Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by philovivero » Tue, Jan 09, 2018, 1:53 AM UTC

Steltek wrote: post #50

renlo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that was the point the article was positing; it's a symbolic vote to get Republicans on the record for their support of an unpopular position.

I think what people fail to realize is that it's not unpopular enough and not with the right people. For the GOP base, they may disagree wholeheartedly but what are they going to do? Vote for a abortionist gun-grabbing Democrat? For Dems, the best use of these things is barrage the election cycle with negative news about the GOP. Failed policies, bad ideas, myopic leadership. Bad bad bad bad. Suck the energy right ou…

Also, everyone to the right of Antifa have been told Net Neutrality was disguised legislation to censor conservative opinions.

Given how completely Twitter, Facebook, Google, et al censor right-leaning political opinions, and they're big pro-NN orgs, it wasn't a hard sell.

Unfortunately, NN has become yet another casualty in these weird post-fact times.

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

#62

Post by oceanstone » Tue, Jan 09, 2018, 1:55 AM UTC

Steltek wrote: post #50

renlo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that was the point the article was positing; it's a symbolic vote to get Republicans on the record for their support of an unpopular position.

I think what people fail to realize is that it's not unpopular enough and not with the right people. For the GOP base, they may disagree wholeheartedly but what are they going to do? Vote for a abortionist gun-grabbing Democrat? For Dems, the best use of these things is barrage the election cycle with negative news about the GOP. Failed policies, bad ideas, myopic leadership. Bad bad bad bad. Suck the energy right ou…

You didn't mention the largest voting block, voters who don't strongly identify with either party.

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

#63

Post by Kequc » Tue, Jan 09, 2018, 1:56 AM UTC

JoshuaEN wrote: post #4

This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. Congress ultimately directly serve at the pleasure of their constituents, unlike the FCC commissioners. Point being, the time leading up to this vote is probably be the best time to let your congress members know your opinion on NN. Do not let the "failure"[1] of previous efforts to get congress to act in defense of NN dissuade you from fut…

Why don't Democrats pass NN through congress and get it enshrined into law? Instead of trying to block that from happening, since it's Republicans who are trying to do that.

Why was NN so easy to repeal in the first place? Why didn't Obama do a proper job if it's such an important issue? I still don't agree with the accepted wisdom about what NN is in the first place. Seems to me to suggest companies that are using up a lot of bandwidth are going to start paying more, competitors are going to start paying less. Which is why every single large company is opposed to the change.

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

#64

Post by pwtweet » Tue, Jan 09, 2018, 1:57 AM UTC

danjayh wrote: post #42

lmroz wrote: post #37

The U.S. Senate voted on an older version of net neutrality in 2011 with a resolution introduced by former republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (a resolution of disapproval of the FCC's Open Internet Order of 2010). It was a party line vote, 48-52, with republicans (the minority caucus in the Senate at that time) voting against the order and democrats voting in support of the order. https://www.congress.gov/bill/112t…

The problem isn't net neutrality, it's lack of competition among ISPs. Normally, I would agree with them - regulating the internet is not the way to spur innovation. But with an ISP monopoly or duopoly in most markets, either more competition (my preferred solution) or regulation is needed. As we've seen with phone service (if you're old enough to remember), regulation will give us reliable but expensive service, and…

"competition will give us cheap, reliable, and feature-filled service". Really, I would love to see the evidence that this would be the case.

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

#65

Post by danjayh » Tue, Jan 09, 2018, 1:57 AM UTC

behringer wrote: post #47

danjayh wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't net neutrality, it's lack of competition among ISPs. Normally, I would agree with them - regulating the internet is not the way to spur innovation. But with an ISP monopoly or duopoly in most markets, either more competition (my preferred solution) or regulation is needed. As we've seen with phone service (if you're old enough to remember), regulation will give us reliable but expensive service, and…

Net Neutrality and competition are two completely separate issues.

Not really. In a competitive market, ISPs couldn't pull the kind of anti-consumer shenanigans that NN is meant to prevent, but wouldn't be hamstrung from reducing costs by forced compliance to regulations. The closest analogy that I can think of was Ma Bell, followed by the breakup of ma bell, followed by open access to long distance lines. The best and cheapest long distance service came after the regulations were lifted and true competition was established.

