This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Will Obama Rescue Netflix After Congress Rejects Net Neutrality?

Tyler Durden's picture


Back in December, the FCC decided, in a 3-2 vote, to take it upon itself to regulate broadband internet access, also known as "Net Neutrality" - in other words the FCC essentially decided to give itself the authority to impose rules that bar Internet providers from blocking or "unreasonably
discriminating" against Web content, services or applications. As previously explained: "That means Time Warner Cable can't take payments from Google to make
YouTube come over the network faster than Hulu. Comcast, [which recently bought 51% of NBC-U], is also forbidden from favoring its own content
over others'."  The biggest winners were broadband video content distributors who have rapidly become the biggest traffic hogs on the Internet. Names such as Netflix come to mind. So it came as a bit of a shocker that late this afternoon, while everyone was staring at the countdown clock to government shutdown, that House republicans, in a 240-179 vote, "pushed through a
measure disapproving the Federal Communications Commission's
rules" - in other words rejecting Net Neutrality, and throwing broadband video companies for a loop. Since the triple play companies such as Comcast have become increasingly concerned about the encroaching threat that is Netflix, it is almost guaranteed that if indeed the House vote passes the Senate, where a similar measure has 39 co-sponsors, and becomes law, then Netflix already razor thing cash flow margins are about to get "razor thinner" as the triple plays extract their pound of flesh. There is one out, though: an Obama veto: per Reuters, "
the White House said on Monday that
President Barack Obama's advisers would recommend that he veto
any such resolution."
Which begs the question: will Netflix' momo longs have Obama to thank for the continuation of the most ridiculous move in stock market history, or will the fairy tale promptly come to an end.

From Reuters:

The FCC's rules, approved in late December, banned Internet service providers from blocking traffic on their networks, while allowing providers -- such as Verizon, Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) and AT&T Inc (T.N) -- to "reasonably" manage their networks and charge consumers based on usage.

Republicans argued in House debate that the FCC's rules needlessly impose government regulation on the Internet.

"The FCC has never had the authority to regulate the Internet," said Republican Representative Cliff Stearns.

House Republican Leader Eric Cantor called the House's vote "an important step to bring down the FCC's harmful and partisan plan to regulate the Internet."

Democrats argue that the FCC rules are needed to curb the growing market power of large service providers.

Disapproving the FCC rules "would give big phone and cable companies control over what websites Americans can visit, what applications they can run, and what devices they can use," said Democratic Representative Henry Waxman.

Democratic Representative Anna Eshoo called the Republican push against the FCC's rules "an ideological assault on a federal agency and its ability to provide basic consumer protections."

While we don't want to handicap the outcome, we are confident that if Netflix' workforce was at least slightly more unionized that while Netflix creditors' may have to be worried, equity could surely sleep soundly, known Obama has their back (in an inverse case of Bernanke "having" the middle class' back).


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 04/08/2011 - 19:54 | 1152064 AN0NYM0US
AN0NYM0US's picture


Fri, 04/08/2011 - 22:52 | 1152582 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

It will be vetoed.

The circuses must continue.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 11:06 | 1153222 rocker
rocker's picture

I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that Tyler should have said in a 3-2 vote to Deregulate Internet access.

Another words, not allowing someone else to regulate what we see.  

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 13:53 | 1153470 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

The government regulates. Private companies sell their products to those who wish to buy. Private companies cannot regulate.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:10 | 1153510 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Monopolies limit competition.  These companies have local monopolies on broadband and cannot be allowed to control content.  It is that easy.

Go back to sleep free-marketeer.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:15 | 1153528 trav7777
trav7777's picture

concur..and you know who subsidized all that fiber buildout?  WE DID.

WE (in the form of our local gov'ts) provided easements for these wires as a public benefit so that shitty companies like Comcast can strangle inexpensive providers out of business?  WTF, have you seen how much an on-demand movie costs?  Fkin FIOS seemed to want like $8!  PSN wants like $3 or wonder they're so pissed at Redbox.

Most of these movies aren't worth more than a fuckin dollar.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:04 | 1152073 malikai
malikai's picture

I'd be very surprised if "net neutrality" got stopped. There's too much google money in DC. And I'd reckon there's too much DC money in google and netflix, as well.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:06 | 1152105 NOTW777
NOTW777's picture

google is in the WH

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:27 | 1152177 cossack55
cossack55's picture

The CIA is in the WH?

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 22:48 | 1152576 ThisIsBob
ThisIsBob's picture



There is also a fucking incompetent in the White House.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:12 | 1152121 masterinchancery
masterinchancery's picture

Net neutrality is simply theft.  Netflix et al want to use someone else's property, rather than build their own network, and also dictate the terms.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:17 | 1152150 Zro
Zro's picture

Netflix pays for its use on the ISPs infrastructure (e.g. bandwidth). How is that theft?

