"Now the DOJ can distribute those ill gotten Kim DotCom gains to the rights holder"
The ones that paid Megaupload to legitimately store backups and distribute their own content, some of whom have been trying to battle in court to get access to their own files that were seized by the US government? Or is this a case where only a handful of major corporations get a look in, if anyone does?
On a side note, why is it that the contrarian dickheads on this site can never work would how to click "reply" so that people can actually follow the conversation? Deliberate misdirection, or an indication of the mental deficiencies that lead them to hold such ridiculous opinions in the first place?
"Suppose Netflix/Hulu/etc cut their prices and their customers base doubles"
Suppose the ISPs actually use the massive amount of public funds they've been given to increase capacity to actually do it? Why is it that people like you think it's impossible for the US to do what every other first world country is doing without resorting to such measures?
Don't worry. As with healthcare, the ISPs will find a way to fool idiots into thinking that the way they've chosen to rape peoples' wallets is all the fault of regulation, as if they'd have given customers a fair deal otherwise. Those of us in civilised countries that don't have to deal with "OMG socialism" every time something's done for the public benefit will continue sitting back and laughing.
"It's the fraud that all Internet consumers are equal, that they want and need what the government decides they want and need."
Sorry, but you're still attacking a phantom that only exists in your own imagination. It's the ISPs who would restrict what people can access - by throttling traffic, or charging more for access to competitors. Net neutrality ensures that they cannot do that, and that consumers can access everything equally without restriction.
Your fear of the government boogeyman actually has you rooting for the people who want to reduce your freedom for profit.
"The Internet would surely still exist without initial gov involvement."
Yeah, that infrastructure that wasn't profitable for decades, and the web that grew completely from free and open standards would definitely have appeared in the same way if corporations built it from the ground up :rolls eyes:
OK, so you're anti-government nutball who doesn't mind getting screwed so long as it's by a corporation rather than someone he can vote for.
It's a shame you can't see the actual issues being discussed, but you're clearly so biased that no actual facts will get through to you.
"Net neutrality wouldn't exist at all without government coercion. "
The internet itself wouldn't exist either. So?
"It's like saying I should be able to buy a Whopper at McDonalds."
No, it's saying that if McDonalds own part of the path that leads to the food court, they can't built a toll booth in front of the part that leads to Burger King.
Please, understand the actual issue instead of reacting in a knee jerk fashion because you read the "government".
"As to competition in allegedly low competition regions (which I guess is where I live), what exactly will "net neutrality" do for me"
It means that your ISP has to treat every packet that you access equally, not filtering their competitors, slowing down some of the services you use in order to drive you to their preferred partners, creating high barriers to new competitors entering the market, charging you extra to have full speed on the services you want, etc., etc.
Again, read up on what the issue ACTUALLY is about, not whatever you falsely assumed it was.
"What's the sense of that?"
Well, you asked that the ISPs be able to maximise their profit. That's the result you get. Since there's no competition, who do you want to get them to offer lower priced plans to your neighbours?
"And I'm not particularly concerned with "monopolies""
Then, you *really* don't understand the issues and behaviour being discussed and the issues that led to this discussion in the first place. Hell, your own example of your neighbour indicates exactly why a monopoly is bad (if there were competition, your neighbours could move to a cheaper competitor offering the plan that suits them, without competition, the ISP isn't going to lower their prices).
"the continued support of a government engendered "net neutrality" has been bothering me."
Probably because net neutrality isn't "government engendered". Net neutrality protects what already exists, it's not the government inventing something new.
You're confused because you're contemplating a fiction. Try the real-life version now, you'll feel better.
"TechDirt is a sturdy espouser of the free market in the tech world"
This is true. Now, consider the broadband ISP market in most US jurisdictions. Most have one (maybe 2 if they're lucky) options. Not exactly a free market, is it? On top of that, consider that the trend among those ISPs is to collude and block competition. Also consider that they've already demonstrated a willingness to negatively impact competing video streaming service, for example.
This is good to you? Or, would you agree that something needs to keep them in check? If you agree, where are those checks going to come from, considering that there is zero competition in many areas for unhappy customers to move to and affect the market that way?
"I still wish that they had the freedom to do so if they deemed it necessary for their own personal economics."
You realise that this means you're supporting their rights to maintain monopolies and rip you off wherever you can, without so much as a competitor to move to if you disagree? Right?
We *are* talking about the company that included videos it directly authorised YouTube to host in the list of "infringing" videos during its lawsuit against YouTube. They need a common sense / "how to communicate between your own divisions" class before they graduate to fair use lessons.
"At this point, I have to wonder why real people actually use YouTube to post videos anymore"
Name recognition and familiarity, a much larger potential audience, a lot of devices have YouTube built in but not the other services (e.g. my Blu Ray player has a YouTube button on the remote), integration with other services, etc.
"Of course, it causes absolutely zero harm because no one is watching my video to secretly pirate music, they're watching it to see my video."
There is an exception to that, of course - cases where copyright, licencing or other factors cause the song not to be available via legal means for streaming or download. The solution to this is making the song legally available, not trying to sue anyone who lets others hear your music, but sadly we're still at the "we only want to do that if the artists can instantly retire from the royalties" stage with many of these fools.
The trend has since moved overseas unfortunately, but on my visits to the US I was always struck by how the credits would be squashed to one side to make room for an advert for the next show. So, not only do the names of the cast and crew become unreadable, you're literally pushing them aside for the next show before the audience knows who they are.
That's another time irony plays strong here - when this happens, the unedited pirated copy is giving more credit to the people who made the thing than originating network is giving.