I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#131

Post by ikeboy » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 5:32 AM UTC

extra88 wrote: post #111

dingo_bat wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 41% are Uncertain, which suggests they recognize that they don't know much about the subject > comments by Agree and Strongly Agree respondents indicate they don't understand the subject fully So according to this reasoning no matter what answer you give, you don't understand the issue. > Those appear to be economists, not Internet domain specialists. NN is about regulating the internet. Economists are experts in t…

>> comments by Agree and Strongly Agree respondents indicate they don't understand the subject fully > So according to this reasoning no matter what answer you give, you don't understand the issue. I'm not referring to their responses, I'm referring to the comments quoted in the table below the charts. Some indicate clear ignorance of the subject. Others acknowledge pitfalls while handwaving them away. This comment i…

Can you give examples of economic studies that support banning paid prioritization?

There's some links in http://www.aei.org/publication/net-neutrality-economics-says..., but I had trouble finding studies saying the opposite - it's surprisingly difficult to find anyone going into technical detail at all

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#132

Post by convolvatron » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 5:33 AM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #60

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a special situation that's only happening due to arrogance of the Trump administration Pai was nominated by Obama on McConnell's recommendation [1]. Trump only elevated him to Chairman. I'm curious about his personal motivations. Is it as simple as him having served as associate general counsel at Verizon? Is it a legalistic interpretation, that the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate this? Or about…

It’s possible that he actually believes Net Neutrality is bad policy. I’m for net neutrality but I at least recognize that it’s possible to disagree in good faith.

it is. I can't recall seeing a well reasoned argument against it, but one can presume there is one.

but this process seem pretty perfunctory. in this corner the open exchange of ideas and the free market, and in the other...the idea that if we allow service providers the ability to package and toll all the content in the world, somehow that will be better for all of us.

maybe this decision is too important to delegate to appointed commissioners.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#133

Post by ikeboy » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 5:33 AM UTC

extra88 wrote: post #129

ikeboy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>ISPs do not operate in a market, consumers have little to no choice amongst providers The market being discussed is between companies and ISPs, where companies can pay more for priority.

I don't think that's clear from how the comment is written. I just realized the presumption embedded in the original question, "Considering both distributional effects and changes in efficiency, it is a good idea to let companies that send video or other content to consumers pay more to Internet service providers for the right to send that traffic using faster or higher quality service." It assumes companies paying I…

It is asking whether paid prioritization should be allowed.

Companies usually pay some ISP to send them traffic, maybe not the same ISP as the last mile but "paying more" does seem appropriate wording.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#134

Post by cmurf » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 5:34 AM UTC

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #49

netsec_burn wrote: post #43

Nick Gillespie: Your plan will, according to a write up in Politico, and I think this is accurate, it quote, "will jettison rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so called paid internet fast lanes." Question for you, do you think fast lanes will become a thing? What is the value of a internet fast lane? Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We'v…

> "If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be 'too preemptive' to outlaw it?" But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason). > "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now." But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.

What sort of idiotic nonsense is this? The law absolutely provides for law enforcement intervention to stop a murder from happening, and to charge the perpetrator(s) with attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder.

And I'm sure some people think murder is not a problem, but most of the rest of us think they're also crazy.

You know, if the ISPs were better at selling this particular turd sandwich, or turd polishing it at least, what they'd do is say they intend to charge astrometric tons more per unit of spam, email and crappy ads, that slow down people's machines and disproportionately suck up internet resources. But they aren't. So why do they want this? To do exactly the same f'd up shit they've been doing with cable TV.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#135

Post by shmerl » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 5:35 AM UTC

> I think the FCC needs to work for the public

Unfortunately Pai and Co, think that FCC needs to work for ISP monopolists and not for the public...

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#136

Post by extra88 » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 5:35 AM UTC

the_common_man wrote: post #27

_jal wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...And you believe that's what is happening with this decision?

Well, people who are anti-NN would never voice their opinion in this climate. They will get downvoted to hell.

