Soros, Ford shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House

[flowers]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702

Liberal philanthropist George Soros and the Ford Foundation have lavished groups supporting the administration’s “net neutrality” agenda, donating $196 million and landing proponents on the White House staff, according to a new report.

And now, as the Federal Communications Commission nears approving a type of government control over the Internet, the groups are poised to declare victory in the years-long fight, according to the report from MRC Business, an arm of the conservative media watchdog, the Media Research Center.

RELATED: GOP retreats on bill to block unprecedented 'net neutrality' regulations

“The Ford Foundation, which claims to be the second-largest private foundation in the U.S., and Open Society Foundations, founded by far-left billionaire George Soros, have given more than $196 million to pro-net neutrality groups between 2000 and 2013,” said the report, authored by Media Research Center’s Joseph Rossell, and provided to Secrets.

[truth_seeker]

Who are ALL of the players, what do they stand to gain and lose

What does Time Warner support? They gain or lose?

What is currently wrong, that needs to be "regulated?"

Many industries are dominated by a few huge companies, that get away with monopolies. They effectively "write" legislation, with their plans to exploit already laid.

We haven't really blocked mergers much lately.

How does the consumer wind up, as far as getting more services, for less money?

I require more than "Soros this" and "Koch Bros. that" for explanations.

[aligncare]

In a truly open society the text of the proposed regulations would be open to the public to see and discuss.

You see, I thought this was America. Apparently, I'm wrong.

[kevindavis007]

Well there are some groups on the left who is against this as well.  Until I see the details, I'm against this...

[massadvj]

People are talking about this as if net neutrality were not currently FCC policy.  It already is.  If the FCC did nothing, then net neutrality would be in force.  So it is not really about net neutrality, but all the other regulation that is going into this new policy under the guise of being a "freer" Internet.

It will be a more regulated Internet.  That is the bottom line.  From the consumer standpoint, there isn't a whole lot here that will matter.  The impact will be up channel, where ISP's will be much less likely to improve infrastructure as more and more e-commerce sites suck the bandwidth dry.

Right now there is plenty of bandwidth to accommodate Netflix.  But what happens when there are 100 sites that use that much bandwidth, and Comcast has to provide all the bandwidth they want for free?  Less innovation and infrastructure development, that's what. 

The bottom line here is that this is just an excuse for government to regulate the industry so that politicians can collect money from everyone affected to tweak the rules in one direction or another.  It's a shame, really.  But it was going to happen sooner or later.  No wallet this size was ever going to be safe in the USA.

I certainly don't expect the policy to be reversed once Republican appointees are in the majority on the FCC.

Edited to Note: One interesting aspect of this is that Comcast is getting screwed royally here.  Comcast owns NBC, which until now was completely in bed with OPapaDoc.  At the time of the 2008 election, NBC was owned by General Electric, so it may be that the administration feels no real obligation to Comcast.  Anyway, it will be interesting to see if Comcast now changes the orientation of NBC News based on its corporate interests.

[240B]

I am counting the days, until this very site is shut down. And all of our names and addresses and posts are delivered to Soros/Obama government.

It is easy to say in hyperbole and rhetorical speech, that America is becoming the new Soviet Union, but in real terms it does seem to be happening now.

God help us all. This is not good.

[flowers]

People are talking about this as if net neutrality were not currently FCC policy.  It already is.  If the FCC did nothing, then net neutrality would be in force.  So it is not really about net neutrality, but all the other regulation that is going into this new policy under the guise of being a "freer" Internet.

It will be a more regulated Internet.  That is the bottom line.  From the consumer standpoint, there isn't a whole lot here that will matter.  The impact will be up channel, where ISP's will be much less likely to improve infrastructure as more and more e-commerce sites suck the bandwidth dry.

Right now there is plenty of bandwidth to accommodate Netflix.  But what happens when there are 100 sites that use that much bandwidth, and Comcast has to provide all the bandwidth they want for free?  Less innovation and infrastructure development, that's what. 

