4 ms·

Do you think it is just a matter of cash? If that is the case, it is going to be Netflix + Google + Token support from other tech companies vs. all of the ISPs

Do you think it is just a matter of cash? If that is the case, it is going to be Netflix + Google + Token support from other tech companies vs. all of the ISPs. The ISPs are only pulling this stunt with video services and I doubt the other tech companies are going to throw a ton of money to help "other people". I'm not sure the tech side would win that fight which is what makes me uncomfortable.

rayiner 12y ago
I don't think it's just a matter of cash. Google actually spends more on lobbying than either AT&T or Verizon: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYear=2014 http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYea.... And the numbers aren't of the magnitude people assume: the top spenders are single-digit millions with the exception of the Chamber of Commerce. You need a certain minimum amount of money, but after that it's more about ideology and jobs. The tech industry has plenty of money, but it's ideology is not easy to fit into a traditional classification, and it doesn't create that many jobs per dollar of revenue. AT&T is very effective at lobbying because they can go up to a Republican and say: "look, the internet companies want to revive this FDR-era regulation! Also, we create thousands of jobs for ordinary Americans like utility pole maintenance workers." Per dollar of lobbying expenditure, that's a much more compelling message than: "{something about openness} and also we create a few jobs most people in your district don't have the education to get and most of these jobs are in California anyway."
- opendais 12y ago
  The reason people "assume" it is expensive is because realistically, even small groups of average citizens, cannot afford to pay for a lobbying effort on things that matter to them. I never said the process requires ridiculous amounts of money. I just pointed out I fully expect the process to result in rather large loopholes that are in the ISP's favor. Ah well, it seems we more or less agree, so I probably should stop pestering you. ;)

rayiner 12y ago

I don't think it's just a matter of cash. Google actually spends more on lobbying than either AT&T or Verizon: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYear=2014 http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYea.... And the numbers aren't of the magnitude people assume: the top spenders are single-digit millions with the exception of the Chamber of Commerce. You need a certain minimum amount of money, but after that it's more about ideology and jobs. The tech industry has plenty of money, but it's ideology is not easy to fit into a traditional classification, and it doesn't create that many jobs per dollar of revenue. AT&T is very effective at lobbying because they can go up to a Republican and say: "look, the internet companies want to revive this FDR-era regulation! Also, we create thousands of jobs for ordinary Americans like utility pole maintenance workers." Per dollar of lobbying expenditure, that's a much more compelling message than: "{something about openness} and also we create a few jobs most people in your district don't have the education to get and most of these jobs are in California anyway."

opendais 12y ago
The reason people "assume" it is expensive is because realistically, even small groups of average citizens, cannot afford to pay for a lobbying effort on things that matter to them. I never said the process requires ridiculous amounts of money. I just pointed out I fully expect the process to result in rather large loopholes that are in the ISP's favor. Ah well, it seems we more or less agree, so I probably should stop pestering you. ;)