Now that the FCC decided vote itself the right to degrade the most vibrant sector of the economy into a public utility, let’s take a quick look at it’s impact. First off, it seems that a few of the bigger supporters are figuring out that making a deal with the devil might not be such a good idea
Three of the driving forces behind the 10-year effort to regulate the Internet — Netflix, Mozilla, and Google — have, in the last few days and in their own ways, all recanted their zealous support of Net Neutrality.
AT&T just joined a lawsuit against the FCC…
The flurry of lawsuits comes the day after the new rules were published in the Federal Register. Parties who oppose the new rules will now have 60 days to file an appeal with the courts. The Court of Appeals may ask those parties filing suit to combine their cases. But for now each case has been filed separately.
Perhaps this might be why the most transparent administration insisted on keeping the contents of this power grab secret from the public until after it was forced onto us? Of course, President Obama has it all figured out.
The president is promoting a plan to expand access to broadband communications services by increasing competition.
Obama said faster Internet service will create jobs and allow local businesses to grow. He was speaking Wednesday from Cedar Falls, Iowa, which provides high-speed Internet to residents.
“Create jobs”. One thing I’ve noticed over the years is that the less experience one has in creating jobs or understanding of how they are created the more likely one is to use that phrase. Here is what reality looks like:
The possibility of strong net neutrality rules in the U.S. has AT&T pulling back on its high-speed Internet promises. AT&T announced Wednesday that it would stop an infrastructure investment that would have brought faster broadband connections to a 100 U.S. cities, reports Reuters.
“We can’t go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed,” AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson said Wednesday at an analyst conference.
Despite my best efforts to educate economically illiterate politicians, too many of them don’t understand that real investment is a long term decision. No stockbroker ever said, “I’ve got a great investment opportunity for you! It could make you a bundle, but the government is about to grant itself open-ended authority and we have no idea what impact it could have on your returns.” Just like no sane individual investing their own money would say “Sign me up!” Mark Cuban had his opinion to offer on this horrible solution to a non-existent problem (censorship mine):
Billionaire investor and ABC “Shark Tank” star Mark Cuban unloaded on the Federal Communications Commission’s plan to fundamentally change how it oversees the open Internet.
“That will f*** everything up,” said the voluble Cuban in remarks Wednesday at the Code/Media conference at The Ritz-Carlton, Laguna Niguel, Calif.
Cuban said this bid to significantly expand the agency’s authority to regulate broadband providers is nothing more than an attack on giant media companies like Comcast*.
“Net neutrality is just a demonization of big companies,” Cuban said.
And as Ian Paul at Techive pointed out,
Google Fiber has had the effect of increasing competitor speeds and service in areas where it operates—competition that arguably would not have happened otherwise.
We’ve got an administration that thinks that innovation comes by imposing Great Depression-era legislation over the most vibrant part of our economy. If only there were a political party that could capitalize on something so simple as a way to make an inroads with voters who don’t want the government in every aspect of their lives. Keeping government tentacles off of the Internet? That might even appeal to young people, an area where the GOP never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
In closing, here was a good take by @matthewberryfcc regarding the days leading up the FCC revealing its new rules. Transparency!
FCC leadership now trying to block Commissioner Pai's press releases from FCC website. So much for Open Internet!
— Matthew Berry (@MatthewBerryDC) February 18, 2015
Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog
Follow Brother Bob on Twitter and Facebook
We’ll have to read it to know how deeply it penetrates us.
