Tech luminaries call net neutrality vote an 'imminent threat'(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Tech luminaries call net neutrality vote an 'imminent threat'
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/11/16754040/steve-wozniak-vint-cerf-internet-pioneer-net-neutrality-letter-senate
166 comments
I'm actually somewhat satisfied with how they're ramming this vote through right now. Not because I want to lose Net Neutrality, but because if it is going to happen, it's best that it happens now, early in Trump's term, and that the process of forcing the vote is messy.
Two possible silver linings if it does get removed on the 14th:
1. We were wrong the whole time and reversing net neutrality launches us into a golden age of fast and cheap internet for all. (Very unlikely)
2. We were right, and reversing net neutrality is as bad as we feared. While it will be painful in the short term, hopefully it's bad enough to The Internet/Net Neutrality a relevant election issue for more people.
Either way, the sure silver lining is that by hashing this out now the consequences will be fully felt by the time the next presidential election rolls around.
Can you imagine if they were trying to shove this through in the lead up to the 2020 election when everyone is distracted by all the other issues at stake in the election?
Two possible silver linings if it does get removed on the 14th:
1. We were wrong the whole time and reversing net neutrality launches us into a golden age of fast and cheap internet for all. (Very unlikely)
2. We were right, and reversing net neutrality is as bad as we feared. While it will be painful in the short term, hopefully it's bad enough to The Internet/Net Neutrality a relevant election issue for more people.
Either way, the sure silver lining is that by hashing this out now the consequences will be fully felt by the time the next presidential election rolls around.
Can you imagine if they were trying to shove this through in the lead up to the 2020 election when everyone is distracted by all the other issues at stake in the election?
> Two possible silver linings if it does get removed on the 14th:
Well, here's my bet on what will happen:
3. There will be no immediate catastrophic consequences. Over time, the Internet will become less amenable to innovation and small players and will just overall be worse than it would otherwise. But there will be no sudden dramatic change that will spur action for people who weren't already concerned.
Well, here's my bet on what will happen:
3. There will be no immediate catastrophic consequences. Over time, the Internet will become less amenable to innovation and small players and will just overall be worse than it would otherwise. But there will be no sudden dramatic change that will spur action for people who weren't already concerned.
Over time the Internet in the United States will become less amenable to innovation. There are other countries in the world, some of which will stick to their guns and keep their net neutrality laws (or their line sharing requirements, which create the competitive pressures needed to accomplish the same thing). Startups will fare better in those other countries.
Among other things this is an issue of competitiveness for the United States.
Among other things this is an issue of competitiveness for the United States.
Unfortunately the US is the biggest market. So for businesses tou habe little choice but to play by the non-neutral rules.
Worse, China is the next biggest market, but the Internet in China is even worse as far as innovation goes (censorship etc.). Europe and Japan also have various problems as far as the Internet goes, due to their strict copyright laws and other innovation-stifling rules (right to be forgotten, etc.). I doubt China will change, given their totally different view of what the Internet should look like, but there is some hope.
Eventually some country or federation of countries will recognize the opportunity to grab some of the market once America becomes less startup-friendly. It may even happen in the developing world somewhere, in countries that are being mostly ignored today, taking the rest of the world by surprise.
Eventually some country or federation of countries will recognize the opportunity to grab some of the market once America becomes less startup-friendly. It may even happen in the developing world somewhere, in countries that are being mostly ignored today, taking the rest of the world by surprise.
I think this is the most likely short-term outcome, too. And what's worse is that this outcome will make it significantly harder to get back net neutrality in the future. Peeling back each anti-consumer policy one-by-one will be necessary because of the way that the ISPs will frame the debate in the future.
Most people are not going to realise the pain. It's one of those issues that affect people but they would never understand why. In spite of scientists saying climate change is real and it's affecting us directly (floods, heat waves,...etc) people still can't put 2 and 2 together to ask for change. I don't think ISPs would be dumb enough to drastically become cable-operatorish and charge customers for every website. The pain will be felt by small companies and competition (albeit indirectly).
I'm fairly sure they early stages will even look like it was a good change, making some people wonder why were they even fighting it.
For example excluding affiliated sites from any caps (let's stream 4k movies from Hulu, RedBox etc even if you have lower bandwidth than necessary, you would be excluded for these services) or have data caps not apply for affiliated sites.
For an extra fee you could also get similar treatment for non-affiliated sites (Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Video etc).
In the mean time everything else will gradually is getting slower and slower. Tough luck for any new startup trying to enter the market. As it already is difficult right now, it will be nearly impossible after that.
The absolutely bad things (throttling/blocking/modifying content of sites the companies don't agree with) will happen much much later.
For example excluding affiliated sites from any caps (let's stream 4k movies from Hulu, RedBox etc even if you have lower bandwidth than necessary, you would be excluded for these services) or have data caps not apply for affiliated sites.
For an extra fee you could also get similar treatment for non-affiliated sites (Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Video etc).
In the mean time everything else will gradually is getting slower and slower. Tough luck for any new startup trying to enter the market. As it already is difficult right now, it will be nearly impossible after that.
The absolutely bad things (throttling/blocking/modifying content of sites the companies don't agree with) will happen much much later.
More like they use the fees from content providers to make service nearly free, then they'll be able to plausibly say that bringing back net neutrality will make internet service more expensive. Then, no one will want to bring net neutrality back.
Like how cell phones are "free" so it's impossible to buy one without a contract.
Like how cell phones are "free" so it's impossible to buy one without a contract.
None of the major US carriers have contracts anymore, since the start of this year.
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/verizon-kills-two-ye...
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/verizon-kills-two-ye...
I agree the effects won't be felt directly and probably not associated with the correct source. For example, if tiny startups have a hard time getting off the ground against competitors who have market power to get good rates from the ISPs, it will be hard to even notice the lack of something disruptive.
For example, will people notice the lack of a really great Netflix competitor that would have gotten off the ground? What about the new best search engine to topple Google Search that died out of the gates?
For example, will people notice the lack of a really great Netflix competitor that would have gotten off the ground? What about the new best search engine to topple Google Search that died out of the gates?
Most people are not going to realise the pain. It's one of those issues that affect people but they would never understand why.
I disagree. Pai and his GOP sponsors are making enemies of people who buy bandwidth by the terabyte-second. That's much worse than making enemies with people who buy ink by the barrel, as the old saying went.
Any negative consequences to this decision, real or imagined, absolutely will come back to haunt the Republicans.
That's why I don't understand why they're doing this. They are pissing off millions of people who wouldn't otherwise bother to vote against them.
I disagree. Pai and his GOP sponsors are making enemies of people who buy bandwidth by the terabyte-second. That's much worse than making enemies with people who buy ink by the barrel, as the old saying went.
Any negative consequences to this decision, real or imagined, absolutely will come back to haunt the Republicans.
That's why I don't understand why they're doing this. They are pissing off millions of people who wouldn't otherwise bother to vote against them.
One of the healthy side effects can be that more frontend devs will be caring about payload their users have to download to start using the app/service/website.
Imagine a world where more people think twice before inserting tracking and adware junk into their websites!
Edit: typo
Imagine a world where more people think twice before inserting tracking and adware junk into their websites!
Edit: typo
Yay! The repeal will bring Internet to it's (as FCC says) golden age times - the dialup times.
Or the ISPs just suppress all mentions of reinstating Net Neutrality.
The net could be filtered and cantonized to the point where all news about net neutrality could be blocked and people wouldn't even realize there is a majority opinion to re-instate it.
I wonder if the lack of regulatory process, and clear corruption here, would allow for a remedy in the courts. If the FCC is not fulfilling it's obligations according to the law, in terms of addressing and considering reasonable decisions, then they may be in violation of the laws that give FCC authority in the first place. I know very little about the FCC, but the DOE and FERC, up until the latest administration, were under very clear legislative imperatives in performing reasoned and justified regulation. Typically courts are quite deferential to the regulatory agencies, but when there's clear evidence of fraud, judges have been known to go with a reasoned interpretation of the law rather than just deferring to the FCC to do whatever it wants.
