Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#61

Post by jokermatt999 » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 9:21 PM UTC

davidmathers wrote: post #37

mcantor wrote: post #4

I'm not sure how to post this without seeming like a troll, but... is this guy campaigning for or against net neutrality? I can't tell from the article. He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? So... he wants net neutrality? But then he says "no taxpayer dollars [should be] used to fund these net neutrality rules." I'm sure I'm being either naive, stupid or both right now, but I'm honestly confused.

He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? Matt Yglesias explains: Freedom’s Just Another Word for "I’m An Orthodox Conservative With Orthodox Conservative Views": http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/?p=41091 He also provides an example in: The Freedom to Build: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/the-freedom-to-bui... Where freedom means the freedom to prevent a real estate developer from building wha…

George Orwell's Politics and the English Language (which should be required reading for everyone) has a section titled "Meaningless words" which contains this wonderful sentence:

"The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another."

I try to keep it in mind whenever I see someone mentioning freedom, openness, rights, etc. Generally it seems like these are used for emotional appeal rather an actual clear definition.

Edit: Link to the essay. It's short, and very well worth the read. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#62

Post by tygorius » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 9:24 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #21

mcantor wrote: post #4

I'm not sure how to post this without seeming like a troll, but... is this guy campaigning for or against net neutrality? I can't tell from the article. He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? So... he wants net neutrality? But then he says "no taxpayer dollars [should be] used to fund these net neutrality rules." I'm sure I'm being either naive, stupid or both right now, but I'm honestly confused.

He thinks (mainly because of ignorance, I guess) that ISPs are competing in a decent approximation of a free market, and that consumers have a choice of providers offering various services at various competitive price points. That's how markets in the USA are intended to work, so I guess it's a reasonable assumption, if you're completely ignorant of the state of telecom in the USA. Just as an example, Verizon decided…

When FairPoint doesn't perform its obligations under contract, that's presumably something for the New Hampshire authorities to pursue, as they were the other party in the contract. How is that a federal responsibility?

since we're not a desirable market, there's no chance of getting any other companies to deploy to those areas

Again, is that really a problem the FCC should address? It seems you're extending the idea of net neutrality from regulating existing networks to guaranteeing network access for all.

edit: typo

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#63

Post by jokermatt999 » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 9:27 PM UTC

jacoblyles wrote: post #8

jlv wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's considering the basic freedoms of service providers to restrict access as they see fit - not the right of the consumers.

That's seldom an argument that I've never seen featured prominently on blogs that oppose network neutrality legislation, but on this little slice of reddit inside HN I suppose painting the worst possible picture of people you disagree with is all that matters. Most people who oppose regulation of the internet use utilitarian arguments, claiming that the quality and neutrality of the internet will be biased by governm…

That's true, and a good point in regards to legislation. Not everyone who oppose Net Neutrality is dong so because of the corporations. There are legitimate concerns about how the FCC would regulate the internet.

However, when speaking of freedom being restricted in opposition to Net Neutrality, it seems like the only possible freedoms being restricted are those of corporations who would wish to do things that would be restricted by Net Neutrality, not those of their customers. However, when this is mentioned, it's painted as "our" freedoms, making it look like it's everyone's freedom, when realistically it's only the freedom of those corporations, and not the citizens, as is implied.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#64

Post by leot » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 9:27 PM UTC

jacoblyles wrote: post #8

jlv wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's considering the basic freedoms of service providers to restrict access as they see fit - not the right of the consumers.

That's seldom an argument that I've never seen featured prominently on blogs that oppose network neutrality legislation, but on this little slice of reddit inside HN I suppose painting the worst possible picture of people you disagree with is all that matters. Most people who oppose regulation of the internet use utilitarian arguments, claiming that the quality and neutrality of the internet will be biased by governm…

The conspiracy isn't particularly hidden -- this is just rational behavior by large ISPs. Like every producer of a service, the telcos don't want to see their product commoditized and subject to pure competition, and they are doing all they can to delay this.

The motivation for a company to want deregulation cannot be to increase market competition for their own product. To the extent that they claim otherwise they are being dishonest.

What a company/industry might honestly claim is that regulation will prevent the development of valuable markets, satisfying neither producers nor consumers. This is an empirical claim, however, that stands on evidence rather than ideology. And we have only to look to the countries with faster internet to see whether it holds.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#65

Post by russell » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 9:29 PM UTC

The idea of net neutrality comes from the concept of Common Carrier in the Communications Act of 1934: carriers cannot block communications between any two parties (such as favoring their subscribers over those of another carrier). In exchange the carriers are not liable for the content of the communications.