@Bill: I don’t know, that approach has worked out so well for health care so far…
The return of national socialism. Goebbels would be so proud . The government will again get to pick the winners and losers; Instead of letting the market, naturally. take its course. They’ll repeat the failure of the 1934 communications act. A terrible piece of legislation that wound up eventually extincting all of the previous players. A tragic waste of,, even outright theft of large chunks of the players’ capital. Ever wonder why the Western Electric 500 dial phone didn’t disappear until about 1984? Government wisdom! How about a 50 year straight-line depreciation schedule on all plant and equipment; And, grandma’s local service can’t be more than $10.00 per month. How and what capital could be invested where. All those “tariffs”, “911”, Various regulatory, State, Local and of course, Federal. One of the taxes on telephones was to finance Spanish-American War debt! The world wide web had to be built fast: Before the government could get their mitts into it. Behold, the return of the “Light Touch of the leviathan, Just think, great companies like G.E(The old G.E., Edison’s companies) ., Cisco, and especially that company founded by Bell evul assistant: Watson; Yes, even those “new” phone companies need to be beaten down some; It’s usually a progressive that complains about the cell tower (Those: Oh…Yes. Even more reason to control) Iillusive IBM, , and of course, Google too, can eventually enjoy the companies of: ITT, Western and Automatic Electric. The intellectual property theft alone, was staggering. Wait until everything has to be archived onto half-inch mag tape, or something, Ultimately, they’ll literally have the power to tax, by the bit. Bit by bit. Or, bit-by-bit.. Even those feral government required bis; Don’t forget the long distance surcharge. And, those bits you’re just going to have to pay for, bits that you CAN NOT refuse; If you know what I mean, comrade. If you know what I mean.
@Batman: Building something is easy – hating someone else’s success and destroying them is easy
FCC will also order states to scrap plans for their own net neutrality laws
Double win for ISPs: No more net neutrality, and state laws will be preempted.
Right. Kill federal consumer protections in favor of the biggest telecom companies, and also forbid states from making any consumer protection rules of their own. Your cable service is already so much cheaper and better because of past deregulation, isn’t it?
Trump supporters never even figured out what net neutrality actually is, let alone what will likely happen in its absence. And they truly believe the GOP’s tax reform bill is all about giving the average American taxpayer a tax cut and boosting wages.
Yes, we’re going to let the big telecom corporations kill their competition and then pick consumers’ pockets. But comments we’ve received indicate the public approves, brothers and sisters. Why, they demand that we take this burdensome yoke off of special interests, who really have only the public’s best interests at heart!
We appreciate your comment supporting this bold ‘free-market’ initiative. (Presumably you did write that comment, since—you know—your stolen name and email address are attached to it.)
This is all a dog and pony show. The Trump administration has already decided what they’re going to do: The companies owning the pipelines will be put in a position to squeeze out smaller competitors and any threatening innovation, by the simple means of charging them more dollars to transmit the same volumes of data. (That’s what the whole thing has always come down to. Net neutrality simply means everyone is charged the same rates for the same volume of data.) With competition and worrisome innovations effectively suppressed, consumers can be charged more and profits will swell enormously. And if those corporate tax cuts also go through—well, just imagine!
Flooded with thoughtful net neutrality comments, FCC highlights “mean tweets”
Facing extensive net neutrality support, FCC is ready to gut open Internet rules.
Investigation of fake net neutrality foes has been stymied by the FCC, New York Attorney General says
What a surprise.
F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
It was a foregone conclusion that Trump’s FCC toady would do this. Never mind the fact that the decision was supported during the public comment phase by generating well over a million phony letters supporting the elimination of net neutrality, falsely attributed to people who never wrote them. (Many dead people registered their opinions by submitting comments. Apparently the dead hate net neutrality.) Stolen names and email addresses were compiled by way of computer database hacking.
18 attorneys general ask FCC to delay net neutrality vote for fake comments investigation
That was to no avail, of course, because we’re now dealing with one of the most dishonest presidential administrations ever to have been installed in the nation’s capital.
Sorry, that’s total bullshit—just like the claim that the tax reform bill is designed to benefit working and middle class families is bullshit. In the absence of net neutrality requirements, giant telecom corporations will have the ability to tilt the playing field against their competition and any threatening services and innovations, simply by charging those who would provide them higher rates for the same volume of digital data transfer that they themselves can buy more cheaply. This will result in a reduction in new consumer options and higher costs for what they do get. There’s nothing the least bit “free market” about the consequences of the change. A level playing field and a free market encouraging competition and innovation are what net neutrality has always been all about.
@Greg: Oh, no… now it’s back to the way it was before, when there was ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM.
Since the issue of phony letters arrived, why not talk about phony votes:
Roy Moore received 953 votes, Doug Jones 5,327 in a town of 2,256 residents with only 1,867 registered voters
Hmmm, sounds about right
@Bill… Deplorable Me:
So, we’re back to the way it was ‘before’ the Net neutrality thing was passed.
