
Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet - ghosh
https://www.blog.google/topics/public-policy/net-neutrality-day-action-help-preserve-open-internet/
======
mabbo
If Google were actually serious about Net Neutrality, they would use their
insane market power to protect it.

How? Well, a simple statement saying "any ISP who abuses net neutrality will
have their customers cut off from Google products". No Google search, no
YouTube, no Gmail. Have those requests instead redirect to a website telling
the customer what their ISP is doing, why Google won't work with them, and how
to call to complain to the ISP. Make the site list competitors in the user's
area that don't play stupid games.

Is this an insane idea? Yep. Would Google come under scrutiny because of their
now-obvious market power? Oh definitely. And Google would probably lose money
over it. But it would certainly work.

People don't get internet, and then decide to use Google. They want Google and
then get internet for that purpose.

edit: an hour later, fixing an autocorrect word

~~~
komali2
I love this idea because I read too much cyberpunk.

Why doesn't Twitter flex its muscle and cause a national crisis by tweeting
"watch out China, nukes are coming" from Donald Trump's Twitter? That ruins
trust in the platform, but what if they just banned the US president's account
for TOS or something? Enormous amount of power.

What if Musk's first ship to Mars had a hidden Railgun on it? "Anybody else
that wants to come to Mars must pay equivalent US 100,000 million per
vehicle." Alternatively, "I now own mars, who can come as well is up to my
whim."

What if Microsoft issued a malicious patch that gave it access to the NSA's
servers? What if Comcast slurped up FBI traffic?

In the internet and space age, corporations are getting enough _real_ power
that government power can be outright stepped over. Sure, say Comcast slurps
data somehow from CIA and FBI, goes to prez, and says "give us x or we sell
this to Russia," the US gov can turn around and threaten to arrest the CEO, or
fine them, or kick down doors and start tearing apart infrastructure with the
US military, but Comcast could easily say "do any of the above and the data is
given to Russia, for free."

Musk has weaponised Mars, a state actor says "unweaponise it or be hanged,"
Musk can say "well, the cannon is automated, has 300 rounds of ammunition, and
will not deactivate unless my secret passcode and the secret passcode of
another person who I will not name, are provided. Per detected vehicle."

Etc.

Exciting, fun, terrifying. It can go fantastic for us (Google and Netflix
telling telecoms to suck it), or absolutely horrifying (Comcast holding the US
government hostage).

~~~
Bakary
Technically, the US President holds the power to end life on Earth should he
so desire. To the best of my knowledge, there is no safeguard in place that
could prevent such a course of action if it were attempted. Even Comcast's
power seems rather pitiful in comparison.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
_To the best of my knowledge, there is no safeguard in place that could
prevent such a course of action if it were attempted_

I can tell you for certain that there are dozens of safeguards. That scenario
not only isn't possible, it's not plausible. Yes the President has the "codes"
but those codes don't launch the missiles [1]. The scenario described is one
in which there are literally nuclear warheads on a ballistic trajectory headed
to the US with a verified source of origin.

I think the trope stays around because people, despite what they say publicly,
like the idea of an emperor style president with supreme power.

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-
wea...](https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-weapon-
launch/)

~~~
archgoon
I'm afraid that you have misunderstood the Bloomberg article. Nothing in it is
about checking the power of the president (it says itself the president
determines when to end the meetings and whether to ignore advice). It is all
about verifying that _The President_ has issued the order, and then ensuring
that order is carried out. The President is contacted in this scenario simply
because he's the only one who can actually authorize retaliation. He is
enabled to do that independently, which is what the nuclear football is for.

Alex Wellerstein is a academic researcher on the history of nuclear weapons,
and he describes the situation thus:

[http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-
and-...](http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-the-
bomb/)

"""

>>Are there any checks in place to keep the US President from starting a
nuclear war?

What's amazing about this question, really, is how seriously it misunderstands
the logic of the US command and control system. It gets it exactly backwards.

The entire point of the US command and control system is to guarantee that
_the President and _only_ the President_ is capable of authorizing nuclear war
_whenever he needs to_. It is about enabling the President's power, not
checking or restricting him.

"""

~~~
AndrewKemendo
I was just describing the official process. Having spent 14 years in the
military I can tell you that it's more complex than just that.