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 00:15 | 1152770 Bearster
Bearster's picture

Last I checked, it is theft if you force someone to give you what he doesn't want to give you, or at a price he does not want to give it to you at.

Should we impose "search neutrality" on Google, by force?  How about book neutrality on Amazon?  Video neutrality on Netflix?

So-called "neutrality" is just rent-seeking by the upstream content providers, who would love to force the downstream access providers to offer pricing plans that those access providers do not want to offer.  The same principle could be applied to content providers and other aggregators and distributors of Internet stuff, including all of the proponents of "network neutrality".

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 01:19 | 1152846 wisefool
wisefool's picture

Google has some really smart people. But thankfully they are about 10 I.Q. points lower than everybody who is sitting down at the table with Hugh Hefner, Obama and Mark Zuckerburg.

I want the faux nerds at google to fight the net nutrality fight. But those dudes have already gone Travolta and Silly Valley.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 09:31 | 1153116 Dr. Kenneth Noi...
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater's picture

So how about the theft ILECs and incumbent ISPs do with government monopoly/oligopoly sanction?  States and localities grant monopolies to cable providers for their area, so the business model of TWC, Comcast, et al. is intimately intertwined with grafting off of those governments.  Which localities in the US have an open public network policy, in which any market participant has free and equal rights to run fiber or cable on public rights of way instead of having to go thru a corrupt public regulator?


When there's a free market for end-user connectivity such that anyone with capital and a business plan may lay fiber and connect to homes with a reasonable and nondiscriminatory set of standards (no damaging competitor lines, no undue disruption of public rights-of-way, adequately cover any cuts to public roads or property), THEN you can whine about net neutrality.  Until then, if you take the Nomenklatura's shilling, you do as the Nomenklatura demand.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 13:15 | 1153396 gringo28
gringo28's picture

Netflix et. al. are simply piggybacking on the creators of content. They produce nothing and create nothing. They are reselling parasites who eat away at what would otherwise be given back to shareholders and CAPEX to improve transmission. Do you really want worse internet service because the morons next door HAVE to stream Stupid Human videos on Youtube next door 24/7? Net Neutrality is code for rent stabilization etc. Imagine if gov't told you as landlord that you couldn't charge more for a higher end store, despite commanding better market rents? This is what 'net neutrality' does in effect. The whole point is to pay for better service rather than subsidizing those who can't afford it. And yeah, I am saying fuck those who can't afford it.


Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:07 | 1153505 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Industry sock-puppet that gets paid per post.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:20 | 1152156 Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

Anybody using the internet is using Al Gore's property. He invented the internet.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:49 | 1152236 1fortheroad
1fortheroad's picture

  1. He did not,That is a big lie.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 22:37 | 1152551 EvlTheCat
EvlTheCat's picture

I think that was the big fat point!!

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 01:36 | 1152866 wisefool
wisefool's picture

Agreed. Al Gore did not invent the internet. But a 27 year old kid named Mark Zuckerburg is going to be the force behind energy efficient computing. Also, linclon freed the slaves with but a word. Paulson saved the financial system from ruin.

And most importantly Barry Bonds had sex with wilt chamberlain while Benjamin Bernanke turned the printing press up.

Frued is thankful for the student loans to his honor.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 07:01 | 1153033 Husk-Erzulie
Husk-Erzulie's picture

Albert Gore is nearly as brilliant as Barack Obama.  It's a good thing we have such statesmen among us today.  God bless them.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 05:04 | 1152987 Popo
Popo's picture

>"Net neutrality is simply theft"


Absolutely not.  Understand that YOU pay a bill for the use of the Internet.   When you use Google, it is not Google that is transmitting for 'free' over the Internet.   Google is responding to an http **REQUEST** which you have initiated.  That request is something that you pay for the ability to perform.   Google's supposed "transmission" over the Internet is a response to that request.  

Internet backbone providers are attempting to double bill for this communication, and charge *both* parties.

Net neutrality is absolutely *not* theft.   The parties attempting to bill it as such are attempting to squeeze more profits from a system that already generates profits. 



Sat, 04/09/2011 - 10:31 | 1153182 rocker
rocker's picture

A+   Greed knows no limit. Anyone trying to control more of anything have money and monopoly written all over them.

It is like saying we trust CNBC for all our financial news if Comcast says theirs is the only one we should see.

Besides, taxpayers have actually paid for part of the infrastructure. Now some want to let them control what we see.