I read...somewhere, can't find it now that I try to go looking for the source...that the most likely remedy, in that article's opinion, is the Administrative Procedures Act. The author basically said that the APA doesn't permit reversing rules without a factual basis as to why they should be reversed, particularly if the rules being reversed were recently adopted using a stronger evaluation.
I'm not versed in the APA at all so I might be remembering the article wrong but it seemed reasonable.
I'm not versed in the APA at all so I might be remembering the article wrong but it seemed reasonable.
I think this is the piece you are referring to:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/courts-net-neutra...
Most relevant section:
>So drastic is the reversal of policy (if, as expected, the commission approves Mr. Pai’s proposal next month), and so weak is the evidence to support the change, that it seems destined to be struck down in court.
> The problem for Mr. Pai is that government agencies are not free to abruptly reverse longstanding rules on which many have relied without a good reason, such as a change in factual circumstances. A mere change in F.C.C. ideology isn’t enough. As the Supreme Court has said, a federal agency must “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.” Given that net neutrality rules have been a huge success by most measures, the justification for killing them would have to be very strong.
However, a legal challenge will likely take a while to wend it's way to the Supreme Court.
Most relevant section:
>So drastic is the reversal of policy (if, as expected, the commission approves Mr. Pai’s proposal next month), and so weak is the evidence to support the change, that it seems destined to be struck down in court.
> The problem for Mr. Pai is that government agencies are not free to abruptly reverse longstanding rules on which many have relied without a good reason, such as a change in factual circumstances. A mere change in F.C.C. ideology isn’t enough. As the Supreme Court has said, a federal agency must “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.” Given that net neutrality rules have been a huge success by most measures, the justification for killing them would have to be very strong.
However, a legal challenge will likely take a while to wend it's way to the Supreme Court.
Existing monopoly laws could also have some bite if ISP's are not already shielded. Slow Netflix while pushing Cable subscriptions could be a rather large issue.
At this point companies like Netflix will probably do just fine (that's why they are not pressing as much about it), because of the popularity they might not even be requested to pay anything.
The issue is for companies that will try to exists after that and would offer better service than Netflix. They won't succeed because: "well, the service might be cheaper and offer more shows, but it is dogshit slow and unusable/goes against my datacap so why should I use it?"
The issue is for companies that will try to exists after that and would offer better service than Netflix. They won't succeed because: "well, the service might be cheaper and offer more shows, but it is dogshit slow and unusable/goes against my datacap so why should I use it?"
The courts that are being packed with unqualified judges?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/12/h...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/12/h...
The criticisms of Brett Talley are ignorant. The article talks about whether he has "tried a case" but he's an appellate lawyer, not a trial lawyer. Talley graduated near the top of his class at Harvard Law, completed appellate and district court clerkships, was Deputy Solicitor General in the Alabama Attorney General's office, and is currently at the Office of Legal Counsel. If he clocked in a few more years doing that line of work, he'd be perfectly qualified. But he still would never have "tried a case."
The American Bar Association unanimously declared him not qualified based on his inexperience.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/GA...
The ABA criteria require a judicial nominee to generally have twelve years of legal experience, which Talley obviously doesn't. If that's all the media said about Talley, that would be fine. But the criticisms go far beyond that, misrepresent the strength of the rest of his background, and veer off into ignorant assertions about "trying cases."
Judges have lifetime tenure so maybe requiring a lengthy resume isn’t such a bad idea. This strikes me as nominating a young conservative who will serve for a long time when Republicans stonewalled Obama’s very qualified nominees.
That’s different than suggesting, as the poster above did, that someone like Talley wouldn’t be able to reach a “reasoned interpretation of the law.”
And that’s the same as ignoring the point that I made.
Senate confirmation is a political vote, one of “advice and consent”. There are no rules. Justice Thomas was not held to a “reasoned interpretation of the law” standard. Judge Garland was not rejected on a “reasoned interpretation of the law” standard. If a political hack like Talley can’t muster 51 votes in a Republican Senate, you should wonder about him.
Senate confirmation is a political vote, one of “advice and consent”. There are no rules. Justice Thomas was not held to a “reasoned interpretation of the law” standard. Judge Garland was not rejected on a “reasoned interpretation of the law” standard. If a political hack like Talley can’t muster 51 votes in a Republican Senate, you should wonder about him.
I think you're talking past him. He's not saying that there aren't legitimate criticisms of the Talley nomination; he's saying that one particularly popular one happens not to be legitimate.
Conversely, if a hack like Talley can muster 51 votes, I'll wonder about the Republican senators.
The ones who are mostly kind of demurring about the pedophile?
To his credit, Grassley has signaled to Trump not to proceed with the Talley nomination.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/12/politics/trump-judicial-picks/...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/12/politics/trump-judicial-picks/...
I'm not sure I'm willing to credit him with more than a Thank You, Captain Obvious, award.
The other nominee, Jeff Mateer, is an obscene choice by either incompetents or malicious people. Mateer has said transgender children are part of "Satan's plan." This psychotic religious nonsense injected into government should not be socially acceptable behavior in a thinking society. Someone should be fired.
But because Trump claims he hires all of the best people, we have to take the selection seriously as intentional. And since the buck stops with the president, you have to accept that he's the one whose incompetent if he isn't neither hiring good people, nor firing them when they fail this spectacularly.
The other nominee, Jeff Mateer, is an obscene choice by either incompetents or malicious people. Mateer has said transgender children are part of "Satan's plan." This psychotic religious nonsense injected into government should not be socially acceptable behavior in a thinking society. Someone should be fired.
But because Trump claims he hires all of the best people, we have to take the selection seriously as intentional. And since the buck stops with the president, you have to accept that he's the one whose incompetent if he isn't neither hiring good people, nor firing them when they fail this spectacularly.
> I urge everyone to look at the actual proposed rules, and in particular the technical background and explanations.
They aren't even trying to make sensible, plausible justifications. For example, see paragraph 252, where they discuss paid prioritization.
They say ISPs need it because ISPs may not be able to figure out how to do usage based billing of their customers, so they need to be able to make sites like Netflix pay instead.
They aren't even trying to make sensible, plausible justifications. For example, see paragraph 252, where they discuss paid prioritization.
They say ISPs need it because ISPs may not be able to figure out how to do usage based billing of their customers, so they need to be able to make sites like Netflix pay instead.
> He was brazen enough to admit, early on, that he does not care whether or not his plan is unpopular and that what the public thinks makes no difference whatsoever.
Looks like it. It's pretty surprising how ambivalent the guy is to public pressure.
Also, we really need to look into how government and regulation works in this country. What's the point of having a regulatory system for industries if the officials of companies in these industry lead the governmental/regulatory agencies?
If former goldman sachs officials run financial agencies and if a former verizon official runs the FCC, what's the point of these agencies?
Looks like it. It's pretty surprising how ambivalent the guy is to public pressure.
Also, we really need to look into how government and regulation works in this country. What's the point of having a regulatory system for industries if the officials of companies in these industry lead the governmental/regulatory agencies?
If former goldman sachs officials run financial agencies and if a former verizon official runs the FCC, what's the point of these agencies?
There is nothing specific wrong with industry people working at regulatory agencies; in fact, good regulation should include the input of the regulated industries (failure to do so was a causative factor in the bankruptcy of railroads in the 60s and 70s). The problem with this proceeding is that it is based only on industry comments and ignores other voices, which is the worst way to create regulation.
Remember that Wheeler was a former cable industry lobbyist. Unlike Pai, he actually listened to non-industry voices during his proceeding and created rules based on inputs from many different sources. He did not give net neutrality advocates everything we wanted, but he did listen and did create something much better than what the industry has been demanding.