 _The entire point of the US command and control system is to guarantee that
the President and only the President is capable of authorizing nuclear war
whenever he needs to._

Yes, legally and formally. Informally though, as I said, it won't go down like
that, especially if it's not completely unambiguous that there is a nuclear
attack on the US.

~~~
greggman
this is not my understanding. there is no such checking because in a real
threat the president only has about 7 minutes until the enemies nukes fall
from subs off the coast. to be a credible deterrent it has to be assumed he
can order the launch in less time than that. if verification of unambiguous
threat takes more time than that then the enemy can just nuke us confident
we'll all be dead before our pres can get his military to accept the order

[http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-59-the-
des...](http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-of-
worlds/)

~~~
ekianjo
who cares about launching on 7 minutes when nuke subs can strike anyway at any
time even after the attack ?

~~~
lmm
But who would you give command authority for that? Here in the UK, where we
wouldn't even have 7 minutes in the event of an attack from Russia, we rely on
exactly that strategy (possibly - the contents of the prime minister's
"letters of last resort" to our submarine captains are secret and destroyed
unopened when a PM leaves office) - but the flipside is that individual
submarine captains have both the authority and the means to launch nuclear
weapons without requiring approval from anywhere further up the chain.

~~~
ekianjo
as far as i know if deep sea subs cannot contact the headquarters for x amount
of time they should assume their country was nuked and are supposed to
retaliate.

~~~
lmm
That doesn't answer the question. Who do you give the command authority for
that decision? Who gets to say "we cannot contact the headquarters", which
amounts to being able to launch the nuclear weapons? And obviously if you want
them to be able to launch under those circumstances you have to give them any
"launch codes" or what-have-you beforehand.

~~~
Bakary
In the case of the UK, there is a sealed letter in each Trident sub with
instructions from the PM in case the nation's leaders have been terminated.

~~~
lmm
Yeah, I mentioned the letters of last resort, but while the letter will
contain orders, the captain has sole launch authority, and it's difficult to
imagine the system could work in a way that avoids that - whatever process you
require the captain to follow, they could simply decide to follow that process
as though the leadership were uncontactable.

~~~
mjevans
I don't know what the actual procedure is; however like with Science Fiction
and 'Self Destruct' codes I would think that a multi-agent auth challenge
would be required.

The captain and some fixed number of executive officers. Possibly with
redundancy for one or two crew being dead. The auth codes would cause a safe
to unlock or message to de-crypt.

Presumably the instructions would be delivered to each authenticating member
so that all could receive the orders simultaneously.

------
AndrewKemendo
_Thanks in part to net neutrality, the open internet has grown to become an
unrivaled source of choice, competition, innovation, free expression, and
opportunity._

Unless my history is wrong, and please correct me if that is the case, until
the Title II decision in 2015, there were no regulations preventing an ISP
from discriminating network traffic. So to say that Net Neutrality has been
key to an open internet from 1980-2015 seems without merit.

I think the argument here is the same for any argument of nationalization: To
turn a private good into a public one.

Businesses, local and federal governments, have all contributed to the
infrastructure that is the internet. So the private company can't say, "well
it was all our investment" and equally the Government can't say "This is a
public good."

~~~
dragonwriter
Net neutrality _regulations_ were adopted to protect (and in some degree
restore) the net neutrality _condition_ ; the internet was largely neutral
from its inception; though by the early 00s threats to neutrality in practice
were becoming clear, and the FCC began discussion the issue, adopting open
internet principles that it first attempted to promote via case-by-case action
(which was limited by the courts), then Title I regulation (which was struck
down by the courts) in 2010.

There's considerable reason to believe that even without enforceable rules,
the attention and active policy activity directed at enforceable rules
inhibited non-neutral action by ISPs compared to what it would have been
without that activity.

> So to say that Net Neutrality has been key to an open internet from
> 1980-2015 seems without merit.

To say net neutrality _regulations_ have been would be without merit, sure. To
say net neutrality has been, OTOH, is factually true.