Let’s see, we had a free and open competition internet
Obama passed a rule called Net Neutrality to ‘keep it that way’
Trump had it repealed to “keep it that way”
Now it is back to ‘free and open competition internet” as it was before someone started to tamper with it. We’ve removed the ‘tamper’ and are back to the ‘good old days’ of free and open competition internet.
Libs are really struggling with that.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #9:
They’re going to make the internet better and cheaper—just like they did for cable television when they deregulated it.
Not to mention the fact that they’ll be in a far better position to favor the free expression of one set of political views over another, or one slant on the news over another, or one particular company’s product over another’s.
Abandoning net neutrality will ultimately give the telecom giants far more control over people’s minds. Abandoning it is an anti-free market move.
The internet is already not as it once was. Net neutrality was an effort to restore some balance. Now it will become one more tilted playing field, by design.
A Public Service Announcement from Chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, regarding the elimination of net neutrality.
Possible explanations:
(a) He thinks his viewers are incredibly stupid;
(b) He himself is incredibly stupid; or
(c) He’s deliberately insulting your intelligence.
@Greg: Cable tv is not deregulated. I guess you don’t know anyone who works for a cable company or telco providing ISP services. Did anyones bill from their ISP get cheaper under NN?
NN was based on rules created in the 1930’s. How “progressive” is that?
@Greg:
Wait… what? Are you somehow afraid that liberals will no longer be allowed to dominate the media to spread leftist propaganda? Google already does this by directing searches in the direction the left wants the searches to go and Obama’s “neutrality” benefited Google and other leftist allies.
This was stopped before “net neutrality” could do for the internet what Obamacare did for health care… DESTROY it.
When did government control and regulation of anything make it better or cheaper?
BREAKING: Millions of Americans that tragically died after Trump pulled out from the Paris climate Accord will now be forced to die again due to the repeal of NetNeutrality.
@Greg:
Greg, would you say the internet today is better and cheaper than it was in 1995? Free and open competition is what got it that way. That was ‘net neutrality’ that is what Obama passed a regulation to keep. That regulation just got repealed, so the net change is NONE. It’s back to the way it was. In 1995, I paid $15 a month for dial up and sometimes my dial up speed got me all the way up to 50 kps that’s KPS, then later I got up to 50 Megs then later I got up to 500 Megs and now I’m up to a Gig and that is ‘unlimited’. So I can stream on 20 devices at one time and if you don’t think that happens then you just don’t have a new sophisticated router. My house almost always has over 20 devices on at any time. And if you look when that’s going on, you might see 25 devices ‘off line’. My internet bill for all that unlimited streaming, 60 bucks. Dirt cheap compared to that 50 KPS for $15. Net neutrality, before Obama got all that for me. Now we’re back to free and open competition. We need to leave it that way.
@Redteam: This will spawn a huge competition, services never thought of. Perhaps those in rural areas wont be paying through the nose for email.
Have you noticed that FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is getting negative feedback on his appallingly clueless little video at a ratio of around 90 to 1?
@kitt, #18:
That’s Ajit Pai’s pitch, but also complete nonsense. It turns the truth upside down. The few enormous telecom corporations which own the entire communication infrastructure will now be allowed to charge the providers of any competing digital services higher rates than they pay themselves for moving the same volumes of data at the same speeds. Such an arrangement is a competition and innovation killer.
@Redteam, #17:
The technology is unquestionably better and cheaper. We’re no longer paying $10 or $20 per month for a dial up modem connection running through a copper telephone wire. This has absolutely nothing to do with the presence or absence of net neutrality, however. There was money to be made from improved technology itself, because people wanted and would pay for faster devices and faster connections. That’s how a better infrastructure came into being.
Net neutrality isn’t about the infrastructure technology. It’s about service charges.
It’s about preventing the huge corporations that control the infrastructure from using that control to monopolize the services that move through it. You can’t let a few companies that own all the roads set different rates designed to favor their own trucking companies. That wouldn’t be a free market environment. It would be a competition and innovation killer—which invariably results in fewer consumer options and higher costs.
@Greg:
SHOCKING! A negative reaction triggered by the liberal media’s coordinated propaganda campaign!! Who could have seen THIS coming?
