The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#71

Post by garmaine » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:07 AM UTC

ghba66 wrote: post #64

Why are people here so pro-net neutrality? I don't have NN in Europe and I'm happy: because of it, I enjoy zero-rated services at a fair price.

The USA is big. Like, really fucking big. As a result running an ISP, wired or cellular, has an extremely high cost to entry. As a result of that, most people’s choices for internet provider is precisely limited to one choice, the local telco monopoly. No net neutrality means that ISP ca. Do whatever they want and get away with it because what are you going to do? Send a sternly written letter?

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#72

Post by tzs » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:14 AM UTC

> Reddit, Tumblr, Etsy and other sites have put up Red Alert banners as part of a day of action to drive petitions in support of the resolution.

This is being seriously mismanaged, and that may actually cause long term harm to the chances of saving (or restoring) net neutrality.

The big mistake being made is not explaining where the Congressional Review Act (CRA) approach fits into the bigger picture. There are several places along the timeline of net neutrality repeal where it in theory could be saved. The Congressional Review Act (CRA) approach is just one of them.

The CRA approach has almost no chance of actually passing both houses (it has a pretty good chance in the Senate, but because of the way the House is structured it would take a miracle there).

When you consider it in the context of the bigger picture, that's not a problem. Its role in the overall effort is to get members of Congress on the record, which might be useful later in campaigns for office. The public is broadly in favor of net neutrality and this support is very high even among Republicans.

That's probably not enough to get Republican voters to vote Democrat, because it is not high on the list of important issues for them, but it could be enough to get them to vote for more moderate Republicans in the Republican primaries or caucuses.

In sports terms, this is not a play to score a goal. It is an attempt to get better position to set up a later scoring play. But the people running these campaigns treat everything like it is a scoring attempt...and then when it doesn't score the people who participated feel like they failed.

That can discourage them, making them less likely to respond to later calls to action. Then they might not be there when it is time to actually go for a goal (e.g., get out and vote).

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#73

Post by fourthark » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:15 AM UTC

ghba66 wrote: post #68

Matterrr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zero-rating is a terrible thing that helps stifle the free market and consolidate monopolies. It is also of questionable legality.

It does not consolidate monopolies because, by law, ISPs are required to add all apps from a category (chat, video, etc) to zero-rating. i.e. if you add Netflix you are required to add YouTube, etc. All I see about NN is a lot of manipulation from both sides. And what's especially frustrating is that some people insist that NN is anti-customer. No thanks, I'll keep my zero-rating.

That sounds sort of like... zero-rating neutrality? Might be even harder to pass that kind of law over here.

I agree about the manipulation from both sides though. There's an acceptance that we have to be so shrill and lie for our cause, because marketing.

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#74

Post by dzdt » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:16 AM UTC

jeremyt wrote: post #16

I am firmly opposed to "Net Neutrality". Literally everything the government regulates becomes a mess and a boondoggle. Health care, housing, and pensions all the way down to city building codes (I have a friend who needs to replace her windows in San Francisco, and the city government has decreed that they can only use wooden frame windows because of the aesthetics, even though they are more than twice as expensive)…

Upvoted. I disagree strongly but the comment seems like a sincere and valid contribution to the discussion.

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#75

Post by Firadeoclus » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:18 AM UTC

jeremyt wrote: post #16

I am firmly opposed to "Net Neutrality". Literally everything the government regulates becomes a mess and a boondoggle. Health care, housing, and pensions all the way down to city building codes (I have a friend who needs to replace her windows in San Francisco, and the city government has decreed that they can only use wooden frame windows because of the aesthetics, even though they are more than twice as expensive)…

> Unintended consequences will prevent new technologies from forming (Look at what the GDPR laws are doing to blockchain...must be able to delete your data, you say? And the ink isn't even DRY!)

Preventing new technologies which have undesired consequences (whether intended or not) is an intended consequence of regulation.

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#76

Post by chimeracoder » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:26 AM UTC

ryanpcmcquen wrote: post #25

I find it funny that some people still see Net Neutrality as 'government controlling the internet'. They should take a look at FOSTA if they want to know what government controlling the internet really looks like.

> They should take a look at FOSTA if they want to know what government controlling the internet really looks like.

Unfortunately, that's not a winning argument from a rhetorical perspective. Almost every single person in both the House and the Senate, of both parties, voted for FOSTA/SESTA.

FOSTA and SESTA are truly abominable bills. They're arguably the most anti-gay bills passed at the federal level since DOMA in 1996. But telling people "net neutrality isn't about controlling the Internet, because it's not as bad as these other bills that received near-unanimous, bipartisan support" isn't going to win over any allies who weren't already in your camp on both issues in the first place.

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#77

Post by ryanpcmcquen » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:27 AM UTC

nercht12 wrote: post #39

ryanpcmcquen wrote: post #25

I find it funny that some people still see Net Neutrality as 'government controlling the internet'. They should take a look at FOSTA if they want to know what government controlling the internet really looks like.

It is government controlling the internet. It's the extent and who that is different. In this case, it's only forcing a fair playing field. Kinda like highways being public vs. toll instead of telling you what cars you are and are not allowed to drive. I'd like a "free" internet, but I still have to admit it's going to cost someone else's "freedom".

Controlling ISPs !== controlling the internet.

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#78

Post by ryanpcmcquen » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:33 AM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #76

ryanpcmcquen wrote: post #25

I find it funny that some people still see Net Neutrality as 'government controlling the internet'. They should take a look at FOSTA if they want to know what government controlling the internet really looks like.

> They should take a look at FOSTA if they want to know what government controlling the internet really looks like. Unfortunately, that's not a winning argument from a rhetorical perspective. Almost every single person in both the House and the Senate, of both parties, voted for FOSTA/SESTA. FOSTA and SESTA are truly abominable bills. They're arguably the most anti-gay bills passed at the federal level since DOMA in…

I made no mention of it 'not being as bad' as other bills. I stand by my statement. Net Neutrality is government regulating ISPs. ISPs are not the internet.

And I think it could convert those in the anti camp. Some are against Net Neutrality because they see it as government control of the internet (it is not). They need to recognize that FOSTA is directly what they perceive Net Neutrality to be (at least in terms of results).

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#79

Post by kennydude » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:50 AM UTC

ghba66 wrote: post #68

Matterrr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zero-rating is a terrible thing that helps stifle the free market and consolidate monopolies. It is also of questionable legality.

It does not consolidate monopolies because, by law, ISPs are required to add all apps from a category (chat, video, etc) to zero-rating. i.e. if you add Netflix you are required to add YouTube, etc. All I see about NN is a lot of manipulation from both sides. And what's especially frustrating is that some people insist that NN is anti-customer. No thanks, I'll keep my zero-rating.

That's definitely not the case in the UK.

Three offers Deezer and Apple Music but not Spotify zero-rated. This puts Deezer and Apple Music at an advantage, no matter if they're technically better or worse

Three also does this for social media and video services. (Part of why I'm leaving them when my contract is up)

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#80

Post by ianai » Thu, May 10, 2018, 10:52 AM UTC

cdancette wrote: post #60

ianai wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that implies companies have the same rights as individual people. They do not and should not as they don’t have the same legal constraints as people. There’s no human equivalent to many of the abilities enjoyed by corporations and corporations don’t die and cannot be imprisoned. They’re also able to raise funds in ways humans may not. The list goes on from there.

What I said doesn't imply this at all. I'm just stating that there's a trade-off between the freedom of corporations and the freedom of the people (but different kind of freedoms, ofc)

I’m thinking it over.