Another thing that seems to totally ignored by Boehner et. al. is that you sometimes need regulation to protect basic rights, the Civil Rights Act for example. Net neutrality (hacker view) is the right to communicate whatever with whomever. The FCC has actually been protecting the Internet, bu ever since Powell the child's term as FCC chairman, the waters have been considerably muddied.

(In order to give my rant some measure of verisimilitude, I attempted to vet it against Common Carrier and Communications Act of 1934 over at Wikipedia. I found two of the worst and most incomplete articles that I have ever encountered. The Act itself is a 333 page PDF. tl;dnr So please be kind. :-)

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#66

Post by runjake » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 9:29 PM UTC

jimmyk wrote: post #49

wmf wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the FCC already regulating the Internet through CALEA? I don't quite understand the idea that NN is the FCC's "foot in the door".

Yes that's a good point. I edited my comment before I saw your reply and once after I saw your reply. I'm not too familiar with CALEA but it seems to be an example of the phenomenon I was describing. It began as a way for law enforcement to monitor VOIP but expanded in 10 years to cover all internet traffic.

A good little technical overview of what CALEA entails here:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/io...

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#67

Post by bowmande » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 9:30 PM UTC

warrenwilkinson wrote: post #34

jlv wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's considering the basic freedoms of service providers to restrict access as they see fit - not the right of the consumers.

Perhaps so, but the ISPs must serve the consumers; they have no other path to profit. The alternative is the freedom of government to restrict access as they see fit. And governments money comes from taxes (or inflation), they have no incentive to improve access or quality.

When there is an alternative, but they are a utility, there are essentially no options.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#68

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 9:35 PM UTC

davidmathers wrote: post #37

mcantor wrote: post #4

I'm not sure how to post this without seeming like a troll, but... is this guy campaigning for or against net neutrality? I can't tell from the article. He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? So... he wants net neutrality? But then he says "no taxpayer dollars [should be] used to fund these net neutrality rules." I'm sure I'm being either naive, stupid or both right now, but I'm honestly confused.

He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? Matt Yglesias explains: Freedom’s Just Another Word for "I’m An Orthodox Conservative With Orthodox Conservative Views": http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/?p=41091 He also provides an example in: The Freedom to Build: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/the-freedom-to-bui... Where freedom means the freedom to prevent a real estate developer from building wha…

Very true - those Koch Brothers, often discussing freedom, really are just pushing orthodox conservative views.

Like decriminalizing drugs, legalizing gay marriage, and ending the patriot act (their #1 political position, based on money spent).

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/frrth/stop_the_koc...

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#69

Post by davidmathers » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 9:42 PM UTC

jokermatt999 wrote: post #61

davidmathers wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? Matt Yglesias explains: Freedom’s Just Another Word for "I’m An Orthodox Conservative With Orthodox Conservative Views": http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/?p=41091 He also provides an example in: The Freedom to Build: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/the-freedom-to-bui... Where freedom means the freedom to prevent a real estate developer from building wha…

George Orwell's Politics and the English Language (which should be required reading for everyone) has a section titled "Meaningless words" which contains this wonderful sentence: "The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another." I try to keep it in mind whenever I see someone mentioning freedom, openness,…

There is of course some truth to that, but in this case I think it's a bit unfair to conservatives. The words "freedom" and "liberty" do have reasonably consistent and coherent conservative meanings. They're just different than what libertarians, classical liberals, etc. mean when they use those words (negative liberty) and what liberals, social democrats, etc mean (positive liberty).

But I do agree that Politics and the English Language should be read by everyone, so I'm always glad to see it linked to.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#70

Post by isleyaardvark » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 9:49 PM UTC

leot wrote: post #50

viggity wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe ATT supports him because they like his position on the topic?

Perhaps a good model here is that Boehner's position and ATT's support are dynamically coupled ... each causes and maintains the other. Kinda makes it tricky to assign blame (which is fortunate, for Boehner).

The thing is Boehner's position is so contrary to reality it's hard not to conclude that AT&T is influencing his position. Otherwise we'd have to believe that AT&T was lucky enough to stumble upon a Senator who misunderstands an issue in the exact way that benefits them.