keep it from getting clumped up. As far as I know, the government has the only spoon big enough to deal with multi-national companies.

Re:Meh (1)

yuberries (1766190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993482)

So should I be allowed to steal your car every now and then to stir things up?

Also, government is the ultimate monopoly. Whatever "monopoly" it breaks, simply is *it* taking over instead.

The monopoly word is thrown around too often. I suggest moving the discussion into free market entry.
If a lead business starts raising prices (like a monopoly holding people hostage! gasp!), as long as the market is free to enter, then it cannot raise as much as it would cost for an entrepreneur to enter it. If it does, then other business will flood the market to undercut him.

Did Bill Gates ever overprice windows and held the global market hostage?

Let go of the statist myth that they're saving us from ourselves, I beg you.

Re:News flash: the future is unknown (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992282)

I'm a big fan of the government not forcing people to do things against their will.

Good thing corporations aren't people, but legal fictions comprised of people whose sole goal is to generate profits for its shareholders. Considering how malicious they can be and how much more power over any individual or group of people that isn't absolutely massive, I have no problem letting the government force their hand, given they can show good cause.

Net Neutrality is something that must be forced, as they've already got huge swaths of the public bent over a barrel, telling us we've got the best service in the world while it's actually quite shit.

I know I'm farting into the wind (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991060)

but the obvious solution is kill the monopolies. Go with municipal/state/national infrastructure, and lease it to competing service providers. Doesn't exactly pander to the big boys, but it would work pretty well for the rest of us.

And yet they'll do it anyway.... (1)

AthleteMusicianNerd (1633805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991196)

And then it will be George Bush's fault.

Lack of Net Neutrality will cost 16 billion jobs (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991274)

That's right. 16 billion.

All jobs involved in expansive bandwidth usage will be controlled by the owners of the pipes, period.

They will rule the net, preventing end-users from accessing servers that can serve vast amounts of data.

And that will stifle growth. Forever.

So when I say 16 billion, I'm not only mimicking their act of pulling a number out of one's ass, I'm inverting their overestimate by vastly underestimating.

Shape traffic to reduce jobs (2, Interesting)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991278)

I haven't done a study but this seems backwards to me.

I mean don't they shape traffic to save money? You can appear to have more bandwidth than you do if you shape it, but you don't have to pay keep growing you network ie. jobs.

If they are not able to shape traffic then they need to spend money expanding their network, which would mean MORE jobs not less.

So the Brattle Group is pro-neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991354)

Preventing needless labor strengthens the economy. If you outlaw the breaking of other peoples' windows, and that causes job loss among the window-makers, you've done a good thing. I know with politicians saying "jobs, jobs" we like to pretend that creating jobs is good and losing jobs is bad, but we need to always remember that we really are just pretending. Telling the lie is ok, but for fuck's sake, don't start believing it.

How many new jobs not made due to thuggary? (1)

Moof123 (1292134) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991432)

How many jobs will get lost because folks get pissed off and use the internet less when they're confronted with bizarre throttling behaviors, and strangely blocked content? How many baby Google's will get squished by thuggish slow moving oligopolies like the telcoms decide to hold them hostage due to excess BW usage (i.e. excess in their 1980's mindset).

Re:How many new jobs not made due to thuggary? (1)

yuberries (1766190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993188)

If people use the internet less, the ISPs earn less. They have no incentive to do all that. Not any more than a shoe maker has an incentive to put spikes in his shoe pads

15% of what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991778)

Is that 15% really an amount of "jobs"? Perhaps what is actually being measured is how much less growth the telcos will experience if they can't swindle us all with their graduated cable-like "value-add" drek. If it's the latter then the "jobs" will simply emerge independently of the major telcos as non-vertical solutions are created.

I live where no major telco saw fit to invest in residential broadband until around 2005. Despite that I've had adaquate broadband since 1997. It was neither easy nor cheap. Several small ISPs thrived because of people like me. They've all been bought up or merged into increasingly larger outfits, but they're still about and to this day I've never directly paid Comcast or Qwest a dime for my broadband.

Had some large fraction of our fabulous citizenry done similar we'd have a diverse and competitive market. What we'll do instead is ensconce a handful of politically favored telcos into unassailable quasi-government monopolies.

So fuck you people and your selective outrage. I'll manage to keep mine as long as I need it, one way or another. Go beg your government masters for relief. Those are the wages of coercing individuals and businesses instead of using the freedom you have to participate in the market.

Jobs loss, neutrality is evil... blah blah blah (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991780)

Where have we all heard this before?

Oh yeah... from the MAFIAA...

Jack Valenti: "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."

I don't follow their logic (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991862)

Regulating the phone company's tariffs cost the phone company 15% in potential revenues, therefore regulating how traffic is treated by cable companies will cost the cable companies 15% of their revenue? WTF?!?

no more space on his web site? (1)

mestar (121800) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991956)

"There's lots more to say on this topic, but I've exhausted this space for now."

Hahahahaha. This guy is a big idiot.

1,000,000 jobs lost without Net Neutrality (2, Interesting)

javalizard (781952) | more than 4 years ago | (#31992666)

Small business would have to start paying to play on the internet. This would cost small businesses a lot of money to pay for internet tolls. That's money that could be creating jobs if there were net neutrality. Forcing telecoms to build out their infrastructure would actually create jobs. It wasn't until the net neutrality contractual obligation of a large telecom merger ran out that they stopped building infrastructure and fired the masses of people working on the build out.

Also crazy is the cost of anti-competitive behavior, the cost of innovative ideas being squashed because they didn't fit the business model of the telecoms, and enabling corporations to be the enforcers of freedom of speech is just plain unconstitutional and is just an abrogation of the responsibility of Congress and Whitehouse.

I'd rather pay slightly higher prices to enable innovation, freedom of speech, equality of information, and decrease the power of the oligopolies.

Call me crazy but the intangibles tip that balance for me. There is more to life than money like freedom and liberty.

Of course this report isn't going to discuss these things... it was funded by large corporations. They don't value anything but money.

Re:1,000,000 jobs lost without Net Neutrality (1)

yuberries (1766190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993320)

Just some food for thought, but you're not the only internet user who values freedom.
In fact I would bet that most do.
If most ISP clients like internet freedom, would you not agree that most ISPs would try to supply that demand as best as they can, so they can profit more?

What you call "intangibles" are not intangibles at all, it's part of consumer demand. Any decent entrepreneur today would not be making money without taking consumer demands in account to the full extent that the market can supply.

Now if what you really mean by intangibles are restrictions, force, war and taxes... that is something you should look for in government indeed.

Lotw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31992742)

Good we don't need any more lawyers. They have just about ruined the country already

It's fantastic... (1)

Illogical Spock (1058270) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993328)

... how they are capable of taking numbers out of their asses with bogus researches...

      Maybe, if they try harder, they can take new business models, honest ways to do business and such from the same asses...

     

just greed (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 4 years ago | (#31993470)

that's just greedy company's not wanting to spend money.. traffic shaping lets them make big promises on bandwidth without actually delivering. if there forced to expand there network that would make jobs not lose them. but this bill would not even be needed if they force cable company and tel co to open there lines for more company's to compete so if you where with unhappy with one companys policy you could just go to a competer. in my area im lucky to have 3 isp providers and i go with the best one that has no such shady policy's.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?