What will be really shocking is when you get tired of being lied to, Greg.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #20:
It’s triggered by the fact that the man is a lying weasel, saying unbelievably stupid things in a condescending manner in front of an informed audience that actually understands the issue very well. The issue isn’t really that hard to understand. The only prerequisite is a willingness to engage one’s brain and understand it.
The Trump administration should have left this one alone. Instead, they’ve chosen to pee on an energized spark plug. There’s going to be nothing left of republican credibility by the time these idiots are done.
@Greg: OBAMA should have left it alone. In fact, Obama should have stayed in Chicago with the other criminals.
I just watched FOX’s The Five take up this topic. They are also lying weasels. They managed to discuss it without once mentioning or even alluding to the actual issue. Instead, more of that Ending it will encourage competition and innovation bullshit, along with Liberals just aren’t smart enough to understand. FOX News is a frickin’ travesty.
Senate Democrats to force vote on FCC net neutrality repeal
Good. He’s going to make republican Senators go on record with a vote on Net Neutrality. They can then be held accountable in their next election. That might also be a good time to remind voters what republicans did this past March to the Obama administration’s internet privacy protections.
@Greg:
To quote Bugs Bunny, “Could be you, Doc.”
Senator Charles Schumer is going to force a Senate vote on the FCC’s rule change. Republicans will have to go on record on this very controversial issue. Voters will be reminded, come their next election. It’s a tactic called “accountability.”
What happens to the internet in the absence of Net Neutrality.
@Greg: It’s a tactic called “accountability. Now that would be quite different from a Democrat on any issue or crime.
This will be known as the day the internet was saved.
Who was behind this net neutrality who is bemoaning it now. Big tech like google facebook and twitter who get to control what you see and shape ideas. They determine who to ban, what sites you are sent to for searches. While selling your info to the highest bidder.
For 25 years the internet grew freely without the lobbied for rules and regs
For 25 years no nanny state choosing the winners and losers.
@Bill… Deplorable Me: Bots sent by silicon valley.
@kitt, #27:
Such internet privacy issues were, in fact, addressed by the Obama Administration by putting rules to protect your internet privacy and the marketing of your personal information in place. The republican-majority House struck them down this past March, before they even went into effect.
House passes bill undoing Obama internet privacy rule
So, the information collected on you based on your internet activities remains a marketable commodity for sale to anyone wishing to buy it, whether you like it or not. This is what happens in the absence of regulation.
The FCC’s proposal to dump Net Neutrality was supported by nearly 2 million phony public comments, thousands being totally identical, bearing names and email addresses that were gathered online. Numerous dead people were thus able to make their views known. There’s your free and unregulated privacy in action.
@Greg: Privacy dont joke, and tell me why I shouldnt have a smart tv in my bedroom. Why am I forced to have a smart meter on my house? How they can turn on my cell phone and listen. What is private anymore our finances sent to experian? Less government in my life the better.
We already have a ministry of truth turn on MSM. Why do you fear freedom? Did they tell you how many bots were for NN or only 1/2 the truth the number against?
https://freedomoutpost.com/obama-signs-illegal-ministry-of-truth-bill-the-truth-is-what-we-say-it-is/
Hows that for kicking the constitution in the teeth before he exited and why I say there is only the uniparty.
Regulatory agencies and courts are about the only thing remaining between the public and the sharks. Who else represents the public’s interest? Trump is putting the fox’s in charge of guarding the hen house. Every one of his regulatory appointments has involved such a person.
@Greg: Must you have everything regulated controlled. Are you not able to live without the government advising you every step, have you no free will of your own cant trust yourself. you are so convinced you are a stupid victim or will be a victim without big brother.
Are all judges in your courts wise and just? Do they always look to the intent of the law or their interpretation of the law? I have swam in the ocean, no shark. Sometime you have to take responsibility for yourself. Forget all the dependence on someone who doesnt know you or your life making arbitrary decisions for you.
@Greg: So you missed my point entirely. Apparently the Obama admin was happy with the internet the way it was in 2015 as they passed ‘net neutrality’ to keep it as it was and had always been. Now the Trump admin is removing ‘net neutrality’ so it will go back to the way it had always been, which is what net neutrality was protecting. So let’s just say you are driving down the interstate at 65 miles per hour and are staying in your lane, then you turn on cruise control (net neutrality) so that it will automatically stay as it was, same speed, same lane. So then you take cruise control off and you then cruise at 65 mph in the same lane you were in. How have you been hurt or damaged in any way? This is what we are talking about.