~~~
wmf
One thing I've wondered is why ISPs turned evil after so many years of
voluntary net neutrality.

~~~
5ilv3r
They didn't change. They bought eachother and squeezed out competition out
until their influence was more powerful than the consequences of playing
unfairly. A long long time ago, you could choose between dozens of ISPs. That
is no longer true.

------
ambicapter
This has been the weakest day of action I could imagine. I thought sites were
going to be throttled. Turns out its just some color changes and, oh, reddit
has a fancy "slow-loading" gif for their website name. A real wake-up call!

~~~
BinaryIdiot
This is exactly what I thought.

Went to reddit.com...where's the Net Neutrality protest? Oh I just realized
they made their logo a gif that looks like it loads slow...and they made a
post...

Went to google.com...the doodle is unrelated and I saw nothing about net
neutrality on the site...

Went to mozilla.org and I see absolutely nothing about it. I feel like I must
be missing something here.

Hackernews...looks the same but slightly grayed. Oh the black bar is a link,
didn't realize that. But no messages or anything obvious.

LinkedIn.com maybe? Nothing

Twitter? They have a hashtag that's trending...that's it.

Facebook? I see nothing. Not even a trending topic.

This is a very luke warm day of technology companies protesting net
neutrality. I expected _at least_ a tiny blurb on a homepage SOMEWHERE. So far
Netflix and DuckDuckGo are the only large sites that I've notice actually put
_something_ on their homepage.

~~~
chiefofgxbxl
Agreed, this is a very poor showing of support from major websites.

I remember Wikipedia doing a "black out" day, along with several other
websites years back. If you visited the web page, all you saw was a black page
and a quick explanation that the web could be censored if legislation were to
pass.

I've visited several participants' sites to see nothing. GitHub didn't have a
single thing, Wikipedia: nothing, and Google (or Alphabet) isn't even listed
on the list of participants [0].

[0]
[https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants](https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants)

~~~
marksomnian
The Wikipedia community seems to have a strong dislike [0][1][2] for anything
like the SOPA blackout, partially as it's not as black-and-white as SOPA, and
partially because Wikipedia directly wouldn't be affected (their site is
pretty fast).

Worth noting that Wikipedia Zero [3] exists, and has been taking flak for not
being the most NN-friendly initiative.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_162#Net_neutrality_maybe_in_great_danger)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(propos...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_\(proposals\)/Archive_140#Is_anything_happening_with_Wikipedia_in_relation_to_the_July_12_Net_Neutrality_day_of_action)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(propos...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_\(proposals\)/Archive_139#Wikipedia_and_Net_Neutrality)

[3] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2014/11/25...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/)

------
bobcallme
"Net Neutrality" in its final form did not solve or fix any problems with the
Internet. The definition of "Net Neutrality" is poorly defined, too vague and
does not have any proposed legislation attached to "fix" things. Even when new
rules were implemented, ISPs still throttled torrents and manipulated traffic.
The only way to fix the Internet is to do so from a technical perspective, not
by adding more regulations that ISPs won't obey (they work that into their
business model). The "Internet" has never been free and has always been
controlled by a handful of entities. The only fix for the Internet is if
everyone actively participates in the Internet's infrastructure and we work to
create technologies that thwart active threats from ISPs or that gives ISPs
competition.

;TLDR I don't support Net Neutrality.

~~~
mr_spothawk
I've mentioned a number of times before, but I'm actually advocating to my
friends against their participation today for the reason that I believe, if
the Evil ISP acts in a crumby way, that it will create demand for better
service. And I think that's the only way to get to a Mesh Internet For The
People, By The People.

My position is that: We don't need big pipes (or millions of hours of
television piped to us every month), we need the interfaces and hardware for
connecting with each other.