The bottom line here is that this is just an excuse for government to regulate the industry so that politicians can collect money from everyone affected to tweak the rules in one direction or another.  It's a shame, really.  But it was going to happen sooner or later.  No wallet this size was ever going to be safe in the USA.

I certainly don't expect the policy to be reversed once Republican appointees are in the majority on the FCC.

Edited to Note: One interesting aspect of this is that Comcast is getting screwed royally here.  Comcast owns NBC, which until now was completely in bed with OPapaDoc.  At the time of the 2008 election, NBC was owned by General Electric, so it may be that the administration feels no real obligation to Comcast.  Anyway, it will be interesting to see if Comcast now changes the orientation of NBC News based on its corporate interests.

How will this affect satellite internet?

[massadvj]

How will this affect satellite internet?

I am really not sure.  If the satellite provider is an ISP then that entity will face more regulation specifying that it cannot sell different amounts of bandwidth to different customers at different prices.  But if the satellite provider is getting the Internet from an ISP and then rebroadcasting over satellite, then I guess it is getting the "assurance" (with government nothing is ever really assured) that it can't be charged extra for using more bandwidth than other intermediaries.

[flowers]

I am really not sure.  If the satellite provider is an ISP then that entity will face more regulation specifying that it cannot sell different amounts of bandwidth to different customers at different prices.  But if the satellite provider is getting the Internet from an ISP and then rebroadcasting over satellite, then I guess it is getting the "assurance" (with government nothing is ever really assured) that it can't be charged extra for using more bandwidth than other intermediaries.

thank you for info. I will find out by this time tomorrow it looks like.

[NavyCanDo]

Guess who owns a big chunk of the BNSF company, the trains that ship Canadian oil today to the Gulf? That's wright, Soros.  Connect a few dots and you can see why Obama is so dead set again a pipe line.

[alicewonders]

Guess who owns a big chunk of the BNSF company, the trains that ship Canadian oil today to the Gulf? That's wright, Soros.  Connect a few dots and you can see why Obama is so dead set again a pipe line.

Always follow the money.

[jmyrlefuller]

People are talking about this as if net neutrality were not currently FCC policy.  It already is.  If the FCC did nothing, then net neutrality would be in force.

That's not quite true.

Right now the ISP's all recognize TV Everywhere. It's a video system where the content providers only allow certain ISPs to access their content—ISPs that, almost always, pay the content provider directly. The end consumer can't buy a subscription directly. It's the way they want to circumvent the cord-cutters. Comcast, for example, can stop anyone who isn't a Comcast subscriber from accessing NBC video. (It's not just video, by the way: Newsday, a newspaper, uses a similar system that allows Cablevision subscribers to bypass the paywall it puts up for other users.)

Under net neutrality, TV Everywhere would be illegal.

[olde north church]

Guess who owns a big chunk of the BNSF company, the trains that ship Canadian oil today to the Gulf? That's wright, Soros.  Connect a few dots and you can see why Obama is so dead set again a pipe line.

I didn't know about Soros but I was pretty sure assholebuddy Buffett played with trains.

[Fishrrman]

[[ I was pretty sure assholebuddy Buffett played with trains. ]]

Buffett owns a big stake in BNSF (Burlington Northern/Santa Fe).

[Oceander]

Who are ALL of the players, what do they stand to gain and lose

What does Time Warner support? They gain or lose?

What is currently wrong, that needs to be "regulated?"

Many industries are dominated by a few huge companies, that get away with monopolies. They effectively "write" legislation, with their plans to exploit already laid.

We haven't really blocked mergers much lately.

How does the consumer wind up, as far as getting more services, for less money?

I require more than "Soros this" and "Koch Bros. that" for explanations.

The winners are the big ISPs and content providers who now get to stifle innovation and start-up competition through dint of excessive regulatory cost, and will be able to command quasi-monopoly pricing through regulatory capture.

The losers will be everyone else.

[massadvj]

The winners are the big ISPs and content providers who now get to stifle innovation and start-up competition through dint of excessive regulatory cost, and will be able to command quasi-monopoly pricing through regulatory capture.

