Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 167 posts

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#21

Post by CydeWeys »

jnordwick wrote: post #7

Title II was never meant to be a good solution to net neutrality. It was used because it was the only level that the FCC had. Congress can actually craft internet specific legislation and should. It seems like Title II has become the end game for many because of pure politics, not because it is a good solution. Remember, parts of Title II had to be ignored to get this square peg to fit. No, don't vote for this. Devel…

I don't care if it's optimal, I care that it works, which it does. That makes it good. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.

I'm gonna say this flat out: Do you believe in net neutrality? Because this argument that you're concern trolling with leads me to believe that you don't actually believe in it. Trying to give supposed "advice" to advance a goal—that doesn't actually do so—is deceptive.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#22

Post by temp-dude-87844 »

This vote is an important device that serves to decouple net neutrality as a distinct political issue, rather than a footnote in a particular politician's larger platform which -- to many voters -- isn't as important as some other hot-button stances to merit single-issue voting. By triggering a senate vote, this gives an opportunity for each senator to make their stance on this a matter of official record, theoretically independent from any other affiliation they might hold. With the FCC's latest ruling opposed by a majority of liberal and conservatives alike, this is an opportunity to stand with their constituents.

The other objective of those who brought the vote is to illustrate just how few, if any, of those on the other side will vote to oppose the FCC's new rules. This can be weaponized on the ground in later elections, especially competitive districts -- or in this case, states.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#23

Post by rconti »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #9
jnordwick wrote: post #7

Title II was never meant to be a good solution to net neutrality. It was used because it was the only level that the FCC had. Congress can actually craft internet specific legislation and should. It seems like Title II has become the end game for many because of pure politics, not because it is a good solution. Remember, parts of Title II had to be ignored to get this square peg to fit. No, don't vote for this. Devel…

A good idea, in theory. But, in practice, this would require many more votes, and cooperation from Republican leadership in both houses of congress to develop a bill and get it out of committee and survive the likely filibuster. The CRA route (restoring Title II classification) may not be perfect, but it's the only remotely viable strategy on Capitol Hill. (And it's still a long shot, at best.)

If you expect the Republican leadership to not support it, they won't even need the filibuster-- they've got the numbers to vote against it already.

TBH, I've lost track of who supposedly supports what and why. The votes and arguments on the NN debate, in our political sphere, seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with policy anymore, so it's hard to "predict" how someone will vote.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#24

Post by chriscappuccio »

CydeWeys wrote: post #19
mehrdadn wrote: post #15

This is risky. If lack of net neutrality regulation doesn't result in clearly-out-of-bounds behavior by ISPs in the near term, Democrats will be the ones looking bad for trying to add useless regulation. I hope they've thought this scenario through.

The ISP bad behavior has already been going on for years and is now hitting a high-pitched fervor now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality. I don't see how it's risky; the bad behavior is already there and regulation is sorely needed.

It is risky because you are wrong; nothing is hitting any fervor at all. What are you referring to?

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#25

Post by wmeredith »

mehrdadn wrote: post #15

This is risky. If lack of net neutrality regulation doesn't result in clearly-out-of-bounds behavior by ISPs in the near term, Democrats will be the ones looking bad for trying to add useless regulation. I hope they've thought this scenario through.

The ISPs have already been caught red-handed throttling/shaping traffic to fit their business goals over and over.

Comcast was blocking bitorrent traffic in 2008. 1

Verizon blocked tethering apps in 2008. 1

AT&T blocked FaceTime in 2012. 1

Comcast imposed data caps for all streaming services except their own offered through xBox live in 2008. 1

Comcast currently exempts its own Stream TV service from data caps. 2

1. https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/net-neutrality-violations-hi...

2. http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/News/Online-Video-New...

I dug that up by googling for 5 minutes.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#26

Post by chriscappuccio »

CydeWeys wrote: post #21
jnordwick wrote: post #7

Title II was never meant to be a good solution to net neutrality. It was used because it was the only level that the FCC had. Congress can actually craft internet specific legislation and should. It seems like Title II has become the end game for many because of pure politics, not because it is a good solution. Remember, parts of Title II had to be ignored to get this square peg to fit. No, don't vote for this. Devel…

I don't care if it's optimal, I care that it works, which it does. That makes it good. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. I'm gonna say this flat out: Do you believe in net neutrality? Because this argument that you're concern trolling with leads me to believe that you don't actually believe in it. Trying to give supposed "advice" to advance a goal—that doesn't actually do so—is deceptive.

Works for what, exactly? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#27

Post by ikeboy »

CydeWeys wrote: post #19
mehrdadn wrote: post #15

This is risky. If lack of net neutrality regulation doesn't result in clearly-out-of-bounds behavior by ISPs in the near term, Democrats will be the ones looking bad for trying to add useless regulation. I hope they've thought this scenario through.

The ISP bad behavior has already been going on for years and is now hitting a high-pitched fervor now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality. I don't see how it's risky; the bad behavior is already there and regulation is sorely needed.

This would benefit strongly from examples.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#28

Post by chriscappuccio »

jnordwick wrote: post #7

Title II was never meant to be a good solution to net neutrality. It was used because it was the only level that the FCC had. Congress can actually craft internet specific legislation and should. It seems like Title II has become the end game for many because of pure politics, not because it is a good solution. Remember, parts of Title II had to be ignored to get this square peg to fit. No, don't vote for this. Devel…

There is section 706 instead of II

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#29

Post by quadyeast »

chrischen wrote: post #18
pfooti wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd bet that at least part of that is in response to competition on the ground. Monkeybrains and Sonic (disclosure: long time sonic customer) both are bringing high-speed broadband to SF. In particular, I have symmetric gigabit for like $50 a month.

I have 15 down 0.5 mbps up sonic for $70...

I have 3 mb/s down sonic for $68. It comes bundled with a phone line that I do not need. They charge me $10 extra because they are trying to improve the network elsewhere.
Post reply on HN