The comments on this article are clearly a "safe space" for anti-NN people. Others are engaging with them and they're not all being downvoted to hell.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#137

Post by archgoon » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 5:35 AM UTC

RpFLCL wrote: post #16

>Reach out to the rest of the FCC now. Tell them they can’t take away internet openness without a fight. How? As this article mentions, their comment system had issues (spam and DDoS) and the only other avenue I've seen is to beg our representatives (who aren't part of the December vote) to do _something_. It was a clean and concise piece, but I was hoping that an insider would provide a new course of action. I've se…

Well, they have a phone number here, and I suppose you could directly email Ajit Pai.

https://www.fcc.gov/about/contact

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#138

Post by ghaff » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 5:35 AM UTC

saulrh wrote: post #94

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be 'too preemptive' to outlaw it?" But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason). > "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now." But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.

> But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem. I think that this is the part that I can't comprehend. The railroads misbehaved so badly that the government had to break rail transportation as an industry to kill them. Ninety years later we're still using long-haul semi trailers for everything. Bell's abuse of its monopoly was similarly severe. How do peop…

>Ninety years later we're still using long-haul semi trailers for everything.

No. There's actually a very healthy cargo rail system and relatively little trucking is truly long haul.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#139

Post by ep103 » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 5:36 AM UTC

Something1234 wrote: post #41

jacobreg wrote: post #2

What is the most effective avenue to voice my concerns?

I'm working on composing letters to my state representatives for a contingency plan(city broadband). I read on reddit, that it might be more effective than directly contacting my federal representatives(I plan on doing that too.) I'll post my letters if there's any interest in them. Would these letters be of any use?

Yes. All elected politicians monitor public input on major issues.

It usually goes something like this:

1) Comcast lobbyist: Hey politican, we'll donate 10k to your campaign this year, and another 100k+ if it becomes a tight race, just promise you'll vote against net neutrality if that ever happens, ok?

1a) Comcast, that's a deal.

2) Office Aid: Hey politican, after the FCC announced today, our phones are ringing off the hooks. People are really upset about this Net Neutrality thing.

2a) Okay, poll our constituents, and figure out just how many votes I'll lose if I vote for this thing.

3) If the number of votes > than the amount of votes the politican thinks (s)he can buy via the lobbyist's money, they change their position.

So your letters greatly affect step 2. Of course, its less cut and dry than above. Democratic politicans by and large believe in NN. Republican politicans these days rarely do. And polls are expensive and slow, so sometimes step 2a is skipped entirely and the politican makes a gut call based on the amount of feedback they receive.

But the point it, yes, your letters matter.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#140

Post by jquery » Thu, Nov 23, 2017, 5:37 AM UTC

unityByFreedom wrote: post #115

jquery wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China has net neutrality. You are quite naive if you think NN is a solution to censorship. Browse eff.org for more than a few minutes to see that NN doesn't even scratch the surface of underlying issues. I don't want NN because then everyone will think the internet is just fine, when NN is a joke of a solution that doesn't even cover anything more than the FTC already covers.

> China has net neutrality. China most definitely does not. Even if they did, it'd be unenforced. State-run tech services would get preferential treatment. Actually, that's how it works now. > I don't want NN because then everyone will think the internet is just fine, when NN is a joke of a solution that doesn't even cover anything more than the FTC already covers. The FTC won't stop ISPs from slowing access to conte…

> The FTC won't stop ISPs from slowing access to content they don't own. ISPs are communications services and rightly monitored by the Federal Communications Commission.

ISPs are communications services just like trucks are communications services because they carry mail and shipments. No. The internet is far more complicated than postage, and the FCC is not equipped to handle it.

> China most definitely does not. Even if they did, it'd be unenforced. State-run tech services would get preferential treatment. Actually, that's how it works now.

So you realize that a good name doesn't make a good policy. That's a good step.

> I don't think the above commenter was claiming NN is a solution to censorship, rather that without it, content is more silo-ed and access becomes more difficult, adding to the censorship problem. Censorship is a human problem that tech can help with.

You aren't going to lose access to your favorite polemic website or torrenting because of NN or lack-thereof. That would be immediately met by FTC lawsuits. Far more critical to censorship is YouTube demonetization and SEO shinanigans, but I don't see the front-page of reddit giving a damn about subreddits being blocked from the "Hot" feed.