The losers will be everyone else.

I agree the content providers will benefit.  Not sure about ISP's.  Yes, they do get monopolies of a sort, but they are restricted from charging more based on bandwidth use.  You think Comcast likes that?  In the end it does mean higher rates and less innovation for the rest of us.

[Oceander]

I agree the content providers will benefit.  Not sure about ISP's.  Yes, they do get monopolies of a sort, but they are restricted from charging more based on bandwidth use.  You think Comcast likes that?  In the end it does mean higher rates and less innovation for the rest of us.

Of course Comcast likes it.  Why?  Because, after it's squeezed all real competition out through the imposition of regulatory barriers to entry - there will, perhaps, be one pro-forma "competitor" in each market - it will be able to get rates set to by and large extract its expected ROI because it's the only game in town and, well, Mr. Regulator, if you don't give us the rates we need, why then, we'll just have to shut down (and take our networks with us).

Look at the way it works with rent control in NYC.  Rent control hasn't gotten rid of the big landlords, it's filtered the crowd so that you end up with the worst of the lot of the big landlords running most buildings, and a small bevy of little landlords who respond by simply not doing anything but the most minimal of repairs to their buildings.  The big landlords like it that way because they don't have to compete on service and can be quite nasty when it comes to dealing with tenants (I know, I used to rent from one of the biggest).  And they still manage to squeeze their ROI out of the buildings.  And the only new buildings that get built are high(er) end luxury apartment buildings - and condos and coops.

Look at how it works in insurance as well.  Obastardcare is a good example.  Remember how Obastardcare was going to bend the cost curve down?  Did it?  No.  Even though health insurance companies are so heavily regulated they really are nothing more than public utilities - a common theme, apparently - and must ask permission from their regulators for premium increases, nonetheless, they have still managed to raise premiums at an accelerating pace.  And Obastardcare has also squeezed out competition so that in most markets there are at most one or two pro-forma competitors.

Public utility regulation creates a quasi-monopoly, or an oligopoly, in which a few large, politically-connected firms control the market and set quasi-monopoly prices through a combination of their market control and regulatory capture of the regulators.

[massadvj]

Of course Comcast likes it.  Why?  Because, after it's squeezed all real competition out through the imposition of regulatory barriers to entry - there will, perhaps, be one pro-forma "competitor" in each market - it will be able to get rates set to by and large extract its expected ROI because it's the only game in town and, well, Mr. Regulator, if you don't give us the rates we need, why then, we'll just have to shut down (and take our networks with us).

Look at the way it works with rent control in NYC.  Rent control hasn't gotten rid of the big landlords, it's filtered the crowd so that you end up with the worst of the lot of the big landlords running most buildings, and a small bevy of little landlords who respond by simply not doing anything but the most minimal of repairs to their buildings.  The big landlords like it that way because they don't have to compete on service and can be quite nasty when it comes to dealing with tenants (I know, I used to rent from one of the biggest).  And they still manage to squeeze their ROI out of the buildings.  And the only new buildings that get built are high(er) end luxury apartment buildings - and condos and coops.

Look at how it works in insurance as well.  Obastardcare is a good example.  Remember how Obastardcare was going to bend the cost curve down?  Did it?  No.  Even though health insurance companies are so heavily regulated they really are nothing more than public utilities - a common theme, apparently - and must ask permission from their regulators for premium increases, nonetheless, they have still managed to raise premiums at an accelerating pace.  And Obastardcare has also squeezed out competition so that in most markets there are at most one or two pro-forma competitors.

Public utility regulation creates a quasi-monopoly, or an oligopoly, in which a few large, politically-connected firms control the market and set quasi-monopoly prices through a combination of their market control and regulatory capture of the regulators.

Depressing.

[aligncare]

Depressing.

Be sure to thank a Democrat for voting Obama.

But wait. That could be perceived as rude behavior. We can't be rude to Democrats, can we?

YES WE CAN

[truth_seeker]

I just read that the FCC passed "net neutrality."