Another simply point, Republicans always take the side of big business, that in itself should be a warning to the end user.  Do you want competition or a open market.  Even ZH should have concerns if anybody gets control over any media.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 13:22 | 1153414 gringo28
gringo28's picture

you are paranoid. allowing the owners of the transmission lines to charge more for better service is not a freedom of speech issue. it's not even close and the fact is cable companies have enough problems in front of them. have you used cable lately in the early evening hours when the Moron Family comes home to stream TMZ and the Stupid Human series on youtube? It's a crawl because the pipes are clogged. The future is wi-max and it will be deep and wide. Competition will take care of shoddy service and bad pricing but putting a bunch of DC hacks in charge of picking winners is about as smart as sticking a lit match in your ear.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 16:21 | 1153758 rocker
rocker's picture

Paranoid vs. Reality. When cable started I was a linesman who hung cable and did installs when this all started around the 1970's. Back then we, (small cable companies), hung the strand, wrapped the cable and installed transformers for as little as 25/50 homes miles away from a main feed. All this was done and the company made a profit for a grand total of $4.95 a month for basic service. So don't ask me to pity them now. As a matter of fact, I refuse to use cable because I know they are raping consumers. Worst yet, the share holders don't even profit from their greed. Even though DTV is becoming a rip off, I'd rather hand them my money then get shitty service from Comcast or the like. At least it is all digital, unlike cable. No snowy, grainy pictures, called noise in the lines, by those who know. PS: I have DTV since it started and will never go back while I watch my neighbors always changing back and forth until they go DTV. PSII: Dish brand sucks too. And no, I do not work for DTV or get any kickbacks in any way. My only upgrade: Tivo. So cool with DTV.  


Sat, 04/09/2011 - 13:56 | 1153476 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Fine it's not theft, but the service providers will start to charge end users by megabits. Let's see the FCC stop them from doing that. Anyone who uses Netflix to download movies will be socked by usage charges. 

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:04 | 1153495 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

What's your point again?

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 19:56 | 1152075 velobabe
velobabe's picture

damn tyler you are on T O P , every time ;-]

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:48 | 1152233 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

why don't more talk the way you do?

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 04:25 | 1152971 Irwin Fletcher
Irwin Fletcher's picture

non sufficienti farmaci?

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:00 | 1152087 JonTurk
JonTurk's picture

I really cannot understand why the stupid yanks pay money to watch movies on internet!!  dude, everything is free on the net, all it takes is a good bandwith to download.

joe sixpack is really a dumbass and deserves his misery.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 22:57 | 1152591 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

By the time you get done paying for Usenet + your ISP, you're spending more than you would with Netflix + ISP, and you do it with a lot less fucking around (and a great interface to suggest titles you may never have heard of otherwise).

And some of us actually don't mind flipping the artist a few coins.  You strike me as the guy who stops his kid from dropping two bits into the juggler's hat.  Too bad for you, that must suck.

Also, Usenet will be next up on the chopping block IMO...  Enjoy it while you can.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 23:28 | 1152676 rich_wicks
rich_wicks's picture

By the time you get done paying for Usenet + your ISP, you're spending more than you would with Netflix + ISP

bit torrent.

Usenet - who the heck would pay somebody so they can pirate a file?  Americans crack me up, and I'm an American.  An American in Silicon Valley sure, but it's pretty amazing how Americans don't seem to know anything about the Internet, which was invented in the United States and mostly developed there as well.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:00 | 1153486 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

So you think stealing intellectual property is ok? Should the artist that created the movie or video be allowed to profit from his/her time and efforts?

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 17:12 | 1153859 rich_wicks
rich_wicks's picture

So you think stealing intellectual property is ok?

No, I'm saying it's not even worth while to steal intellectual property.

I was bored with television 20 years ago and turned it off.  Films by and large are a complete waste of time and are designed for children not adults.  Ever notice that you rarely see anybody that is 50 years old in a movie theater?  You'll get to that point too.  After 30 years of being alive, you'll start to realize that everything you're seeing, you've already seen before.

Then what is left?  Non fiction suddenly becomes interesting for a while - I don't know how long that will last for me.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:02 | 1152091 nah
nah's picture

the net work is sub sidized r and d US taxpayer dollars


the consumers that use the regional monopolys services pay a fee for the pipe bandwidth


video services are a product people want to use this product for 'bandwidth'


so are we purchasing bandwidth ports pipes and technology as consumers


or just servicing publicly funded regional monopoly media outlets


who owns the bandwidth me or government backed monopolys

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:28 | 1152183 cossack55
cossack55's picture


Sat, 04/09/2011 - 00:56 | 1152812 VisualCSharp
VisualCSharp's picture

Oh my Lord. Please do ZH a favor learn to write coherently.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:05 | 1152100 NOTW777
NOTW777's picture

how much did they give in campaign contributions

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:07 | 1152108 Cole Younger
Cole Younger's picture

When the FCC, or any agency for that matter adopts rules that take the politics (campaign fund raising) out of the frey, Congress will surely get upset about it. Net neutrality and its opposition must be worth a few million for congress's votes.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 21:01 | 1152277 JohnG
JohnG's picture

It is always, and has always been, about the money.