Remember that Wheeler was a former cable industry lobbyist. Unlike Pai, he actually listened to non-industry voices during his proceeding and created rules based on inputs from many different sources. He did not give net neutrality advocates everything we wanted, but he did listen and did create something much better than what the industry has been demanding.
Industry people working at regulatory agencies is an obvious conflict of interest. Taking inputs from various parties, including the industry and the general public, to then make an informed decision about the best course of action in the general interest, is a completely different thing.
"Industry people working at regulatory agencies is an obvious conflict of interest."
Not necessarily. An obvious conflict of interest would be someone who has a significant financial stake in the industry, or someone who is married to a CEO in that industry, etc.
Also consider this: who is actually qualified to regulate an industry? It is often the case that the only qualified candidates are people who have worked in the industry or who have worked against it (which is just as much of a conflict of interest). Someone who is clueless could be worse: they could be more susceptible to lobbying pressure, since they have no prior knowledge of the issues they are dealing with.
In theory the job of the Senate should be to determine whether or not a candidate will be able to serve the public instead of their former industry bosses. Such people definitely exist -- Tom Wheeler is a prominent example. We also have an impeachment procedure to deal with the possibility of failure i.e. the possibility of the Senate confirming a regulator who fails to serve the public; by now there is ample evidence that confirming Pai was a mistake, but with today's hyper-partisan Congress there is not much hope for impeachment.
Not necessarily. An obvious conflict of interest would be someone who has a significant financial stake in the industry, or someone who is married to a CEO in that industry, etc.
Also consider this: who is actually qualified to regulate an industry? It is often the case that the only qualified candidates are people who have worked in the industry or who have worked against it (which is just as much of a conflict of interest). Someone who is clueless could be worse: they could be more susceptible to lobbying pressure, since they have no prior knowledge of the issues they are dealing with.
In theory the job of the Senate should be to determine whether or not a candidate will be able to serve the public instead of their former industry bosses. Such people definitely exist -- Tom Wheeler is a prominent example. We also have an impeachment procedure to deal with the possibility of failure i.e. the possibility of the Senate confirming a regulator who fails to serve the public; by now there is ample evidence that confirming Pai was a mistake, but with today's hyper-partisan Congress there is not much hope for impeachment.
> Also consider this: who is actually qualified to regulate an industry?
Off the top of my head, economists and lawyers?
I don't think you need first-hand experience in an industry to regulate it. We need experts in regulation that can take input from industry and consider the public perspective.
I'm not convinced it's possible to have a career in a field and not have your opinion tainted by that experience. This is why neither industry insiders or opponents should be responsible for regulation.
Off the top of my head, economists and lawyers?
I don't think you need first-hand experience in an industry to regulate it. We need experts in regulation that can take input from industry and consider the public perspective.
I'm not convinced it's possible to have a career in a field and not have your opinion tainted by that experience. This is why neither industry insiders or opponents should be responsible for regulation.
> There is nothing specific wrong with industry people working at regulatory agencie
Sure. In the abstract. But in practicality, it doesn't pass the smell test. Just like if I committed a crime and my mother was judge of the case, there isn't anything specifically wrong with it. But there are potential issues of conflict of interest and she should probably recuse herself from the case.
> in fact, good regulation should include the input of the regulated industries (failure to do so was a causative factor in the bankruptcy of railroads in the 60s and 70s).
Of course regulatory agencies need input from the industry. But there is a difference between providing input and leading the agency. I'm all for input. I'm not too keen on former Directors, CEOs, etc of banks, ISPs, etc leading agencies that regulate those companies. Especially when we have people going back and forth between regulatory agencies and companies.
Sure. In the abstract. But in practicality, it doesn't pass the smell test. Just like if I committed a crime and my mother was judge of the case, there isn't anything specifically wrong with it. But there are potential issues of conflict of interest and she should probably recuse herself from the case.
> in fact, good regulation should include the input of the regulated industries (failure to do so was a causative factor in the bankruptcy of railroads in the 60s and 70s).
Of course regulatory agencies need input from the industry. But there is a difference between providing input and leading the agency. I'm all for input. I'm not too keen on former Directors, CEOs, etc of banks, ISPs, etc leading agencies that regulate those companies. Especially when we have people going back and forth between regulatory agencies and companies.
If you committed a crime and your mother was on the case, that would be a conflict of interest since your mother has vested interest in you.
If you have an ex-Verizon person they shouldn’t have any loyalty to the company. If they do, then there would be a conflict of interest.
If you have an ex-Verizon person they shouldn’t have any loyalty to the company. If they do, then there would be a conflict of interest.
I get the argument about the ex-Verizon employee - the much bigger conflict of interest is that such a person is a future-Verizon employee, as the fate of other such officials in e.g. finance sector illustrates; we get regulatory capture because the industry lobbyists promise and hand out lucrative deals to individual regulators after their term is done.
Employees do have an interest in their old companies. If nothing else working for successful companies is a good sign on a resume. But, high level employees often have close ties to other people in management and a much easier time being brought back.
> If you have an ex-Verizon person they shouldn’t have any loyalty to the company.
Yes, and people should be good at all times and not lie.
Yes, and people should be good at all times and not lie.
They don't necessarily have loyalty, exactly, but they do have a detailed understanding of the company's point of view and interests, coupled with possibly a much shallower understanding of the viewpoints and interests of the public.
ex-<company name> execs almost invariably have plenty of equity and personal connections with their former employer and the industry at large, so that would de facto disqualify pretty much all of them.
Generally, you want someone who is a legal/policy nerd for the regulated industry to head that industry's regulatory agency.
For most industries, the only people who are interested enough to become legal/policy nerds are either people who work in the industry in legal/policy executive positions, or a small number of academics who specialize in those industries. The academics are usually a little too theoretical to deal with actually running an agency, and so that pretty much just leaves people from the industry.
For most industries, the only people who are interested enough to become legal/policy nerds are either people who work in the industry in legal/policy executive positions, or a small number of academics who specialize in those industries. The academics are usually a little too theoretical to deal with actually running an agency, and so that pretty much just leaves people from the industry.
Nothing happens in a vacuum so even telecom regulation has impacts outside the telco industry. For this reason I do not think first hand experience is that important in regulating an industry. I would much rather see someone with a history of balancing competing interests in charge rather than someone with a strong bias.
> It's pretty surprising how ambivalent the guy is to public pressure.
It actually could be expected. He is not an elected official, so he can easily do the bidding of corporate masters, instead of serving the public, especially if he feels that legislative power is too dysfunctional to do anything about it. It can happen even with elected officials, even more so with appointed ones.
It actually could be expected. He is not an elected official, so he can easily do the bidding of corporate masters, instead of serving the public, especially if he feels that legislative power is too dysfunctional to do anything about it. It can happen even with elected officials, even more so with appointed ones.
We understand his broken incentives and allegiances. But most people have at least a small amount of allegiance to and empathy with the general population. Perhaps they won't necessarily listen if the opposition is weak, or if they think they can get away with it.
But Pai has tens of millions of people vehemently opposing him. He is probably recieving jeers and hate mail and rude gestures every time he goes out in public. And people have even started harassing his family - at what point does the money cease to be worth it? Most people would have given up under a hundredth of that backlash.
But Pai has tens of millions of people vehemently opposing him. He is probably recieving jeers and hate mail and rude gestures every time he goes out in public. And people have even started harassing his family - at what point does the money cease to be worth it? Most people would have given up under a hundredth of that backlash.
One of the dirtiest aspects I've seen in this whole NN debate has been the very ugly behavior of NN proponents. That, as much as anything, has eliminated any support I might have had for NN.
Pai digs in and fights back against racist death threats? Good for him. Shame on anyone expecting him to back down in the face of that.
Pai digs in and fights back against racist death threats? Good for him. Shame on anyone expecting him to back down in the face of that.