~~~
davidcbc
Comcast is already despised by its customers. There is already demand for
better service but most people don't have any other option. It is naive to
think that the loss of net neutrality will be the straw that breaks the
camel's back for Comcast.

~~~
Toast_
Unpopular opinion: I've never had a problem with Comcast and I loved the fact
that they allowed users (in my experience) in the same residence cash in on
promos.

promo ends -> cancel plan -> new roommate signs on.

~~~
Spivak
So you're happy that Comcast allows you to not grossly overpay for their
service if you have enough roommates? Kind of a weird endorsement.

~~~
Toast_
I'm happy that they allow me to grossly underpay for their service, if I have
enough roommates.

------
cyphar
I know this is "old news" now, but it's very fascinating that Google is
suddenly so concerned about "the open internet" 4 days after EME was ratified
(a proposal that they authored and forced other browsers into supporting
thanks to their enormous browser share).

It feels like Google (and other companies for that matter) are only concerned
about "the open internet" when it benefits their bottom line. In fact, I'm not
convinced that Google _does_ care. For SOPA and PIPA they actually did a
(lukewarm) blackout of their site for the day of action. Wikipedia _shut down_
on that day. Where has all of the enthusiasm gone?

~~~
markdoubleyou
Yeah, wow, Google has written an email to a powerless online community. Bravo,
that'll show Ajit!

I remember the mass freakout when Wikipedia shut down--journalists and
congressional staffers suddenly couldn't do their jobs and suddenly it was
front page news, not just a John Oliver rant.

------
EdSharkey
I don't understand the logic of ISP's throttling certain sites based on the
traffic to those sites.

As a consumer on ISP's last mile lines, I make a series of TCP requests and I
expect responses. Fill my pipes with those responses as best you can and
charge me for the privilege. If you're not making enough money on that, charge
me more for the bandwidth.

Market-wise, why would an ISP anything else than fill my pipe with what I'm
asking for?

An ISP should make all the money it needs to make off my service subscription.
It's not too far of a leap for me to imagine U.S. laws being changed that
restrict ISP's to only being able to charge the end-user for their
subscriptions with heavily regulated flat fees for peering arrangements and
co-location services placed near the consumer.

The obvious shenanagans that are ramping up here will eventually lead to a
massive consumer backlash and a regulatory hammer coming down. People are not
going to forget what the open internet looked like.

~~~
thehardsphere
You're correct to ask these questions. The truth is that the entire motivation
behind Net Neutrality is predicated on hypothetical behavior by an ISP that
nobody has ever actually observed in reality for the exact reasons you
describe.

~~~
lerpa
ISPs have a lot to win with keeping their monopolies as it is.

Given the amount of alarmism it actually seems to me there is heavy propaganda
advocating for the status quo, for some reason, perhaps they want further
regulations that can be done more easily through net neutrality. Not sure.

~~~
thehardsphere
Once you establish that the FCC can regulate the internet, you can do all
kinds of very opaque regulation that is difficult to change (e.g. other guy
needs to control White House and Congress or sue the government and win).

Heavier regulations usually favor established players who can engage in
regulatory capture, to shape the new rules to prevent future competition from
smaller companies and firms that don't even exist yet. Often times they cloak
this motivation with justifications that sound uncontroversial and difficult
to object to.

I don't know specifically what the real goal is here with Net Neutrality, but
that's the sort of thing that happens in other industries all the time. Often
in terms of "safety" or "helping the environment."

~~~
EdSharkey
Your comments boil down to "distrust of government/more crony capitalism"
message for me.

I agree, if that is where your heart is at. U.S. government is very
dysfunctional. Corporations buy up representatives, regulatory agencies are
politicized and made into paper tigers or weapons to attack enemies with, etc.