It's just that simple.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:02 | 1153490 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Except that those unelected bureaucrats do not have the right to create laws, or else they become little dictators and tyrants. As bad as congress is, it is better than living under totalitarianism.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:10 | 1152112 magpie
magpie's picture

This throws me back into the bad old days of 2009, when a single word of the President would turn the market down.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:42 | 1152218 Troublehoff
Troublehoff's picture

I really cant understand what all you guys above and the Dems/Repubs are arguing about?


The current formula for the internet is perfect and the less government meddling and legislation the better. The architects of the web had the right idea. i.e every packet of data should be treated with equal priority - end of story.

We don't need to build another pyramid of bureaucracy on top of this thriving and free network of communication.


If we had more transparency, less legislation and more unfettered freedom in other systems, the World would be a fairer, more efficient place for everyone involved

if somebody pays for 20GB per month, or 10Bbit/s connection contractually then that's what they should get - we don't need more lawyers and politicos leaching off the baby of engineers and architects, who are truly the builders of our world


let the fucking scumbag, scientificaly bereft, talking heads go and start their own ghetto where nothing is done or logically reasoned about, no deep thought occurs, and see how they get on


Fuck them 


Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:55 | 1152268 Broker NotBroke
Broker NotBroke's picture

You realize that net neutrality = less transparency, more legislation, and less freedom right?

Not having net neutrality means that every packet of data is NOT treated with equal priority.

What are you arguing for or against?

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 21:10 | 1152288 Troublehoff
Troublehoff's picture

I'm arguing against exactly the kind of obfuscation and double-talk that you talk of (i.e. net neutrality being exactly the opposite)

I'd always assumed that the Repubs were the evil ones having watched the Simpsons as a kid and worshiped the satire but now realise that the Dems are actually worse.

I'm not saying I like the repubs here either..


I just want them to leave something alone for once



Fri, 04/08/2011 - 22:31 | 1152528 EvlTheCat
EvlTheCat's picture

They are all evil. Period. If you are at all aware of what is going on, all one has to do is look at the current legislation put forth to knock out streaming video vs. torrents.  Money and power talks.

You may want to worry more about the Democraps at this point..

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 02:58 | 1152931 Hot Piece of Bass
Hot Piece of Bass's picture

You're embarrassing yourself.

They're turning over control of the internet to the corporations. Who have no interest mind you... in keeping it free and open.

For people who pride themselves on not watching corporate media and being "independent," there's a lot of dumbasses here.  If this passes they will do to the internet what they did to newspapers, radio and television.  Consolidate it and control it.

I have to admit I'm somewhat taken aback by the reaction to this news here.  The last bastion of innovation and free enterprise that we can truly say belongs to America is on the verge of being turned over to monopolist corporate cronies.

And you're happy!!!

You just gave away your last Ace!  American stupidity has finally reached terminal velocity.


Sat, 04/09/2011 - 05:21 | 1152992 Troublehoff
Troublehoff's picture

I have to agree - having re-read the article sober. I'm not actually from the USA, and barely read the article last night.


It was more a rant on why the fuck the government can't leave anything alone but in light of the actual content of the article. I feel pretty stupid.


I'm not sure if I just gave away my last Ace though.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:11 | 1153516 Hot Piece of Bass
Hot Piece of Bass's picture

Welcome to the light!

Sorry if I went off.  :)

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:10 | 1153506 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Your stupidity has reached terminal velocity if you think the government will make the internet better. You're just parroting the talking points you've been spoon fed. There are now more television stations than ever before. For 40 years we were stuck with ABC, NBC, and CBS TV and radio. Now we have dozens of news and radio outlets. Newspapers are not dying because of corporate control. They are dying because their content sucks and the internet has turned newspapers into the horse and buggy of the 21st century.

I don't see what the problem is. What content has been blocked? Can any of the supporters of net neutrality name one website they've been denied access to? The only thing the ISP's want to do is load balancing. They want to stop the bandwidth hogs from preventing everyone else from using the internet. If net neutrality is allowed to stand, we'll all pay more for our internet service. The ISP's will start charging everyone by megabits instead of a flat price.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:30 | 1153561 Hot Piece of Bass
Hot Piece of Bass's picture


Do you honestly believe that you can compete in those markets?  Television, radio, print?

"Newspapers are not dying because of corporate control. They are dying because their content sucks and the internet has turned newspapers into the horse and buggy of the 21st century."

Very true.  And the reason that this is true is because access is protected by law.  Some laws actually do serve a purpose.  Go right out there and start your own radio station or television channel if you think those markets are so great.  Go on.  I'll wait.  Unless you've got a couple million, you aren't getting in.

"You're just parroting the talking points you've been spoon fed."