@Greg:
That’s what you should have said when Obozo put his net neutrality in, which ‘in effect’ did nothing because it required that the interstate remain as it had been, free and open competition. So now they’re taking it off and it will now return to what it was before it was guaranteed to remain as it was, free and open competition. So if Obozo hadn’t put that law in, we would then have what we are now going to resume which is what was never changed.
@Greg:
Golly Greg, are you saying the Republicans are adopting the Dimocraps strategies?
@kitt: Dims just love Obama telling them when they have permission to go to the bathroom.
Yes, Net Neutrality Is Being Stolen From Us in a F#2ked Up, Undemocratic Heist
Since when have Trump’s followers needed facts to make their minds up about anything?
@Greg: You might find this interview interesting.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/msnbc-anchor-loses-net-neutrality-debate-with-former-fcc-chairman-video/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
@Mully, #39:
I just discussed that performance in another thread. Maybe I should have posted it here instead:
Robert McDowell is slickly weaseling his way around any direct answers to Velshi’s questions. Hence, Velshi’s growing frustration.
McDowell’s argument boils down to an assertion that the Clayton Act and Sherman Act are entirely adequate to prevent large telecom corporations from creating a non-competitive environment greatly to their own advantage. In fact, these laws would be very difficult to apply to the sort of anti-competitive practices Net Neutrality was designed to deal with specifically, as McDowell well knows. This difficulty has to do with the basic principles of anti-trust law and the two basic types of violations they address: per se violations and violations of the rule of reason. In the case of the internet, establishing the existence of either comes with built-in obstacles. Refer to ANTITRUST LAW AND THE INTERNET:
In this case, Net Neutrality was created to set the concrete standards in question. Removing these rules creates the sort of absence that the above paragraph refers to.
Regarding the second type of possible violation—arrangements that are per se unreasonable—a different problem sets in:
Infrastructure owners charging competitors higher rates for identical speed and bandwidth than they charge their own service providers doesn’t create a per se violation, because it doesn’t constitute an agreement between competitors. It’s a permissible vertical restraint.
In other words, existing anti-trust law wouldn’t be applicable.
McDowell’s argument that the internet has developed well in the absence of specific regulation is also an evasion. The internet has only recently become what it now is. Until recently, the problems that Net Neutrality heads off were still out of sight over the horizon.
McDowell is glibly delivering a load of manure.
@Mully, #39:
I’ve commented on the problems with McDowell’s claims twice now, but both posts have gone into moderation. I’ll check back later.
@Greg: Greg, I know you’re a liberal and they don’t change any liberal dictate handed down to them, as this matter is. But think of this: Netflix put out a statement, and I’ll link you to it, that says that it will not affect their business either way because the cost of streaming their service is totally neglible in their business. They make money ‘selling movies and video, etc and it is in their interest to see that you get great streaming service so that you will buy more movies from them. The article goes on to say that the big libs that run Amazon, google, Facebook etc wanted net neutrality to insure that someone else will have a hard time getting into competition with them, NOT to make the net ‘more neutral’. Just curious, if you have Netflix service, and like it, and they notified you that they were increasing their prices and slowing down streaming speeds so you would have to wait longer for movies to load, etc, would that tend to make you want to buy MORE Netflix services? or less? Yes, you’re right, that’s what they think also, that’s why they were opposed to Net Neutraling in 2015. Here’s that link: https://www.westernjournal.com/heres-net-neutrality-repeal-will-affect-netflix-subscription/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=PostTopSharingButtons&utm_content=2017-12-16&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons
Greg, I notice you don’t respond to questions that actually have ‘facts’ in them and only refer others here to links from such ‘authoritative’ sources as the Washington Post, which, it is understood to be owned by the owner of several services that would benefit greatly by the ‘so called’ ‘net neutrality’ act because it would greatly hinder anyone else getting into the businesses he is currently in. So, yes he wants net neutrality, it benefits him. No you ‘don’t want it’ because not having it benefits you. Do you think the owner of Amazon is more interested in benefiting him, or you? Give me an honest answer to that question.