I don't expect that to change in the U.S., and in fact I expect deregulation
and a non-neutral net real soon. Then, we'll begin the slow slide into the
nightmare scenario where ISP's can extract more rents from both websites and
users. Extorting fees from websites for accessing the fast lane to the users
will be the favorite way of simultaneously increasing profits and wounding
competing media companies that don't control their own last mile fiefdoms.

When the quality of service dips too low and the costs rise too high, I
believe the result will be a populist wave of anger sweeping over these
companies. They will be broken up into smaller companies based on function,
municipal ISP's will get established to handle the last mile, and there will
be harsh regulations put on what ISP's can legally do with data flowing over
their pipes.

My frustration with the net neutrality folks (probably similar to yours) is
their insistence that we "REGULATE IT" where no specifics are given and is not
really a plan, leaving things open to mischief. The devil in the details here
is establishing what is reasonable and fair for an ISP to do -- and we then
fairness hug the ISP's to death.

------
rtx
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: Why He's Rejecting Net Neutrality
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28)

~~~
jerf
I'd like to point out that even if you disagree with this video that hearing
it straight from the source is valuable. If you want to convince Ajit Pai that
he's wrong, knowing what his current (public) opinion truly is (rather than
just someone's strawman) makes it _way_ easier.

~~~
djsumdog
Well, if he really believes it. I high doubt most people in these positions
believe a fraction of what they say. They're being backed by major telecom
firms to promote a narrative.

~~~
austincheney
There is a supported narrative either way. At its heart the net neutrality
argument is really a media versus delivery argument. You could arguably
eliminate substantial amounts of network congestion, and thus the need for
telecoms to throttle in the first place, by eliminating online advertising and
data tracking.

Imagine, instead, if this were a choice between net neutrality or SOPA. If you
had to choose one which would you find the be the lesser evil? In the end you
are either playing the game media wants or the way telecoms want.

------
peterashford
As a New Zealander, I find it extraordinarily inappropriate that global
infrastructure like the Internet is being shaped by the whims of US politics
and corporate culture. The Internet is a global network of global concern and
it should be above the manoeuvring of Republicans and American Internet
providers

~~~
wmf
Are there any examples of this happening?

~~~
peterashford
What do you mean? I don't see the international community having ANY say on
Net Neutrality. All the actors in the debate are American. What more do you
want?

~~~
intended
Each country faces their own NN battle, and any competent authority studies
the examples of other nations, or they ask experts, who study the outcomes in
other countries.

Including telecom lobbyists, who study how misinformation and complex
arguments can help them win political capital to push their ideas.

------
lerpa
Net neutrality just helps the status quo, and forces the "evil greedy ISPs" to
take your money. Yeah let's show them by giving them money and no competition
to their business... wait.

Vote for less regulation, not just getting rid of NN but getting rid of the
monopolies that exist at the local level.

~~~
J5892
Yeah! Once we remove all regulations, ISPs will be forced to compete with all
the little ISPs eagerly waiting to provide service!

Net Neutrality does nothing to hinder competition. In fact, we need _more_
regulation to force competition.

It's because of a lack of regulation that my city tricked into selling their
amazing municipal broadband service to Comcast.

------
JoshTriplett
Now if only this were linked from the bottom of google.com .

~~~
dessant
Or better yet, from their logo. Like they did for the SOPA and PIPA Internet
blackout: [https://www.google.com/doodles/sopa-
pipa](https://www.google.com/doodles/sopa-pipa).

------
zackbloom
If you use Cloudflare you can install the Battle for the Net widget:
[https://www.cloudflare.com/apps/net-
neutrality](https://www.cloudflare.com/apps/net-neutrality)

~~~
jriese
Thanks for mentioning this. Very painless way to raise some awareness.

------
natch
Am I going blind, or is Google not listed here amongst the companies listed as
participants behind battleforthenet.com?

[https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants](https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants)

Why, Google?

Yes I see they sponsored
[https://netneutrality.internetassociation.org/action/](https://netneutrality.internetassociation.org/action/)
but why not get behind both sites?

------
rf15
Can I contribute without being an US citizen? It seems to be an US-internal
issue, but considering that most of the net belongs to the US, this might
actually be a far more global question than is legally coverable/definable by
US law.