If you're going to dismiss a cause because some of the proponents use ugly tactics then I don't see how you can maintain any moral convictions whatsoever.
>some of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2QorHUU-Kg
read comments
read most upvoted comments
>You can't say "One thing that should remain Sacred is family, wife, and kids"... when there are families who make a living by working online. If this goes through MILLIONS of people will be fucked... I can assure you .. If this falls through, go into witness protection or some shit because you are gonna get killed. Period. 384 upvotes
>This twatwaffle needs to be burned at the stake. 301 upvotes
These are people promoting Net Neutrality. I don't support that. It is disgusting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2QorHUU-Kg
read comments
read most upvoted comments
>You can't say "One thing that should remain Sacred is family, wife, and kids"... when there are families who make a living by working online. If this goes through MILLIONS of people will be fucked... I can assure you .. If this falls through, go into witness protection or some shit because you are gonna get killed. Period. 384 upvotes
>This twatwaffle needs to be burned at the stake. 301 upvotes
These are people promoting Net Neutrality. I don't support that. It is disgusting.
You completely ignore the actual point, logical fallacies everywhere on your part.
strawman: misrepresenting argument to make it easier to attack
ad hominem: attacking your opponent's character or personal traits instead of engaging with their argument
appeal to emotion: manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or competing argument
texas sharpshooter: cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption
strawman: misrepresenting argument to make it easier to attack
ad hominem: attacking your opponent's character or personal traits instead of engaging with their argument
appeal to emotion: manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or competing argument
texas sharpshooter: cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption
> I don't support that
But you implied that don't support NN itself, not disgusting comments. So do you support monopolists?
But you implied that don't support NN itself, not disgusting comments. So do you support monopolists?
Yeah cause upvoting Reddit and Hackernews posts and typing your name into some website is really going to do anything.
If this guy is going to play dirty then I don't see why others shouldn't fight back.
If this guy is going to play dirty then I don't see why others shouldn't fight back.
That's a very self-destructive position to take. Unfortunately it also hurts the rest of us.
In that light, his performance has been stellar. Not even personal threats to him or his family sway this guy, he'll be the perfect scapegoat when this is over.
This was all Ajit's fault, but he's been sacked from public office, rejoice!
This was all Ajit's fault, but he's been sacked from public office, rejoice!
> he'll be the perfect scapegoat when this is over
Reminds me a story, where there was an official who had an arrangement to receive a payment for every day in prison (if he ever ended up there as a scapegoat for actual criminal overlords, whose crimes he was covering up).
Reminds me a story, where there was an official who had an arrangement to receive a payment for every day in prison (if he ever ended up there as a scapegoat for actual criminal overlords, whose crimes he was covering up).
Corporate masters implies he’s still under the employ and compensation of Verizon.
If Verizon is bribing him, they certainly wouldn’t need a former employee to do so. They can just invest in PACs or lobbyists, or even straight up bribe any elected official.
If Verizon is bribing him, they certainly wouldn’t need a former employee to do so. They can just invest in PACs or lobbyists, or even straight up bribe any elected official.
> under the employ and compensation of Verizon
Not necessarily direct employ, but serving their interest. They wouldn't be so stupid as to publicly employ him.
> they certainly wouldn’t need a former employee to do so
It was the path of least resistance for them. He was already in the FCC, and he was always backing the interests of ISP incumbents against the public, if you paid attention.
Not necessarily direct employ, but serving their interest. They wouldn't be so stupid as to publicly employ him.
> they certainly wouldn’t need a former employee to do so
It was the path of least resistance for them. He was already in the FCC, and he was always backing the interests of ISP incumbents against the public, if you paid attention.
[deleted]
A former Verizon employee probably has no more ties or vested interests in Verizon anymore. If they have stock or other interests then they shouldn’t be in those regulatory offices.
while the president's sons run his company and the president's daughter has an office in the White House
ethics have gone out the window for this presidency, shouldn't doesn't matter anymore
ethics have gone out the window for this presidency, shouldn't doesn't matter anymore
The quid pro quo usually comes later, after they leave their government post. In the form of board seats or high level positions in the companies that benefited. So, hard to police since the payoff is down the road.
The only way to change this is to convince Congress that this is an election issue.
Here's what I don't understand, maybe someone has some insights.
Demographics is not on the side of the Republicans. It hasn't been for a long time, and the imbalance is getting worse, not only because of immigration but because the Republicans depend on older white voters. That cohort isn't growing at the rate it needs to, if the Republicans are to continue to win elections at either the local or national level. If they aren't careful, many of the gerrymandered districts they've constructed so carefully will turn into electoral deathtraps.
So, given that they must expand their appeal to younger, more diverse voters, why are they choosing this hill to die on? Internet regulation is one of the vanishingly-few issues that actually gets young people involved in the political system. It gets them to sign petitions, call their representatives, and -- who knows? -- maybe even vote.
If and when the ISPs follow through on their newly-granted powers to balkanize and channelize the Web, the outrage will be seismic. Young people and old people alike will remember who made it happen, and will respond accordingly. Every race, every gender, every faith, and almost every individual has a stake in this issue. The rest of the Republican agenda will be imperiled by the resulting groundswell, as people who wouldn't otherwise have bothered to vote do so.
In American politics, you can collude with foreign and domestic enemies to install raving demagogues, you can raise peoples' taxes, you can even start wars, but you do not mess with the Internet. The SOPA/PIPA fiasco should have made that clear enough. What exactly is the GOP expecting to happen here?
Here's what I don't understand, maybe someone has some insights.
Demographics is not on the side of the Republicans. It hasn't been for a long time, and the imbalance is getting worse, not only because of immigration but because the Republicans depend on older white voters. That cohort isn't growing at the rate it needs to, if the Republicans are to continue to win elections at either the local or national level. If they aren't careful, many of the gerrymandered districts they've constructed so carefully will turn into electoral deathtraps.
So, given that they must expand their appeal to younger, more diverse voters, why are they choosing this hill to die on? Internet regulation is one of the vanishingly-few issues that actually gets young people involved in the political system. It gets them to sign petitions, call their representatives, and -- who knows? -- maybe even vote.
If and when the ISPs follow through on their newly-granted powers to balkanize and channelize the Web, the outrage will be seismic. Young people and old people alike will remember who made it happen, and will respond accordingly. Every race, every gender, every faith, and almost every individual has a stake in this issue. The rest of the Republican agenda will be imperiled by the resulting groundswell, as people who wouldn't otherwise have bothered to vote do so.
In American politics, you can collude with foreign and domestic enemies to install raving demagogues, you can raise peoples' taxes, you can even start wars, but you do not mess with the Internet. The SOPA/PIPA fiasco should have made that clear enough. What exactly is the GOP expecting to happen here?
> given that they must expand their appeal to younger, more diverse voters
They gave up trying to appeal to more diverse voters long ago and are becoming increasingly desperate. So desperate that in the last election they took hacking assistance from a foreign adversary.
> why are they choosing this hill to die on?
They're not. Almost no one outside of our bubble will think about this when they go to vote.
On the other hand, this move may be expected to result in substantial campaign contributions from those who stand to benefit.
They gave up trying to appeal to more diverse voters long ago and are becoming increasingly desperate. So desperate that in the last election they took hacking assistance from a foreign adversary.
> why are they choosing this hill to die on?
They're not. Almost no one outside of our bubble will think about this when they go to vote.
On the other hand, this move may be expected to result in substantial campaign contributions from those who stand to benefit.
For all the zero-rated services that Google and Facebook subsidize globally, they've actually become part of the problem.
It seems hypocritical for them to take a pro-net neutrality stance when they're funding the capture of entry-level mobile data plans.
It seems hypocritical for them to take a pro-net neutrality stance when they're funding the capture of entry-level mobile data plans.