Am I now?  Let's talk axioms.  Your iron-clad "Government does nothing better than corporations..." argument isn't exactly your own little theory conjured from nothing is it? It's an ideology based on theories developed by people who lived in a world that ran on horse carriages.  All your little talking points... have been hammered out by elites for almost two hundred years in media outlets the world over.  Your argument is the exact same argument that was fed to your great grandparents.  If anyone is doing any parroting here... it's you.

"They want to stop the bandwidth hogs from preventing everyone else from using the internet."

Seriously?  How many times have you been "unable" to use the internet?  Ten years ago we had to wait 5 minutes to see boobies. 


Look, all the arguments that showcase the inefficiencies of government bureacracy are pretty valid.  But here's an original thought for ya...

1) Corporations, especially large ones, are nothing more than totalitarian command economies that are completely steeped in burueacracy.

2) A government is at least minimally accountable (very minimally these days) to the people.  You have no say in corporate policy.

3) Large Corporations destroy competition because it is in their best interest to do so.  Without competition, you don't have a free market.

Business probably does most things better... but sometimes... governments have a role to play.

Pretty simple.  Pretty straightforward.  And totally lost on people who have been entirely propagandized for generations.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 21:07 | 1152284 JohnG
JohnG's picture

Correct trouble.

And to the for increased bandwidth, or as you call it (my understanding of your words) "packet priority."

L3 and Sprint (the major backbone providers) can easily just charge more to Netflix, etc... for packet priority.  IPV6 accommodates this, no problem.

This cost gets passed through to the consumer until the point that Netflix, etc.... need to up their fees.

Capitalism works.  Bureaucracy does not, but costs more in taxes.


Fri, 04/08/2011 - 21:49 | 1152431 Troublehoff
Troublehoff's picture

Exactly, a packet is a packet.

That is what I am saying and In think you are as well.


Sun, 04/10/2011 - 07:38 | 1154663 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Is it in Comcast's best interest to disallow Netflix?

This has nothing to do with L3 and Sprint.  Nice obfuscation though, your momma must be proud of you.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:44 | 1152226 Gold 36000
Gold 36000's picture

Obama has no clue he is supporting netflix and the bandwith hogs because he has no clue about how about finance and investing works,  nor does he have a clue how an economy runs.

Obama also said he had no control over oil prices and his oil police is on record as saying people should trade in their vehicles for a more efficient one.

You let two of my comex buddies run the strategic petroleum reserve and allow the sdr to make settlements and they could bankrupt a few longs and get oil down to 80 in a few weeks.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:54 | 1152257 VogonPoet
VogonPoet's picture

Your comment is hogging my bandwidth. You should stick to comics, clearly you have no idea how internet works or what your even paying for. Packet delivery, get some edumication chico.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:15 | 1153525 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

 Having worked as a network admin for a large telco, I have a feeling you don't know shit either. Why don't you explain how the internet and packet delivery works along with the costs to the ISP

Sun, 04/10/2011 - 07:45 | 1154664 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Shouldn't supply and demand force the local telco to increase bandwidth?  Shouldn't bandwidth get cheaper as newer equipment is put in place that will handle it?  In a few years will Netflix traffic even be a blip?  This has nothing to do with packet delivery and the Internet (notice the capital I...), my pseudo-technically minded friend.


Sun, 04/10/2011 - 14:22 | 1155328 Corydon76
Corydon76's picture

Their costs are irrelevant to me, the consumer.  I pay them to deliver bits to me, on time, with minimal latency.  I should be able to request bits from whomever I like, and they should not be requiring the people from whom I request bits to pay them, too; the responder has their own ISP that they paid to deliver them bits.  I've already paid my ISP for service.  If my ISP cannot deliver the bits they they promised to provide me, then that is their own damn fault for promising me something they could not deliver.  The ISP may stop promising so many bits, or they may seek cheaper ways to provide me bits.  But once they start messing with my bits, they are messing with what they promised to sell me, under contract.

I completely understand overprovisioning as a method to help lower costs.  But if I request bits and you cannot deliver them when I've requested them, it's your own fault for over-promising.  Declare bankruptcy if that's a problem.

Your lack of ability to deliver what you sold is not my problem.  Don't promise it if you can't deliver it.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:47 | 1152238 4horse
4horse's picture

what Lies beneathe . . .


netflix? and a few shekels?

NetFlex --of the usual muscle, and financial force, behind hiding . . .


House Republican Leader Eric Cantor called the House's vote "an important step to bring down the FCC's harmful and partisan plan to regulate the Internet."

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:51 | 1152242 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

Now THIS is a "bailout i can believe in."  If he decides that what he does results in the failure of Netflix's business model and does it anyways but then bails out netflix (which has no bondholders to my knowledge) then "i understand.  you really do mean it."

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 21:10 | 1152289 magpie
magpie's picture

They do have bondholders.

But who has the CDS ?