~~~
studentrob
Good question. You could donate to the ACLU or Fight For the Future.

Also, certainly being active online and discussing it openly helps.

I think you'd want to refrain from commenting on the FCC website or otherwise
pretending to be American. While there are anti-NN folks doing impersonation,
it's not a good behavior to copy.

------
FRex
I can't even enter the USA without a visa that is expensive, hard to get and
doesn't guarantee entry but I'm getting all these net neutrality PSAs today
telling me to send letters to FCC and Congress... I'm supportive of the idea
itself but it's a bit funny and stupid, the Americano-centrism.

~~~
Zarath
Are you seeing this on any non-American sites?

~~~
FRex
No, but I still can't call FCC or Congress (or enter USA easily..) so it's
completely useless for me to see that.

------
gremlinsinc
So glad I live in Utah -- where we have X-mission Pete Ashdown is a huge
supporter of EFF and Net Neutrality and anti-NSA -- and Google fiber -
google's a big supporter as well. Loved X-mission, but new landlord only has
google fiber installed so using that, but both had 1GB connections..

Two great ISP's who WON'T be doing shenanigans like comcast/att when net
neutrality is destroyed.

Too bad more people in America don't have good choices... I do think though
the biggest thing they could do for 'action' \--would be every Monday block
all comcast/att users from using Google, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Reddit in
protest... till the ISPs cry and beg and plead w/ the FCC to re-instate net-
neurality.

If it's legal to prioritize websites over others... then it's legal for those
same websites to prioritize certain ISPs over others...

------
heydonovan
The marketing for Net Neutrality is very poor. Just asked a few non-technical
friends about it. A few responded with "Do you believe everything you read on
the Internet?". Now if all their favorite websites were shutdown for a day,
that would get everyones attention.

~~~
drspacemonkey
The worst is when a non-technical person tries to bring up the Fairness
Doctrine, as if net neutrality is in any way related to the government
regulating content. But it is a handy way to identify people who get their
news from bullshit sources.

------
throwanem
_In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket No. 17-108), much is made of the
rapid growth of the Internet under the former "light-touch" regulatory regime.
The notice overlooks that this was also an environment in which competition
among many Internet service providers could and did flourish._

 _Since then, the provision of connectivity has consolidated among only a few
very large companies, which among them have strongly oligopolic power to
enforce whatever conditions they please upon their customers, both residential
and commercial._

 _In the late-1990s, early-2000s environment of healthy competition among
Internet service providers, utility-style regulation of ISPs, such as that
here under consideration of repeal, was not a necessary measure._

 _However, in the current strongly oligopolic environment, only the regulatory
power of the United States Government can continue to provide and enforce
sufficient oversight to maintain a semblance of free market behavior._

 _Internet-powered entrepreneurship greatly benefits the US economy. The
small, and occasionally large, businesses thus created have an outsized
economic impact in terms of taxes paid and jobs created. Absent a true free
market, or even the regulatory semblance of one, for Internet connectivity,
these businesses may well find themselves severely hampered in their ability
to earn revenue, with concomitant negative effect on their ability to
contribute to our economy._

 _As such, I must strongly urge the new regulatory regime proposed in this
filing not be adopted._

 _I thank you very kindly for your time and your consideration, and trust that
you will decide in that fashion which you regard to best serve the interests
of your constituents and of the nation which you serve._

(Also, the "Battle for the Net" folks would have done well to hire a UX
designer - or perhaps to hire a different one. The lack of any clear
confirmation that one's message has been sent fails to inspire confidence.
Perhaps there's an email confirmation that has yet to arrive, but...)

------
crucini
While I don't have a good grasp on the larger issue, I hope we can protect
small players from being squeezed. In my limited understanding, there are
really two separate things here: Comcast vs Youtube and Comcast vs startup. As
I understand it, Comcast gets mad that they have to invest in infrastructure
so people can watch Youtube. They think Youtube is free-riding on their
infrastructure. Comcast is envious of Youtube's profits and eyeballs. So
Comcast wants to squeeze money out of Youtube. A battle between giants.

The other issue is that small sites including startups could get throttled
almost incidentally in this war. They don't use much bandwidth, being small,
but if Comcast enacts some "bizdev" process where it takes six months of
negotiations to get into the fast lane, any deal below $1M is probably not
worth their time.

This is how cell phone software worked before the iPhone - get permission
before you can develop (IIRC). If we end up with fast-lane preferential
pricing, it should really be available to the smallest players. Ideally it
should be free, but the Apple app store model would work - $99/year for fast
lane access until your bandwidth is really significant. But would the
individual have to pay $99 to every major ISP out there?

------
shmerl
I didn't see any Net Neutrality related banner at:
[https://google.com](https://google.com)

So Google didn't do what they could here.