I might be wrong, but didn't the net neutrality regulations that were put into place before the current rule change allow zero-rating? A large part of the opposition to the rules change is that it allows paid prioritization, not just zero rating.
Zero-rated services were the trojan horse that led to paid-prioritization.
Both producers and consumers have already been conditioned to accept this new model.
Both producers and consumers have already been conditioned to accept this new model.
An interesting counterpoint to the standard arguments equating support for Net Neutrality with support for Title II classification of broadband providers, from Ben Thompson:
https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/
> Allow me to state this point plainly: I am absolutely in favor of net neutrality... The question at hand, though, is what is the best way to achieve net neutrality?
> Any regulatory decision — indeed, any decision period — is about tradeoffs. To choose one course of action is to gain certain benefits and incur certain costs... equally difficult to measure is the inevitable rent-seeking that accompanies regulation, as incumbents find it easier to lobby regulators to foreclose competition instead of winning customers in an open market.
> A classic example of this phenomenon is restaurants: who could possibly be against food safety? Then you read about how San Francisco requires 14 permits that take 9 months to issue... and you wonder why anyone opens a restaurant at all.
> This argument certainly applies to net neutrality in a far more profound way: the Internet has been the single most important driver of not just economic growth but overall consumer welfare for the last two decades. Given that all of that dynamism has been achieved with minimal regulatory oversight, the default position of anyone concerned about future growth should be maintaining a light touch. After all, regulation always has a cost far greater than what we can see at the moment it is enacted, and given the importance of the Internet, those costs are massively more consequential than restaurants or just about anything else.
https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/
> Allow me to state this point plainly: I am absolutely in favor of net neutrality... The question at hand, though, is what is the best way to achieve net neutrality?
> Any regulatory decision — indeed, any decision period — is about tradeoffs. To choose one course of action is to gain certain benefits and incur certain costs... equally difficult to measure is the inevitable rent-seeking that accompanies regulation, as incumbents find it easier to lobby regulators to foreclose competition instead of winning customers in an open market.
> A classic example of this phenomenon is restaurants: who could possibly be against food safety? Then you read about how San Francisco requires 14 permits that take 9 months to issue... and you wonder why anyone opens a restaurant at all.
> This argument certainly applies to net neutrality in a far more profound way: the Internet has been the single most important driver of not just economic growth but overall consumer welfare for the last two decades. Given that all of that dynamism has been achieved with minimal regulatory oversight, the default position of anyone concerned about future growth should be maintaining a light touch. After all, regulation always has a cost far greater than what we can see at the moment it is enacted, and given the importance of the Internet, those costs are massively more consequential than restaurants or just about anything else.
The argument that network neutrality is a new regulatory burden is wrong. Before the 2000s network neutrality existed because the ISPs did not have the network equipment to do deep packet inspection and filtering at large scale. By 2004 the FCC began looking to enforce network neutrality and began testing various legal authorities starting with the Madison River case, and culminating in the 2014 loss in Verizon vs FCC which forced Tom Wheeler to reclassify ISPs as common carriers in order to enforce net neutrality.
In other words, the whole history of "the single most important driver of not just economic growth but overall consumer welfare" has occurred under defacto network neutrality.
In other words, the whole history of "the single most important driver of not just economic growth but overall consumer welfare" has occurred under defacto network neutrality.
Right, I think it's increasingly important to distinguish between (A) the end-result situation of neutral-networks and (B) any specific regulations/laws that are trying to preserve that status-quo.
I fear there are a lot of people out there who don't understand the distinction and are confused when they hear that NN is both the status-quo and that NN is new regulation.
I fear there are a lot of people out there who don't understand the distinction and are confused when they hear that NN is both the status-quo and that NN is new regulation.
Great point! I would add that we also had real competition among ISPs in the 1990s, with many small providers. Pai's idea that somehow deregulation will take us back to that time is just lunacy; it's certainly not going to reverse the consolidation that has occurred.
I think this is the most convincing counterargument to Thompson's position; to the extent that NN was actually the defacto law of the land, his concerns about adding regulatory burden don't apply.
Thompson's article has been heavily criticized: https://www.wired.com/story/what-an-internet-analyst-got-wro...
While Title II classification may have some burden, there are no viable alternatives for preserving net neutrality. Ajit Pai isn't interested in making net neutrality better or in making the telecom market more competitive. Further, it's possible to streamline Title II compliance for small ISPs.
While Title II classification may have some burden, there are no viable alternatives for preserving net neutrality. Ajit Pai isn't interested in making net neutrality better or in making the telecom market more competitive. Further, it's possible to streamline Title II compliance for small ISPs.
That's a fairly thorough counterargument to Thompson's position. Some points are solid, but I'm not sure how much to buy this one:
> In 2008, the FCC ordered Comcast to stop slowing BitTorrent traffic on its network. Thompson argues that the Comcast case is insignificant because Comcast had stopped throttling BitTorrent by the time the FCC issued its order. But the real importance of the case was a federal-court ruling that the FCC didn’t have authority to regulate Comcast’s internet service, in part because it wasn't a Title II service.
So if the FCC didn't have authority to prevent Comcast from throttling Bittorrent in 2008, why didn't they start throttling it as soon as that verdict came in? Title II didn't arrive until 2015, many years after it was decided that Comcast could indeed throttle Bittorrent if they wanted.
> In 2008, the FCC ordered Comcast to stop slowing BitTorrent traffic on its network. Thompson argues that the Comcast case is insignificant because Comcast had stopped throttling BitTorrent by the time the FCC issued its order. But the real importance of the case was a federal-court ruling that the FCC didn’t have authority to regulate Comcast’s internet service, in part because it wasn't a Title II service.
So if the FCC didn't have authority to prevent Comcast from throttling Bittorrent in 2008, why didn't they start throttling it as soon as that verdict came in? Title II didn't arrive until 2015, many years after it was decided that Comcast could indeed throttle Bittorrent if they wanted.
This timeline should clear things up:
2008: FCC issues Comcast order citing ancillary jurisdiction under the Communications Act of 1934.
2010: Comcast v. FCC strikes down only that justification.
2010: FCC issues a new Open Internet Order primarily based on section 706 authority. See pages 62-150 of https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.p...
2014: Verizon v. FCC strikes down the Open Internet Order because FCC didn't classify ISPs under Title II.
2015: FCC classifies ISPs under Title II. Tom Wheeler comments that "this is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept."
2008: FCC issues Comcast order citing ancillary jurisdiction under the Communications Act of 1934.
2010: Comcast v. FCC strikes down only that justification.
2010: FCC issues a new Open Internet Order primarily based on section 706 authority. See pages 62-150 of https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.p...
2014: Verizon v. FCC strikes down the Open Internet Order because FCC didn't classify ISPs under Title II.
2015: FCC classifies ISPs under Title II. Tom Wheeler comments that "this is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept."
Much clearer, thanks.
I usually like Ben Thompson's writing, but this article felt so off to me. The basic premise - that enforcing net neutrality will be a trade-off or "burden" on par with onerous safety regulations - is completely flawed. ISPs have to do exactly what they've been doing for decades - nothing. Just leave packets alone and pass them along.
I think the point he's making is that
1) by taking certain options off the table (e.g. metered pricing), you are removing the ability of new entrants or other challengers to come compete with a new pricing model (as T-Mobile did in the case he highlights in the article), and
2) the stakes are really high; if the regulations are even slightly negative, multiplied across the entire digital economy of the world, getting this wrong could have a major impact.
> ISPs have to do exactly what they've been doing for decades - nothing. Just leave packets alone and pass them along.
Well, do nothing except for invest billions of dollars in building out new and faster networks to keep up with ever-increasing customer demand for data.
1) by taking certain options off the table (e.g. metered pricing), you are removing the ability of new entrants or other challengers to come compete with a new pricing model (as T-Mobile did in the case he highlights in the article), and
2) the stakes are really high; if the regulations are even slightly negative, multiplied across the entire digital economy of the world, getting this wrong could have a major impact.