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:53 | 1152248 Westcoastliberal
Westcoastliberal's picture

Netflix and other providers should consider the FCC's rules on commercial leased access, designed to guard against the same problem as we now face from "triple-play" providers.  Under the leased access rules, unaffiliated program producers are guaranteed access to the cable system.  We provide details at our website.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:54 | 1152253 Broker NotBroke
Broker NotBroke's picture

Local monopolies that get incentives from local governments are the reason we "need" net neutrality. Instead of fixing the problem, we're putting a new band aid over the rash left by the old one...

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 20:56 | 1152267 VogonPoet
VogonPoet's picture

+over 9000 internets

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 21:16 | 1152304 Broker NotBroke
Broker NotBroke's picture

Anyone have an idea of the future viability of sattellite or other types of internet that doesn't depend on fiber in the ground?


Satellite internet sucks right now, but it's potentially a huge market. We gotta get on this so Comcast can't keep raising its fees and lowering its bandwidth.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 09:14 | 1153112 Cursive
Cursive's picture

@Broker NotBroke

For those worried about the corporate takeover, there's always packet radio:


Sun, 04/10/2011 - 14:31 | 1155342 Corydon76
Corydon76's picture

Satellite internet has no potential as a market for providing Internet.  While there's a good amount of bits, the latency utterly sucks.  You can't override the laws of physics.

Packet radio has nice potential, too, but if you're dependent upon the FCC to provide bandwidth for the public benefit (and they'd rather hold huge public auctions).  The majority of bandwidth available for public usage now is located in the amateur bands.  There's a good (voluntary) system in place to prevent harmful interference, but the bandwidth is limited, you cannot use encryption, and commercial use is strictly forbidden.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:17 | 1153533 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

The internet has worked perfectly for for the past 40 years and now we need the government paper pushers and lawyers to "fix the problem". Can you knuckleheads tell me exactly what the problem is with the internet that we need a major government overhaul?

Sun, 04/10/2011 - 07:50 | 1154671 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

The Internet is delivered by content providers who are seeing the market share for their broadcast based cable disappear.  They have been milking this Tit for over 40 years and don't want to stop now, so they are using their conservative friends to force us to keep providing them milk.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 21:04 | 1152281 djsmps
djsmps's picture

I thought Netflix was the safe haven for all investors.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 21:12 | 1152296 tomster0126
tomster0126's picture

I really don't mind Netflix, their Instant services on video game systems and other platforms are pretty crucial, I don't even pay for regular cable, just 7.99 a month for my streaming Netflix.  Yeah you can pretty much watch anything online, but Netflix gives it to you in such a quick and easy to access way, it's hard to find good versions of random or obscure films online.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 21:21 | 1152320 kornholio
kornholio's picture

just BTFD

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 21:40 | 1152369 DR
DR's picture


I don't understand the Republicans stance against Net Neutrality.

Do the Republicans seriously want to give providers the means to block/postpone access to certain websites? Murdock must be having a wet dream over the possibility…

Man, my Zerohedge is running so slow tonight. Have the payoffs already started?

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 21:39 | 1152398 Broker NotBroke
Broker NotBroke's picture

It's a false argument.

Republicans are arguing against price controls

Dems are arguing against  ISP's prioritizing content.


Nobody is talking about the ISP monopoly that we maintain. I say let em charge what they want and block our access. The sooner they do, the sooner we get mad and ditch them for the best alternative.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 22:57 | 1152597 ThisIsBob
ThisIsBob's picture

Agreed, let them eat eachother before a SRO Colosseum

Sun, 04/10/2011 - 11:23 | 1154859 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

There is no alternative, that's why they call it monopoly.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:21 | 1153543 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

so genius, exactly what websites have the providers blocked? Give me a list. 


If you had more than zero brain cells, you might be able to figure out that the providers are trying to prevent bandwidth hogs from clogging up the internet. Millions of people downloading DVD quality movies will degrade the network for everyone else. Maybe that's why your zerohedge is running slow. 

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 22:29 | 1152529 Beatscape
Beatscape's picture

The overlord bureaucrats can't stand to see such a thriving and successful entity like the Internet humming along fostering new business models, giving humans the opportunity to interact as a group across boundaries in ways they have never been able to do before. The revolutions in the middle east are scaring the pants off the powers in control.

The democrats (who want to implement complete socialism and a nanny state) have hoodwinked the impressionable bleeding hearts into thinking that the the evil carriers of Internet traffic are picking and choosing winners in the Internet domain. The simple truth is--you want higher capacity access, then you simply pay for it. Is that a problem?

Ever heard of Akamai? A company that sells content acceleration services. If a company like Netflix really wants super high speed access to the Internet, then they can just buy it from a company like Akamai. This is where capitalism still rules.

If a rogue operator is orchestrating a denial-of-service attack on a website, shouldn't the carrier have the right to block the rogue's attack? Let the carriers run their business. They are just trying to make a dime and make their customers happy.