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

#66

Post by smsm42 » Tue, Jan 09, 2018, 1:59 AM UTC

quadyeast wrote: post #29

chrischen wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've used Sonic. They advertised $40/m (still do) but it turned out that plus additional $10 just because, plus hw rental fees, plus taxes on the phone service I don't need and can't get rid of. All summarily $65. Plus they use AT&T infrastructure, which also conveniently makes it impossible to switch from them to regular AT&T without cancelling the service completely (thus cutting off internet) and ordering a brand new install, since AT&T software can't handle it otherwise (they don't have option to move same service to different billing engine). Plus they told me I have to cancel a month in advance (and pay for the extra month even if I already have another service). So, I'm no longer using Sonic.

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

#67

Post by lukeschlather » Tue, Jan 09, 2018, 1:59 AM UTC

Kequc wrote: post #63

JoshuaEN wrote: post #4

This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. Congress ultimately directly serve at the pleasure of their constituents, unlike the FCC commissioners. Point being, the time leading up to this vote is probably be the best time to let your congress members know your opinion on NN. Do not let the "failure"[1] of previous efforts to get congress to act in defense of NN dissuade you from fut…

Why don't Democrats pass NN through congress and get it enshrined into law? Instead of trying to block that from happening, since it's Republicans who are trying to do that. Why was NN so easy to repeal in the first place? Why didn't Obama do a proper job if it's such an important issue? I still don't agree with the accepted wisdom about what NN is in the first place. Seems to me to suggest companies that are using u…

No. Companies that are using lots of bandwidth will get bulk rates, or negotiate sweetheart zero-rating deals.

Upstart companies with spikes in usage may be killed because they can't get the bandwidth they need at the same low rates the incumbent players get.

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

#68

Post by viridian » Tue, Jan 09, 2018, 2:02 AM UTC

oceanstone wrote: post #62

Steltek wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what people fail to realize is that it's not unpopular enough and not with the right people. For the GOP base, they may disagree wholeheartedly but what are they going to do? Vote for a abortionist gun-grabbing Democrat? For Dems, the best use of these things is barrage the election cycle with negative news about the GOP. Failed policies, bad ideas, myopic leadership. Bad bad bad bad. Suck the energy right ou…

You didn't mention the largest voting block, voters who don't strongly identify with either party.

Unfortunately that voting block doesn't line up with reality, as least from the stats I know for the presidential elections. A given voter that voted for party X's candidate four years ago, if they vote again, will vote for party X's candidate about 92% of the time. This means that in the pool of 'likely voters', the two parties are realistically fighting over 8% of hearts and minds.

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

#69

Post by lukeschlather » Tue, Jan 09, 2018, 2:04 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #38

temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #22

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, theoretica…

Where the idea that FCC latest ruling is opposed by majority of conservatives comes from? Moreover, if you think issue as obscure and technical as NN would be important enough for a senator to break with their own party, you are deluding yourself. The only way to make it so is to wage blatantly false campaign like "without NN you'd be paying 100x for Internet tomorrow and all your favorite sites would be blocked" - w…

We have a monopoly problem with Comcast, etc. so this isn't that complicated. It's an oversimplification to say that net neutrality is going to solve that problem, but I don't think it's an oversimplification to say that people against NN are against solving the problem, and I think most people get that intuitively, even if they don't get the details.

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

#70

Post by JauntyHatAngle » Tue, Jan 09, 2018, 2:05 AM UTC

matte_black wrote: post #57

awalton wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. Shame, because this vote is incredibly predictable by anyone who has been paying any attention at all. Republicans are on the bullet train to dismantle and sell off the government to the highest bidders. This vote goes straight down party lines. But, it'll be an easy banner for Dems to hoist in November to rally voters, since it's categor…

This is an easy opportunity for Republicans to show they can be bipartisan without actually risking much, given the widespread support there is for Net Neutrality. Later they can attack Democrats for not being more bipartisan on one of their issues.

>This is an easy opportunity for Republicans to show they can be bipartisan without actually risking much

Except this matters to their donors, and falls in line with the political ideology of current republicans, so why would they go against it?