@Redteam, #43:
In the absence of Net Neutrality, it wouldn’t be Netflix that would be slowing down streaming speeds and raising prices, because Netflix doesn’t own the “roads” used to deliver your movies. Netflix is paying toll road fees to do that. Those fees are part of Netflix’s cost of doing business, which they pass on to the movie viewer.
Suppose the giant telecom that owns those roads also has financial interest in some competing movie delivery service. Without net neutrality, they could decide to charge their preferred movie service lower fees, while charging Netflix increased fees to use the same road. Or maybe they would decide to charge both the same, but restrict Netflix delivery trucks to the slower roads with more backed up traffic. Suddenly Netflix can’t deliver an equally high level of service at a competitive price.
So, the consumer loses, Netflix loses, and the owner of the toll road makes more money while providing the consumer with nothing better than he had before.
Special interests and their public relations departments and fast-talking lawyers have done a very good job of confusing the public about what net neutrality actually does. It prevents situations like the one above.
Doesnt matter its done now we will see if the iternet takes off with new SPs or dies.
@Greg:
liberal logic. Let’s say you own a toll road, and you can charge what you like and your toll road is going to an island. And there are a couple other roads that also go to that island. We can even stipulate that all three roads are toll roads. So as of today, all toll roads have been charging $1 but beginning today, each toll road owner can charge whatever he chooses to charge, so you immediately jump yours to $2 and the other 2 roads elect to stay at the same price they were. So now you’re going to make twice as much money as they are, right? Since that worked so well, why not go ahead up to $3 while they keep theirs at $1, so now you’re going to be making 3 times as much, right. But at the end of that 2nd day, you find out that what actually happened is that 100% of the cars that would have come over your toll bridge at $1 did not come at the increased prices so, in fact, instead of you making 2 times and 3 times as much, you actually made zero. Then a little research shows you that while bridge 2 stayed at the $1, bridge one actually reduced his price to .80. and it turns out that out of 300 cars that went to that island, 200 paid .80 to bridge one, 100 paid $1 to bridge 2 and 0 paid $2 or $3 to bridge 3. So bridge one made $160, bridge 2 made 100 and bridge 3 made 0. Did you learn anything about them being able to set the price whereever they wanted to. As it had always been prior to ‘net neutrality’ and during ‘net neutrality’? Apparently you chose not to read the facts that Netflix published, which I linked to that said the cost of internet was of no interest to them. It was insignificant in their business. I guess it was too complicated for you to attempt.
@kitt: Net service has now been returned to where it was before ‘net neutrality’. back to the days when it was open, unregulated and all companies were attempting to sell you more and more for less and less. But a few big companies, such as Amazon didn’t want others to be able to have the same access as they did so they put in this new thing called ‘net neutrality’ in 2015 which meant some companies could begin to limit what services you could get and they started leaning in the direction of making sure the big companies, Amazon etc kept their preferred status and make it harder for a new little company to come along and compete with them. Now we’re back to free and open, with no one allowed to get preferences. It would be awful to be a liberal and have to believe the crap they are expected to go unquestioned.
@Redteam, #46:
I’m not sure you fully understood the Western Journal article yourself. Netflix isn’t really a good example, for a reason the article states:
That’s one way innovation and competition will be discouraged. The existing big players will be able to leverage rate deals that smaller, new competitors won’t. It’s like health insurance companies being able to negotiate much cheaper prices for prescription drugs based on the volume purchase leverage of plans covering huge numbers of people. The same drugs cost far more for customers having no insurance or having individual plans.
@Greg:
I think your tongue got twisted there Greg. read your statement again and here it is
So you are saying that existing big players will be charged rates so good that new players won’t be able to compete? So, huge companies selling everything at very high speed and very low prices will be bad for the consumer? So a new company would have to be at least as good to be competitive. So which one is going to say ‘to hell with how much we sell, just raise the price as much as we want to. Yeah, sure, raising the price is a real means to increase business. I notice you ignored my toll bridges. ‘without net neutrality, the world has a super internet, now we need to regulate it to control and eliminate free open competition. Yep, sounds like something a liberal would say. Kinda like ‘affirmative action’.
Is it possible for you to think about anything without applying your conservative/good, liberal/bad view of reality?