> 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).
How do you convince network giants like IBM, Intel, Cisco, Nokia, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Juniper, D-Link, among others, that net neutrality regulations are a bad idea? They currently support what Ajit Pai is doing. They have even have gone as far as crediting his repeals for greater investment into their network infrastructure.
In what sport do you hold back from scoring a goal in order to set yourself up to score a goal later though?
That is to say, what you're saying is true, but typically (as long as the net is in sight) the best way to set yourself up to score a goal later is to try to score a goal now.
The approach is prone to local maxima, but I'm not convinced there can be another approach here. If you're not trying to win it all, then you're setting yourself up to lose.
> 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.
I get the feeling that these sites are just 'preaching to the choir' (i.e. their customers already support these things, and most likely have let their 'representative' know).
Is anyone doing anything to give the 50 senators who are against this a taste of what is to come? I recall cloudflare or someome along those lines threatenning to throttle traffic from government IPs, or maybe that just happened in my dream..
Those sites are a huge portion of overall internet traffic. While on e.g. Reddit, people may subscribe to tech subreddits, there are many people who don't and are unaware of anything to do with net neutrality. If they can convince a nonzero amount of people to contact their representatives, that's worth the hour or two of some intern's time to put up a banner. Who knows, some of those people might be in states represented by those 50 senators.
Maybe they can crowdfund ? If I read the news and see the prices to get "insights", it may be doable.
Then again I find it troubling how easy politicians are getting bought these days while in essence it's not that hard to govern with all the people in mind instead of them self. But I may be very naive in this regards.
This is an almost meaningless bill, only going to a vote so various politicians can claim to support net neutrality on the campaign trail.
Not only is it unlikely to pass both chambers and be signed by the president, passing the bill doesn't change the broader status of net neutrality. Currently, the legality of the FCC enforcing net neutrality is unclear, with the matter destined to be decided in the courts either way.
A law explicitly giving the FCC control has been necessary for over a decade, but both parties have refused to pass one or even consider passing a future one.
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".
> 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.
I still can't believe that the movement to kill net neutrality was (is?) called "restoring internet freedom". I guess it's a shortening of "restoring internet service providers' freedom"? But the longer form isn't as catchy.
Well, it is about "restoring internet freedom". It's just that, except in a few large cities, Americans have very little choice about ISP. So there's no way for ISPs to compete for users who care about net neutrality.
Edit: Actually, we'd have even more freedom with an Internet version of the FERC rule for open access to electrical transmission lines.[0]
> The legal and policy cornerstone of these rules is to remedy undue discrimination in access to the monopoly owned transmission wires that control whether and to whom electricity can be transported in interstate commerce.
It’s a very 1984 way of doing things where the ones in power blatantly say the opposite of what their intent is, to twist the truth and the meaning of the words entirely.
Wishful thinking, the president would not sign the bill and there's not a supermajority in the Senate and the house to overrule him. This is going nowhere.
To Trump's credit, I believe he would sign the bill. He mostly cares about winning and looking good. Also, he gives people what they want. If both houses pass the bill; "You wanted net neutrality? We now have the best net neutrality in the history of the internet. We rolled back Obama's sick and dying internet, Obama killed the internet did you know that folks?, and now we have the best most free internet EVER. Period."
We may actually have the opposite problem; Trump may not veto anything that comes across his desk.
Without it, ISPs can stop offering internet access and start offering YouTube access. Here's an example of a plan in a country with weak net neutrality.
I don't think the FDA has turned healthcare into a boondoggle, especially since incidents like Thalidomide have revealed why the pharma industry must follow a compliance framework for R&D.
I don't think the USDA has turned agriculture or consumer food into a boondoggle. The Jungle is still a gripping read today, because the conditions of unregulated meatpacking factories were unbelievably grotesque, beyond the absolute worst of contemporary hidden camera food industry scandals.
I don't think the EPA has turned the environment into a boondoggle. Acid rain was an incredibly serious problem in the 1980s that's pretty much behind us today, because regulation of sulfur dioxide emissions in the clean air act incenticized companies to lower their emissions.[0]
Other commenters have accurately pointed out the more directly disagreeable parts of your post, but you have absolutely not provided an accurate representation of the government's historical role in regulated markets. I believe it is more possible to vote in a competent government if you are willing to accept the challenge that it is possible for one to exist.
Also, your friend chose to live in that house, along with all the regulations that came with it. Spare us the sob story.
You clearly don't understand why NN was put in place. All the telcos were prioritizing content, taking advantage of their monopoly power. Starting a telco is serious work, and that isn't simply due to government regulation.
I don't know, man. You cherry-pick some examples of government inefficiency, but our society benefits greatly from all the rules that the government enforces in order to benefit citizens (e.g. the FDA approving new food products).
