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

Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 242 posts

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#181

Post by creaghpatr »

djur wrote: post #140
Lionsion wrote: post #3

Time to call your Congressmen. I live in a purple district, and I'm going to make it clear to my Republican representative that: 1) I'm going to vote in November, 2) I will vote for him if he votes to keep the pre-existing title II net neutrality regulations, and against them if he does not, and 3) Net neutrality is even supported by a majority of Republican voters [1], so if he votes against it's clear he's voting a…

All 49 Democratic Senators voted in favor of net neutrality. Why not vote for the Democrat?

Because they knew the vote would have no impact. Had there been real stakes you would see defectors in the re-election swing states.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#182

Post by moduspol »

drawkbox wrote: post #108
bifrost wrote: post #42

Considering where this has been politically, this isn't going to change anything. And really all "killing" NN does is move this back to the FTC, where it was for a decade+

Internet is a utility now though and only the FCC can make network / internet a utility / common carrier. ISPs want it at the FTC for that reason, so it isn't seen as a utility, it is. Internet is as required as radio, phone, tv, water, electricity etc, it makes more sense under Title II and 80%+ of people support that. [1] > Americans embrace a Title II vision of internet service. A strong majority (88 percent, 48 p…

This kind of polling really bothers me.

> when I buy internet service, I am paying to transmit information between my computer and the websites I visit, free from interference.

Of course they'll agree with that. Now ask them if they think their VoIP landline phone calls should be required to be treated with equal priority to their neighbor's cat videos or bittorrent traffic. Ask them if their provider should be able to regulate disruptive / chatty protocols used by a tiny minority to improve the quality of the service for everyone else. Ask them if it bothers them to have their Netflix traffic be zero-rated as a bundled-in perk from their ISP.

You'll then find the number much lower than 80% in "support." It's difficult to imagine a more leading question.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#183

Post by CWuestefeld »

dragonwriter wrote: post #54
CWuestefeld wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the way you're looking at this is really important, and something that's being lost in the vehement support of NN. Intellectual honesty demands that we admit that there really are problems with NN as it had been implemented. Trying to fit the technology of a massive packet-switched data network into very specific regulations designed for an ancient circuit-switched primarily voice network really was a kluge.…

> Intellectual honesty demands that we admit that there really are problems with NN as it had been implemented. Trying to fit the technology of a massive packet-switched data network into very specific regulations designed for an ancient circuit-switched primarily voice network really was a kluge. It would have been, had that been done, but it wasn't, so it wasn't. The specific regulations applied to the telephone ne…

Your claims don't match what I'm seeing even in non-partisan sources. What I'm seeing says that the FCC's actions are specifically related to Title II - I don't see any mention of Title I being affected.

Pai's net neutrality rollback targets the FCC's February 2015 reclassification of fixed and mobile Internet providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. Title II provides the regulatory authority the FCC used to prohibit ISPs from blocking or throttling traffic and from giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment. The FCC used Title II to impose the net neutrality rules after a previous court decision struck down rules issued without the step of reclassifying ISPs as common carriers. -- https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/ajit-pai-announc...

and

In April 2017, it was reported that Pai had proposed that the net neutrality rules and Title II classifications be rolled back, that ISPs should instead "voluntarily" commit to the principles, and that violations of them should be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission instead of the FCC as unfair or deceptive business practices. On April 29, 2017, a clearer understanding of the latest net neutrality compromise proposal was described. On May 18, 2017, the FCC voted to move forward with Pai’s Notice of proposed rulemaking -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#184

Post by naasking »

smsm42 wrote: post #176
swebs wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's probably what he honestly believes because that's how some lobbyist explained it to him. I think a huge chunk of America's problems would be solved just by getting rid of lobbyists.

You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? Or explain them, but people who do it would be called not "lobbyists" but "educators" and would be only allowed to say what agrees with some opinions, but not the others? Or allowing anybody explaining things to congressmen and just not calling it "lobbying" because it's a dirty word?

> You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance?

I'm not sure you've thought this through. Consider:

1. Representatives voting in complete ignorance would vote 50/50, on average. However, some representatives will actually have the technical knowledge needed to vote properly, so the majority would probably fall in NN's favour. What do you think the vote ratio would look like if they only received biased information from lobbyists with deep pockets? Suddenly voting in ignorance doesn't sound too bad (and this applies to any issue, not just NN).