> ISPs have to do exactly what they've been doing for decades - nothing. Just leave packets alone and pass them along.
Well, do nothing except for invest billions of dollars in building out new and faster networks to keep up with ever-increasing customer demand for data.
I don't think American ISPs WANT to be dumb pipes though.
> A classic example of this phenomenon is restaurants: who could possibly be against food safety? Then you read about how San Francisco requires 14 permits that take 9 months to issue... and you wonder why anyone opens a restaurant at all.
13 of those 14 permits are not for food safety, but that doesn't stop op-eds from being deliberately dishonest about it.
Most of those regulations have been written in blood - but surely we'll all be better off if we just bulldoze Chesterton's fence!
13 of those 14 permits are not for food safety, but that doesn't stop op-eds from being deliberately dishonest about it.
Most of those regulations have been written in blood - but surely we'll all be better off if we just bulldoze Chesterton's fence!
> that doesn't stop op-eds from being deliberately dishonest about it.
I think you need to do a lot more work than you have to prove that someone is being deliberately dishonest; otherwise you're just lobbing slander around.
I think you need to do a lot more work than you have to prove that someone is being deliberately dishonest; otherwise you're just lobbing slander around.
[deleted]
Aren't government officials supposed to be working FOR the public, rather than some vested interests by a few?
And shouldn't you be listening when the people who have made internet possible today (Tim Berners-Lee, Steven Bellovin, Steve Wozniak and Brewster Kahle to name a few) is very much against it?
The vote, the process and the resulting decision otherwise should be done in an objective and transparent manner. Just the way that the internet has been envisioned to be.
And shouldn't you be listening when the people who have made internet possible today (Tim Berners-Lee, Steven Bellovin, Steve Wozniak and Brewster Kahle to name a few) is very much against it?
The vote, the process and the resulting decision otherwise should be done in an objective and transparent manner. Just the way that the internet has been envisioned to be.
The people already had their say on this last year. They demand more crony capitalism in government, and elected the leaders who would most effectively enact these policies for them.
Well, technically it wasn't a majority, but it was a majority of the people who's votes count the most.
Well, technically it wasn't a majority, but it was a majority of the people who's votes count the most.
Was there an alternative that would have meant less crony capitalism in government?
Yes. Pretty much any of the other candidates from either major party, as well as the minor candidates that got national media attention (any of Stein, Johnson, or McMullin)
Now, if the standard were “no” instead of “less”, the answer would be very different.
Now, if the standard were “no” instead of “less”, the answer would be very different.
Yes, but he didn't make it out of the primaries.
It wasn't merely bad luck, nor was it the will of the people. Rather than the DNC machine working to find which candidate the Democratic party voters at large preferred, they actively worked against Sanders; it was a machine to elect Clinton, not a machine to enact the will of the Democrats (the people, not the party's inner circle).
I doubt they learned anything at all from their failure to get Clinton elected, though. I don't know that Sanders could have won the general election, but arguably the DNC's sabotage of the Sanders campaign and their subsequent failure to win the general election (with probably Russian interference) has and will continue to cost us dearly, now that we have lost much good faith in our international relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-b...
http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wass...
I doubt they learned anything at all from their failure to get Clinton elected, though. I don't know that Sanders could have won the general election, but arguably the DNC's sabotage of the Sanders campaign and their subsequent failure to win the general election (with probably Russian interference) has and will continue to cost us dearly, now that we have lost much good faith in our international relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-b...
http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wass...
> Yes, but he didn't make it out of the primaries.
Because of crony politics.
Because of crony politics.
Unless you think that Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, or Bernie Sanders would have brought us the exact same amount of crony capitalism, it's possible.
The controversy of executive appointments across 2017 was... Somewhat unprecedented.
The controversy of executive appointments across 2017 was... Somewhat unprecedented.
It's certainly possible it would have brought us more as they are all standard insiders. The ACA is one of the most crony capitalist laws that has ever been created in this country. Both sides are heinously guilty of putting monied interests over their jobs and the people refuse to make them pay for it.
You have to include the Republican Senate since many of these appointments require Senate confirmation. And even then a few were below even that incredibly low bar.
[deleted]
They are supposed to work for the good of the majority while not crushing minorities... and since corporations are considered people and could be considered minorities, I guess it makes sense.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority .
/s
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority .
/s
This will benefit some corporations (Verizon, Comcast) and hurt others (Google, Facebook).
I would assume that this would ultimately help google and facebook, they will be able to afford to pay for fast lanes while also making deals where their services are faster than new comers.
It doesn't help them at all. Google and Facebook can afford to pay whatever their users are worth to them and the ISPs can demand every last cent of that.
It's exactly analogous to the RIAA squeezing music startups dry: You absolutely have to pay them so why would they demand anything less than everything you make?
So why should ISPs demand anything less than everything the internet companies make?
It's exactly analogous to the RIAA squeezing music startups dry: You absolutely have to pay them so why would they demand anything less than everything you make?
So why should ISPs demand anything less than everything the internet companies make?
Google and Facebook are large and rich enough to replace the ISPs if they felt they needed to. They've both dabbled in this area and would surely turn it into a serious effort if their core business was threatened. They just haven't done it because it's still cheaper (for them) to let the existing ISPs do it.
Comcast/Verizon/etc don't want to pick a fight with Google or Facebook. They want to pick fights they can easily win and gain extra money from: companies too small to pose a threat.
Comcast/Verizon/etc don't want to pick a fight with Google or Facebook. They want to pick fights they can easily win and gain extra money from: companies too small to pose a threat.
Thats smart. So Pai is actually leftist protector of the weak.
All signs point to net neutrality being killed this week no matter who opposes it, but I applaud all those that stand up for their voices to be heard. Just because those currently in power are choosing to ignore those voices doesn't mean they aren't heard, and even if net neutrality dies this week doesn't mean it can't be resurrected later. The more voices loudly protesting, the more momentum there will be to help correct this travesty in the next election cycle.
The next time this political battle comes up the ISPs will have the legal authority to censor any pro neutrality voices.
What about the devil's advocate?
As the internet kept growing for the last 20 years, "global bandwidth" have increased by a lot because of services like youtube, netflix. The democratization of smartphones multiplied this effect: people listens to music using streaming, and you could say it doubled the amount of connected devices (not to mention smartphones update apps quite often).
I'm not against net neutrality, but the internet is still a very centralized platform, and it's not surprising that very popular services can become problematic for ISPs.
If you look at bandwidth, the largest actors are using a disproportionately larger share of it compared to smaller actors.
I just want to ask, is there some accounting of how those big actors contribute to the internet infrastructure, or how much they pay for its access considering the bandwidth usage?
I know that monopolies are bad, but I'm really curious about the business of internet infrastructure and how things works.
As the internet kept growing for the last 20 years, "global bandwidth" have increased by a lot because of services like youtube, netflix. The democratization of smartphones multiplied this effect: people listens to music using streaming, and you could say it doubled the amount of connected devices (not to mention smartphones update apps quite often).
I'm not against net neutrality, but the internet is still a very centralized platform, and it's not surprising that very popular services can become problematic for ISPs.
If you look at bandwidth, the largest actors are using a disproportionately larger share of it compared to smaller actors.
I just want to ask, is there some accounting of how those big actors contribute to the internet infrastructure, or how much they pay for its access considering the bandwidth usage?
I know that monopolies are bad, but I'm really curious about the business of internet infrastructure and how things works.
This question touches on something I've wondered about for a while. Why are large actors' usage questioned as if they alone were responsible for their internet traffic? Bits go in and bits come back out somewhere. There are always two endpoints in a connection.