The problem isn't the idea of "net neutrality". The problem is special interest groups and lobbyists, but those are the same problems we've always had. Nothing's changed.
Admittedly, it could get worse, but the need for "drawing the line" (in this case, deciding what gets regulated) has to be done somewhere, and it seems most of us here think it's a good idea to draw it at what would likely be a critical bottleneck. Perhaps the regulations themselves aren't needed but the high likelihood that they might be made law might encourage ISPs to stay on the friendlier side, so promoting net neutrality is still good.
> "Net Neutrality" is nothing more than an Orwellian named, amorphous and vague idea that nobody really knows what it means.
What are you talking about? Net Neutrality isn't complicated at all, it's just saying that Internet providers need to deliver Internet connections without prioritizing or blocking certain sites/connections.
The only complication is that telcos and businesses have different ideas about how far it should go (ie should zero-rating content be included). This is like arguing that because we have disagreements about the extent of free speech that the entire concept of free speech is just poorly defined government propaganda.
This is nothing like GDPR, this not a government created oligopoly, you're thinking about this completely backwards. Net neutrality decreases government control over the Internet; it enshrines that businesses, states, and governments aren't allowed to control access or play favorites in a freely competitive online market.
There are valid reasons why someone might oppose legislated net neutrality, but "the government taking over" isn't one of them. You lose a lot of credibility when you use words like 'Orwellian' to describe a policy that explicitly makes it harder to censor things.
> 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.
> "Net Neutrality" is nothing more than an Orwellian named, amorphous and vague idea that nobody really knows what it means.
The 2015 Open Internet order's rules take up all of 8 pages. You could know what it means if you actually wanted to and were willing to put in a little effort.
Some government regulations are stupid, certainly. Something should probably be done about those. When you start saying that regulation as a whole is stupid--that being allowed to use cheap windows is more important than, say, keeping thalidomide out of the US--is where you lose me.
The U.K.'s (government / regulators) stance on net neutrality) is that as long as there is competition in the market and there are services you can sign up for that “neutral” then there is no need to step in yet.
The competition in the U.S. isn’t as great as it can be in here in the U.K. where many will only have a single choice for their ISP (or have restricted cell/sat isp or have a service that we wouldn’t even consider as broadband as it’s speed is so low).
It’s strange how people from different parts from the world may require different rules that govern them.
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?
We long had zero-rating in the form of toll free telephone numbers while most long distance calling required per-minute fees. That system worked okay because it just transferred costs from one party (the caller) to another (the callee) and was available to any provider who wanted to subscribe to the model. Zero rating that works like that would be okay.
What people are worried about is when the ISP's get to play kingmaker about which services will get deals and which will not. The cable TV providers are among the most hated companies in the US for a reason, and those are the only broadband ISP's available to most Americans.
Zero-rating as we fear it is just another way to let them impose arbitrary and capricious costs on their customers.
[+] [-] tzs|7 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] jiojfdsal3|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davvolun|7 years ago|reply
That is to say, what you're saying is true, but typically (as long as the net is in sight) the best way to set yourself up to score a goal later is to try to score a goal now.
The approach is prone to local maxima, but I'm not convinced there can be another approach here. If you're not trying to win it all, then you're setting yourself up to lose.
[+] [-] nateconq|7 years ago|reply
"We don’t know how this is going to end...."
They know very well how it will end. This is an effort to get ammo for the primaries.
[+] [-] polotics|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] craftyguy|7 years ago|reply
I get the feeling that these sites are just 'preaching to the choir' (i.e. their customers already support these things, and most likely have let their 'representative' know).
Is anyone doing anything to give the 50 senators who are against this a taste of what is to come? I recall cloudflare or someome along those lines threatenning to throttle traffic from government IPs, or maybe that just happened in my dream..
[+] [-] dlgeek|7 years ago|reply
It's not about changing minds. It's a call to action - they're specifically trying to get their users to contact their representatives.
[+] [-] _asummers|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhcom2|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glenndebacker|7 years ago|reply
Then again I find it troubling how easy politicians are getting bought these days while in essence it's not that hard to govern with all the people in mind instead of them self. But I may be very naive in this regards.
[+] [-] esaym|7 years ago|reply
No, because I am fine with the way things are, ie unregulated.
[+] [-] boomboomsubban|7 years ago|reply
Not only is it unlikely to pass both chambers and be signed by the president, passing the bill doesn't change the broader status of net neutrality. Currently, the legality of the FCC enforcing net neutrality is unclear, with the matter destined to be decided in the courts either way.
A law explicitly giving the FCC control has been necessary for over a decade, but both parties have refused to pass one or even consider passing a future one.