2. To further the above point, the wisdom of the crowd is a robust phenomenon whereby a group of independent voters can make better aggregate decisions than any single voter, probably for exactly the reasons I explained above. However, this breaks down if the votes are no longer independent. Lobbying destroys this property. If you look up the "wisdom of the crowds", lobbying encourages homogeneity, centralization, imitation, and emotionality.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#186

Post by dragonwriter »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #183
dragonwriter wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intellectual honesty demands that we admit that there really are problems with NN as it had been implemented. Trying to fit the technology of a massive packet-switched data network into very specific regulations designed for an ancient circuit-switched primarily voice network really was a kluge. It would have been, had that been done, but it wasn't, so it wasn't. The specific regulations applied to the telephone ne…

Your claims don't match what I'm seeing even in non-partisan sources. What I'm seeing says that the FCC's actions are specifically related to Title II - I don't see any mention of Title I being affected. Pai's net neutrality rollback targets the FCC's February 2015 reclassification of fixed and mobile Internet providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. Title II provides the regulatory auth…

> Your claims don't match what I'm seeing even in non-partisan sources.

Yes, they do. Particularly, you need to reread your own Wikipedia link, particularly the “Regulatory history” section, paying particular attention to the parts from 2004 forward.

The Ars piece also doesn't contradict my post, it just doesn't cover much background.

> What I'm seeing says that the FCC's actions are specifically related to Title II

The recent action is a rollback of a 2015 order classifying broadband as a Title II service and adopting specific regulations for broadband under Title II authority.

That order followed a 2010 order in which the FCC adopted mostly similar regulations to broadband as a Title I service, which was strcul down by the courts which indicated that the FCC could only adopt some parts of that regulation to broadband if it were classified under Title II, and that Title I did not authorize key elements of the regulation.

The 2010 order itself followed a period in which the FCC enforced a policy very similar to the one enshrined in the 2010 order through case by case action (also under Title I authority) without general regulation, an approach that was struck down by the courts just before the 2010 order was issued.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#187

Post by [deleted] »

swebs wrote: post #179
smsm42 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? Or explain them, but people who do it would be called not "lobbyists" but "educators" and would be only allowed to say what agrees with some opinions, but not the others? Or allowing anybody explaining things to congressmen and just not calling it "lobbying" because it's a dirty word?

>You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? So the options are either 1. Get a biased source of information (along with donations $$$) from Comcast 2. Just throw your hands up in the air and declare that the problem is unknowable. Nope, Wikipedia doesn't exist. Neither does the library, your staff, or the actual bill itself. Comcas…

[deleted]

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#188

Post by dhimes »

swebs wrote: post #179
smsm42 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? Or explain them, but people who do it would be called not "lobbyists" but "educators" and would be only allowed to say what agrees with some opinions, but not the others? Or allowing anybody explaining things to congressmen and just not calling it "lobbying" because it's a dirty word?

>You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? So the options are either 1. Get a biased source of information (along with donations $$$) from Comcast 2. Just throw your hands up in the air and declare that the problem is unknowable. Nope, Wikipedia doesn't exist. Neither does the library, your staff, or the actual bill itself. Comcas…

3. Require all meetings with lobbyists to be public- with video and transcript documentation. Mandatory jail time for those who don't comply.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#189

Post by dhimes »

fragmede wrote: post #133
baddox wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d like to hear an argument for why #1 might be dishonest. There is no definition of “registered Democrat” except for “someone who is registered as a Democrat.” I’m pretty sure you don’t have to sign anything claiming to believe in certain principles. I’m struggling to think of any way this could be considered dishonest.

Under the old rules, the "dishonest" thing to do is register for the party who's beliefs you least agree with, and then in the primary, vote for the candidate less likely to win in the general, in order for your actual preferred candidate to have a better chance at winning. That is to say, game the system by looking at the rules and vote for someone you don't actually believe in. (In the primary.) Whether or not that…

Oh noes! The representatives are dealing with dishonest constituents? How ironic.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#190

Post by croon »

smsm42 wrote: post #175
croon wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having other priorities isn't a problem, meaning it's fine if they spend their time working on other issues. But at some point they'll spend an hour or so voting, and at that point your "priorities" doesn't factor in anymore, as you should just represent your constituents. Unless you have an incredibly good reason not to. "Different priorities" isn't one, it's straight up misdirection.

> your "priorities" doesn't factor in anymore, as you should just represent your constituents Who said they don't? We just heard from one person so far, which disagreed with the elected representative's priorities. Since they are still elected, clearly many people do agree with their priorities. Presenting this - completely routine and normal - policy disagreement as "straight up bond villain" implies that there is o…

> Who said they don't?

Polling says they don't. [1]

> Since they are still elected, clearly many people do agree with their priorities.

That's not accurate. Since they are still elected, clearly enough people agree with enough of their priorities (or perceived priorities). That's not to say that they couldn't better represent their voters, when that representation is clear.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...

Post reply on HN