Netflix, for example, pays for Netflix's internet connection according to their usage at their endpoint[1]. The consumers cumulatively pay for the same amount of usage; it's just spread across a large number of endpoints. Netflix's ISP and the consumers' ISPs pay for the infrastucture to connect the two together, and set their end user rates accordingly. Nobody in this chain of connections is getting a free ride.
Is this deliberate misdirection from the ISPs? Do I have some fundamental misunderstanding? Is it more nuanced than this?
[1] ignoring CDNs etc. for the sake of simplyfing the argument
Netflix, for example, pays for Netflix's internet connection according to their usage at their endpoint[1]. The consumers cumulatively pay for the same amount of usage; it's just spread across a large number of endpoints. Netflix's ISP and the consumers' ISPs pay for the infrastucture to connect the two together, and set their end user rates accordingly. Nobody in this chain of connections is getting a free ride.
Is this deliberate misdirection from the ISPs? Do I have some fundamental misunderstanding? Is it more nuanced than this?
[1] ignoring CDNs etc. for the sake of simplyfing the argument
I hope these individuals and companies fight for and win the change they want to see in the world because I agree with them. But I hope the vote passes tomorrow and ISPs no longer fall under Title 2 regulations. A 100 year old law cannot possibly fit the world of global, decentralized digital information sharing that the internet has become in the last 20 years. We need a new law for the new time. And it's this passion and energy we need from these luminaries and large companies to get people aware enough of the problem to pressure congress to do something about it. So the fight doesn't end tomorrow, it starts tomorrow.
Apple Siri promotes Google over Bing for billions of dollars. Net Neutral.
Mozilla promotes Google over Yahoo and switches user search preferences back to Google. Net Neutral.
Google blocks YouTube access from Amazon's streaming devices. Net Neutral.
Netflix throttles AT&T and Verizon customers. Net Neutral.
You know why I don't care if Pai "repeals" NN?
Mozilla promotes Google over Yahoo and switches user search preferences back to Google. Net Neutral.
Google blocks YouTube access from Amazon's streaming devices. Net Neutral.
Netflix throttles AT&T and Verizon customers. Net Neutral.
You know why I don't care if Pai "repeals" NN?
The FCC regulation of ISPs isn't expected to right every wrong in the technology sector; the only US laws those cases might have transgressed are anti-competition/monopoly, regulated by the FTC. You've not provided any support for ending the regulation of ISPs as common carriers.
Netflix throttles AT&T and Verizon customers. Net Neutral.
They've limited the bitrate/quality for the benefit of the consumer, since those ISPs have low monthly bandwidth limits. This allows them to watch more video before they hit their bandwidth limits, something most would probably find to be a desirable tradeoff.
Netflix throttles AT&T and Verizon customers. Net Neutral.
They've limited the bitrate/quality for the benefit of the consumer, since those ISPs have low monthly bandwidth limits. This allows them to watch more video before they hit their bandwidth limits, something most would probably find to be a desirable tradeoff.
>the only US laws those cases might have transgressed are anti-competition/monopoly, regulated by the FTC.
That's the point. When you put up a law that says "Cable Co can't do this, but Internet Co can" it offends my sense of fairness.
That's the point. When you put up a law that says "Cable Co can't do this, but Internet Co can" it offends my sense of fairness.
[deleted]
Youtube blocks you from uploading videos if you post stuff disagreeable to them. Net neutral.
Google locks you out of all your email and everything google-related because you used a name they thought was fake. Net neutral.
Facebook blocks you and flags your posts for speaking your mind. Net neutral.
Apple deletes apps that compete with them from the app store. Net neutral.
Reddit has banned me from /r/india, so I cannot post in the one sub that's in any way relevant to Indians. Net neutral.
I understand completely why you don't care about the "repeal".
Google locks you out of all your email and everything google-related because you used a name they thought was fake. Net neutral.
Facebook blocks you and flags your posts for speaking your mind. Net neutral.
Apple deletes apps that compete with them from the app store. Net neutral.
Reddit has banned me from /r/india, so I cannot post in the one sub that's in any way relevant to Indians. Net neutral.
I understand completely why you don't care about the "repeal".
> “The current technically-incorrect order discards decades of careful work by FCC chairs from both parties, who understood the threats that Internet access providers could pose to open markets on the Internet.”
Paid prioritization is that threat.
Again, streaming video content for all ages is not more important than online courses.
Paid prioritization is that threat.
Again, streaming video content for all ages is not more important than online courses.
I don't understand how the administration can support this change.
Allowing carriers to discriminate against content providers seems like legalizing extortion.
Is there an argument in favor of this change that would convince a reasonable person?
Allowing carriers to discriminate against content providers seems like legalizing extortion.
Is there an argument in favor of this change that would convince a reasonable person?
> Tech luminaries call net neutrality vote an 'imminent threat'
If tech companies and luminaries genuinely considered the loss of net neutrality as an existential threat, wouldn't they be hiring every lobbyist under the sun to fight for it?
If tech companies and luminaries genuinely considered the loss of net neutrality as an existential threat, wouldn't they be hiring every lobbyist under the sun to fight for it?
They have. The fact that it didn’t work should inform you about how politics works today
stevew20(4)
I keep asking: where the HECK is Facebook?
Zuckerberg needs to forget about profits for a moment, and put a 5-minute blackout page instead of people's feed. And phone number Geolocated to their representative.
I guarantee this will change the winds of internet history!
Zuckerberg needs to forget about profits for a moment, and put a 5-minute blackout page instead of people's feed. And phone number Geolocated to their representative.
I guarantee this will change the winds of internet history!
Facebook wants NN gone, so that they can sell their curated "Free Basics" plan with ISPs, blocking everything outside of Facebook and maybe Wikipedia.
They want to lock low income people into the Facebook bubble.
They want to lock low income people into the Facebook bubble.
I was thinking about this since they are "somehow" for NN.
I believe they want NN to be gone only in places where they can be their own ISP (as they try in Africa and India with internet.org). In US they already have the market in their hands and NN actually gives them certain protection so Verizon can't make their version of facebook and price them out of the market.
US without NN could be much more expensive for Facebook. And as much as i hate Facebook this is the reason for NN. I can't understand why would anyone think that Internet is not utility like electricity and water. It is crazy how can get people confused and some people even here on HN are against NN.
I believe they want NN to be gone only in places where they can be their own ISP (as they try in Africa and India with internet.org). In US they already have the market in their hands and NN actually gives them certain protection so Verizon can't make their version of facebook and price them out of the market.
US without NN could be much more expensive for Facebook. And as much as i hate Facebook this is the reason for NN. I can't understand why would anyone think that Internet is not utility like electricity and water. It is crazy how can get people confused and some people even here on HN are against NN.
That'll make all the "fake news" links a very interesting affair.
? I thought that Zuckerberg was for internet freedom?? Project Free Internet in India and his non-profit??
Quite the opposite[0].
"Free Basics" was the name of the program, and it only allowed access to Facebook and whatever sites whichever sites Facebook (in all its infinite wisdom) decided were appropriate for the users to visit. The program was eventually found to be in violation of India's neutrality rules and was shut down.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Basics#Net_neutrality_cri...
"Free Basics" was the name of the program, and it only allowed access to Facebook and whatever sites whichever sites Facebook (in all its infinite wisdom) decided were appropriate for the users to visit. The program was eventually found to be in violation of India's neutrality rules and was shut down.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Basics#Net_neutrality_cri...
So why does no one complain when they benefit from non-net neutrality:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/6/16262086/t-mobile-free-net...
See the comments and tell me if I missed any.
See the comments and tell me if I missed any.
I complained about that plan, as did many other net neutrality advocates. I even included an objection in my comment to the FCC on this very proceeding; among other things, T-Mobile's scheme fails when people use VPNs, it represents a layering violation, it violates the end-to-end principle, and it stifles innovation even for those services that are zero-rated (by preventing them from deploying new technologies effectively, since the network is dictating application requirements).