Imagine the implementation of "net neutrality". The government would eventually monitor every Internet connection and every port looking for "unfair" traffic blocking. That's just what we need--another horde of bureaucrats doing unproductive work and wasting $millions$ in the name of "fairness." The government will mandate the installation of government packet inspection devices that will monitor everyone's use and will place a higher burden on Internet traffic slowing things down and making the management of traffic much more complicated and regulated.

Enjoy the golden age of the internet while it lasts. I fully support the Republicans' efforts to make it last a little bit longer.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 22:42 | 1152558 Broker NotBroke
Broker NotBroke's picture

Those poor poor megacorporations... Don't you get it? The repugnants and the demoncrats are on the same team! Governments are Corporations are buddies. We gotta stop paying to keep the ISP's in power. Monopolies are hard to maintain without govnernment assistance.





Sat, 04/09/2011 - 14:27 | 1153544 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

If they're the same then why do you want the government to take over the internet? Can you idiots not comprehand that it takes a megacorporation to build a nationwide fiber-optics network? Frank, Ken and Bob working out of their garages aren't going to be able to lay out thousands of miles of fiber across the country.


The internet has been working just fine. Why the urgent need to "fix" it? What content have you been denied?

Sun, 04/10/2011 - 14:41 | 1155354 Corydon76
Corydon76's picture

The whole net neutrality issue only arose when AT&T's CEO, Ed Whitacre, opened his big fat mouth and said (I'm paraphrasing), "I'm going to start double-charging content providers for the bits our customers already paid us for."

Go string up Ed Whitacre and any other executive who is infected with oral diarrhea, and while you might not end the net neutrality issue, you will probably stop the next big non-issue from ever arising.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 07:11 | 1153039 Husk-Erzulie
Husk-Erzulie's picture

+ one 64 bit byte

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 22:47 | 1152573 Bob Sacamano
Bob Sacamano's picture

So who is claiming they are materially harmed by Time Warner and Comcast actively slowing down their particular transmission speeds or access??

Net Neutrality seems to be a law in search of a big problem.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 22:53 | 1152586 thames222
thames222's picture

Does anybody else use ATDHE?  I love getting football and NBA games online, it's awesome.  The FBI still can't shut them down after multiple attempts!  Ultimately the people control the net, no matter how much the government tries to exert their power over it.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 23:00 | 1152607 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

All I can say is Comcast is eviler than NTFLX in my book.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 04:31 | 1152976 Irwin Fletcher
Irwin Fletcher's picture

Sure, Comcast could make the chairSatan blush, but do people also say NFLX is evil, or is it just optimistically valued?

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 23:11 | 1152640 Twindrives
Twindrives's picture

Obama is a worm.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 23:44 | 1152706 Eureka Springs
Eureka Springs's picture

Ah yes, Divide and conquer... THE INTERNET! 

Same as it ever was... divide and conquer... for a toll of course...and censorship, monitoring.


We inveted the damn thing and now are what, 15th in the world and falling, no doubt. We've paid far more in subsidies and dedicated taxes to be much better already... but the cable/telcos just keep looting us.

Go Netflix! I may send them extra money for lobbying efforts with my next bill.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 00:11 | 1152761 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

Property rights issues aside, net neutrality looks nice.

Until you see the list of supporters.

Such as Soros-supported Free Press (which also advocates government takeover of media)

There's more to this issue than meets the eye.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 01:02 | 1152823 teotwawki
teotwawki's picture

THe pipe providers shouldnt be able to start bitching now. They are the ones who decided to provide the pipe. Now that video is being sold over it they are gettting their feelings hurt. I am all for them coming out with an alternative to netflix and competing. I pay them every month for 12 Mb/s service. What I do with it is up to me. They sure wouldn't limit the bandwidth if I was streaming from them or else I would disconnect it. Sounds like sour grapes on their part.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 01:04 | 1152828 teotwawki
teotwawki's picture

Think of your power company getting pissed because the cable company is using their power to power the cable boxes in your house.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 01:11 | 1152836 teotwawki
teotwawki's picture

And dont tell  me the power company charges per kw/h. I am paying for a certain speed, e.g., a certain amount of bandwidth. When they paid to put the glass in the ground and the electronics on either end they are done. After that it matters not what passes through the glass. I agree to pay more for more speed or less for less speed, end of story.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 01:17 | 1152844 teotwawki
teotwawki's picture

And dont think the internet is some bastion of free speech and freedom. The powers that be can shut that bitch off in a heartbeat if they so choose. I know, I know, the internet is a distributed mesh network so theres no way the could do that, right? Wrong. Just know that whatever technology is out in the open, they(our masters) are ten years ahead of it. 

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 04:05 | 1152961 rich_wicks
rich_wicks's picture

Net neutrality is nothing more than a codeword for government control of the Internet.