[+] [-] ryanpcmcquen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nercht12|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chimeracoder|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jordigh|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mirimir|7 years ago|reply
Edit: Actually, we'd have even more freedom with an Internet version of the FERC rule for open access to electrical transmission lines.[0]
> The legal and policy cornerstone of these rules is to remedy undue discrimination in access to the monopoly owned transmission wires that control whether and to whom electricity can be transported in interstate commerce.
0) https://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/land-docs/rm95-8-00w....
[+] [-] JohnJamesRambo|7 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
[+] [-] StaticRedux|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jampekka|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yosito|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WheelsAtLarge|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Rapzid|7 years ago|reply
We may actually have the opposite problem; Trump may not veto anything that comes across his desk.
[+] [-] enknamel|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boomboomsubban|7 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Screenshot-2017-10-28_MEO...
If you believe some other law already prohibits this, please tell me.
[+] [-] mnw21cam|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeremyt|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mustacheemperor|7 years ago|reply
I don't think the USDA has turned agriculture or consumer food into a boondoggle. The Jungle is still a gripping read today, because the conditions of unregulated meatpacking factories were unbelievably grotesque, beyond the absolute worst of contemporary hidden camera food industry scandals.
I don't think the EPA has turned the environment into a boondoggle. Acid rain was an incredibly serious problem in the 1980s that's pretty much behind us today, because regulation of sulfur dioxide emissions in the clean air act incenticized companies to lower their emissions.[0]
[0]https://www.edf.org/approach/markets/acid-rain
Other commenters have accurately pointed out the more directly disagreeable parts of your post, but you have absolutely not provided an accurate representation of the government's historical role in regulated markets. I believe it is more possible to vote in a competent government if you are willing to accept the challenge that it is possible for one to exist.
[+] [-] matchbok|7 years ago|reply
Name me one country with free-market healthcare.
I'll wait.
Also, your friend chose to live in that house, along with all the regulations that came with it. Spare us the sob story.
You clearly don't understand why NN was put in place. All the telcos were prioritizing content, taking advantage of their monopoly power. Starting a telco is serious work, and that isn't simply due to government regulation.
Try again.
[+] [-] jdpigeon|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|7 years ago|reply
Do you really think that? Do you really think nobody knows what it means? The previous policy... was it words someone might understand... or not?
[+] [-] nercht12|7 years ago|reply
Admittedly, it could get worse, but the need for "drawing the line" (in this case, deciding what gets regulated) has to be done somewhere, and it seems most of us here think it's a good idea to draw it at what would likely be a critical bottleneck. Perhaps the regulations themselves aren't needed but the high likelihood that they might be made law might encourage ISPs to stay on the friendlier side, so promoting net neutrality is still good.
[+] [-] danShumway|7 years ago|reply
What are you talking about? Net Neutrality isn't complicated at all, it's just saying that Internet providers need to deliver Internet connections without prioritizing or blocking certain sites/connections.
The only complication is that telcos and businesses have different ideas about how far it should go (ie should zero-rating content be included). This is like arguing that because we have disagreements about the extent of free speech that the entire concept of free speech is just poorly defined government propaganda.
This is nothing like GDPR, this not a government created oligopoly, you're thinking about this completely backwards. Net neutrality decreases government control over the Internet; it enshrines that businesses, states, and governments aren't allowed to control access or play favorites in a freely competitive online market.
There are valid reasons why someone might oppose legislated net neutrality, but "the government taking over" isn't one of them. You lose a lot of credibility when you use words like 'Orwellian' to describe a policy that explicitly makes it harder to censor things.
[+] [-] Firadeoclus|7 years ago|reply
Preventing new technologies which have undesired consequences (whether intended or not) is an intended consequence of regulation.
[+] [-] tzs|7 years ago|reply
The 2015 Open Internet order's rules take up all of 8 pages. You could know what it means if you actually wanted to and were willing to put in a little effort.
[+] [-] PhasmaFelis|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dzdt|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghba66|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Crosseye_Jack|7 years ago|reply
The competition in the U.S. isn’t as great as it can be in here in the U.K. where many will only have a single choice for their ISP (or have restricted cell/sat isp or have a service that we wouldn’t even consider as broadband as it’s speed is so low).
It’s strange how people from different parts from the world may require different rules that govern them.
[+] [-] garmaine|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Matterrr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dzdt|7 years ago|reply
What people are worried about is when the ISP's get to play kingmaker about which services will get deals and which will not. The cable TV providers are among the most hated companies in the US for a reason, and those are the only broadband ISP's available to most Americans.
Zero-rating as we fear it is just another way to let them impose arbitrary and capricious costs on their customers.
[+] [-] FellowTraveler|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jumelles|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattrick|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grawprog|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]