So yeah, you did miss something, and comments on The Verge are basically just noise.
So yeah, you did miss something, and comments on The Verge are basically just noise.
If T-Mobile wants to pay for something on my behalf, I don't think that's a violation of network neutrality principles for two reasons: First, T-Mobile isn't saying "we pay for your Netflix subscription and we block access to Hulu." Second, the service is opt-in at the customer's discretion. Giving the customer* a choice is the biggest point of the neutrality argument. If the customer, from an open marketplace, makes the decision, fine. If the service provider, particularly in a natural monopoly position, imposes service-specific limitations on the customer, not fine.
To my mind, T-Mobile's BingeOn (and rate limiting for subscribers who don't have the ONE Plus add-on) is closer to a violation than simply paying for Netflix subscriptions.
* Not that you used this word, but I'm on a mission: I intentionally write "customer" instead of "consumer." We are not consumers; we are customers paying money for a service.
To my mind, T-Mobile's BingeOn (and rate limiting for subscribers who don't have the ONE Plus add-on) is closer to a violation than simply paying for Netflix subscriptions.
* Not that you used this word, but I'm on a mission: I intentionally write "customer" instead of "consumer." We are not consumers; we are customers paying money for a service.
T-Mobile isn't paying for something on your behalf. You're paying for cell service. They've just decided to charge you a different rate (in this case, nothing) for YouTube traffic and the like than for everything else. It gives favor and preference to the large established services which are included (by making them free/cheaper for consumers to use), which hurts small startups trying to disrupt the market.
Binge On is the exact definition of a net neutrality violation, but since it's not available "a la carte" as an "add-on", nobody's really talking about it. Free things pass under the radar.
Zero rating by T-Mobile hasn't been blocked by the FCC's existing rules which is one of the reason's I'm in support of the repeal: The orders being repealed aren't even protecting our net neutrality successfully.
Binge On is the exact definition of a net neutrality violation, but since it's not available "a la carte" as an "add-on", nobody's really talking about it. Free things pass under the radar.
Zero rating by T-Mobile hasn't been blocked by the FCC's existing rules which is one of the reason's I'm in support of the repeal: The orders being repealed aren't even protecting our net neutrality successfully.
Perfect is the enemy of good. Because one thing is a bit iffy, let's throw the whole regulation out?
BingeOn initially had opposition, until T-Mobile gave customers option to disable it, and also opened it up so anyone who satisfied requirements (in particular had streaming that quality adapted to the bandwidth) could join for free.
Honestly I would support FCC stepping in and said that this can't be done even though I'm T-Mobile customer.
BingeOn initially had opposition, until T-Mobile gave customers option to disable it, and also opened it up so anyone who satisfied requirements (in particular had streaming that quality adapted to the bandwidth) could join for free.
Honestly I would support FCC stepping in and said that this can't be done even though I'm T-Mobile customer.
I don't find net neutrality regulations to be "good". The saving grace for me would be if they did block companies like T-Mobile from zero rating, but they don't. And not only that, but Title II actually currently exempts ISPs from FTC regulation, which is horrendous.
This isn't a "perfect is the enemy of good", this is "I can't really find an upside to what everyone is advocating for".
And Binge On being disablable doesn't solve the primary issue with zero rating: It provides consumers and incentive to stick with the big companies over the new guys, who probably can't necessarily cut a deal with T-Mo. It creates a strange gate for newcomers to get through, even if they do allegedly "allow anyone to join". (Because it isn't just a checkbox, T-Mo throttles Binge On content, effectively.)
This isn't a "perfect is the enemy of good", this is "I can't really find an upside to what everyone is advocating for".
And Binge On being disablable doesn't solve the primary issue with zero rating: It provides consumers and incentive to stick with the big companies over the new guys, who probably can't necessarily cut a deal with T-Mo. It creates a strange gate for newcomers to get through, even if they do allegedly "allow anyone to join". (Because it isn't just a checkbox, T-Mo throttles Binge On content, effectively.)
I can’t name a single market where T-Mobile has a natural monopoly, but I can certainly name several where cable companies do.
"It's not perfect, so burn it down" has very rarely been a wise decision in the light of history.
I mean, not to be a wise-ass, but have you seen who's been appointed to the FCC, EPA, HHS, and other three letter orgs? FCC is saying net neutrality is bad, EPA is saying that climate change is natural and can't be affected by humans and isn't actually happening, and HHS is basically saying that being poor is a poor persons fault for being poor in the first place.
I am well aware! They are burning things down. "Well, things are imperfect as-is, so let's give them some extra gasoline" makes me raise both eyebrows.
Zero rating is a complex subject. Prior FCC chairman had vowed to look at zero rating on a case by case basis. In the case of T-Mobile, they treated all video services the same and more important did not own a competing video service that they prioritized unfairly over others. Seems sensible to me.
I can see objections to T-Mobile's plan:
It is a layering violation, since the network is dictating application requirements (the video streaming technology must be "T-Mobile friendly" to benefit from the zero-rating).
It fails when users use VPNs, because the network cannot inspect packets or determine which service is used. Likewise with proxy servers, Tor, etc.
It is not applied equally to all streaming services; T-Mobile maintains a list of registered services that is not even remotely comprehensive.
So yes, this is a net neutrality violation, even if it is not the sort of behavior prohibited by the 2015 rules.
It is a layering violation, since the network is dictating application requirements (the video streaming technology must be "T-Mobile friendly" to benefit from the zero-rating).
It fails when users use VPNs, because the network cannot inspect packets or determine which service is used. Likewise with proxy servers, Tor, etc.
It is not applied equally to all streaming services; T-Mobile maintains a list of registered services that is not even remotely comprehensive.
So yes, this is a net neutrality violation, even if it is not the sort of behavior prohibited by the 2015 rules.
Yeah I also don't think it is not an issue, but even though I'm T-Mobile customer, I think FCC should block it.
It's equivalent of replacing blacklisting with whitelisting. In the end you can achieve the same thing what NN supposed to block, so allowing it creates a loophole (e.g. start provide only plans with ridiculously small data caps, and do zero rating on affiliates)
It's equivalent of replacing blacklisting with whitelisting. In the end you can achieve the same thing what NN supposed to block, so allowing it creates a loophole (e.g. start provide only plans with ridiculously small data caps, and do zero rating on affiliates)
This article is discussing a give away of netflix accounts to people with unlimited data account, which isn't a net-neutrality issue (while still an example of the anti-competitive desires that encourage major ISPs to push to end net neutrality).
However, the prior action, an opt-out scheme to limit bandwidth of streaming video in exchange for zero-rating certain approved streaming providers was vigorously opposed here on HN.
However, the prior action, an opt-out scheme to limit bandwidth of streaming video in exchange for zero-rating certain approved streaming providers was vigorously opposed here on HN.
A lot of people complained about that.
After that T-Mobile added option to easily disable it. I still think FCC should step in and not allow that because it is treating selected traffic differently.
Edit: I thought you were talking about Binge On, which probably supported your point better. Anyway in this case they are just including extra service membership in the plan what that has to do with NN?
After that T-Mobile added option to easily disable it. I still think FCC should step in and not allow that because it is treating selected traffic differently.
Edit: I thought you were talking about Binge On, which probably supported your point better. Anyway in this case they are just including extra service membership in the plan what that has to do with NN?
I don't see how do I benefit from a wireless carrier giving me a credit for Netflix access... on their unlimited plan? They aren't zero-rating it AFAICT.
The entire comment period was for show. Pai and his republican co-commissioners are going to jam this through regardless of what anyone says or does. He was brazen enough to admit, early on, that he does not care whether or not his plan is unpopular and that what the public thinks makes no difference whatsoever.
The only way to change this is to convince Congress that this is an election issue. Unfortunately there are too many other things happening right now, so net neutrality is being drowned in the noise and will likely continue to be drowned in the noise.