Don't think for a second that government control of the internet is good for the public at large.  It's not an ideal situation to have corporations determining what you can access, but government control is even worse.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 04:27 | 1152973 Irwin Fletcher
Irwin Fletcher's picture

so who should control the internet?

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 06:44 | 1153022 Broker NotBroke
Broker NotBroke's picture

Kim Jong Il

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 07:15 | 1153046 ZeroPower
ZeroPower's picture

+ Qaddafi

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 08:29 | 1153085 Zina
Zina's picture


Tea Party Republicans agree with a budget more than 1 trillion higher than that of fiscal year 2007, and will probably vote to raise the debt ceiling above 100% of the GDP!!

All that bullshit was only rhetoric!

Now, just shut up and vote for Obama 2012! There's nothing more to do!

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 10:38 | 1153193 humblepie
humblepie's picture

Free cable service with unlimited bandwidth and fast speed in exchange for no net neutrality.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 11:50 | 1153248 cosmictrainwreck
cosmictrainwreck's picture

"don't take it's just business"

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 15:23 | 1153654 SmittyinLA
SmittyinLA's picture

Obama to Netflix- "how much are you willing to donate to my campaign?"

"Oh ya, and you have to buy a veto proof margin too"

."and this isn't a one time payoff either, you'll be on the continuous protection plan"

Funny how public bribery is completely ignored by voters and the American media. NOT

Sun, 04/10/2011 - 10:14 | 1154776 MagicHandPuppet
MagicHandPuppet's picture

It's pretty amazing to see the number of Zero Hedge readers who support government action (Net Neutrality), clearly with their heads in the sand and pretending that regulation is there to protect them (and not for some corporate initiative).  With as much respect as possible to you delusional fools, please read more Zero Hedge articles.  After 5 minutes or so you might start to see a trend... and that trend is not that "the government will save you" or our precious and "free" internet.

Sun, 04/10/2011 - 11:17 | 1154849 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

The "mainstream"  point of view here is fluid on some issues, this may be one of them.  There are a couple libertopians here, and while they whine the loudest, they are hardly the majority.

Sun, 04/10/2011 - 15:45 | 1155522 MagicHandPuppet
MagicHandPuppet's picture

The beauty of your response, pan, is that when I said "delusional fool", I was inspired by several of your comments.  On cue, you arrived.

Sun, 04/10/2011 - 14:43 | 1155368 Corydon76
Corydon76's picture

I don't think anybody here supports government interference, except when some fat-cat CEO (like Ed Whitacre) opens his big, fat mouth and causes a commotion.  Then it's a question of whether corporate interference or government interference is less evil.

Mon, 04/18/2011 - 00:26 | 1179181 headless blogger
headless blogger's picture

It may not be the best solution, but for now the Net Neutrality is the best way to go, until the US has more broadband and speed. The internet is still in the works, it is not a completed project by no means.

Once again the sheep are caught between a rock and a hard place: Big Government or Big Business.

The whole issue became hot when Comcast throttled Bit Torrent and blocked content.

The problem is the Giants like Comcast, Verizon, will use their market power to block websites, throttle traffic, and stiffle competition and innovation (not to mention the implications of stifling political free speech...which would be the next step). Since the internet is not a finished product it would benefit the Giants to suffocate new technologies that may compete. It is the same 'ol, same 'ol story.

The internet has been developed over the years through open source technologies. Whatever you feel about Netflix or Bit Torrent, the implications for the future of the internet is leading towards more control, whether it is from the Big corporations or by the National Security Administration.

For this reason it is imperative to keep the internet open and free to traverse. Technologists require this for their innovations, as well as small businesses.





Mon, 04/18/2011 - 00:48 | 1179221 headless blogger
headless blogger's picture

There is always a Comcast in the cast of characters, screwing things up for everyone else. If you want freedom it comes with responsibility. You want to fuck with the internet an cut off competition and block websites, then people start stepping in. In Comcasts case its been about 5 years of their shit.

As it is now, if you live in rural America you don't get the speed. You can sign up for it and pay for it but they still don't have the system fully functional. Keep the internet highways clear for awhile before they start jamming it up even more. Let the Techies do their stuff.

My feeling is that Chairman Genachowski is a weaker FCC chairman than his predessessor, Martin. For this reason the Internet is being polluted, not only by big government, such as the NSA, but also by Big corporations. Take your pick. In the end, whether you vote with the Corpos or with Big Gov, you end up with a controlled environment. If you want to get as close to free market as possible, in this world of greed and power, then regulations of some kind are necessary. Deregulating Big Banks/Investment Firms damaged the economy, possibly for good.

Obama's threat of Veto means shit at this point. He's a known liar and back stabber, so I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of compromise happens that at least gets the control mechanisms in place.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!