~~~
studentrob
Agreed. I think it makes them look a bit complicit to not make their stance
front and center as they did for SOPA with the blackout. I understand that
companies don't want to get involved in politics, but, this is something that
directly impacts the future of their business.

Long term company health ought to be interested in maintaining net neutrality.
Those seeking short term profits would prefer the ability to gut existing
company reputation in order to line executives' pockets. I believe Google is
still long-term focused, but their lukewarm action here gives me some doubts.

------
thidr0
One thing I don't understand about net neutrality. Say I'm a toll road. I
built the road when cars were relatively small and light. Now, some cars are
getting really heavy and big (think semi trucks) and are the majority of my
traffic. Because of this, they beat up the road and cause more congestion. So
I want to repair the road and/or add more lanes by increasing the toll on
these trucks. But all the trucking companies are complaining and preventing me
from doing it, thus ultimately hurting the small personal cars that want to
zip through.

Obviously this is an analogy to net neutrality, so why is this reasonable
situation fundamentally different? In a free market, shouldn't I be able to
increase the tolls on my private infrastructure for those that put the most
stress on it?

(Now I will say, the fact that there's only one toll road option for many
people is anti-competitive and against the free market, but that's not this
topic)

~~~
sagarm
Packets don't damage network infrastructure, and lack of competition is not a
different topic.

ISPs' monopoly on access to broadband customers allows them to extract rents
based on the marginal value of each transaction. There's no reason we as a
society should allow this.

Imagine if the cost of your water supply depended on your companies profits.
That's what we're talking about here.

------
chroem-
It's disingenuous for big business to try to frame this as a grassroots
movement for freedom on the internet when they were completely silent about
illegal NSA spying. The only difference between NSA spying and losing net
neutrality is that without net neutrality their profits might be threatened.

~~~
thinkingemote
As a fellow non American all I can do is twiddle my thumbs. Perhaps if they
addressed how we allies could assist and help that would be great, but it does
indeed feel like a parochial dispute which we are not invited to take part but
have to hear the shouts nonetheless

------
executive
Help Preserve the Open Internet: Repeal and Replace Google AMP

------
joeyspn
Elon Musk to the rescue... (again)

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14952904/elon-musk-
spacex...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14952904/elon-musk-spacex-
boeing-oneweb-satellite-constellation-network)

~~~
studentrob
I'm skeptical this wouldn't end up being like Mark's plan to give free
"internet" access to India, where "the internet" is selected websites.

Anyway I kind of doubt Musk's plan comes to fruition before more threats to
Net Neutrality come up. Right now we need to address it at a policy level. New
ways of accessing internet won't prevent people from trying to monopolize and
control it.

~~~
hackerkid
> free "internet" access to India, where "the internet" is selected websites.

Did you confuse India with China?

~~~
studentrob
Nope,

[https://www.cnet.com/news/why-india-doesnt-want-free-
basics/](https://www.cnet.com/news/why-india-doesnt-want-free-basics/)

~~~
hackerkid
The free basics plan proposed by Facebook was rejected by the telecom
regulatory authority of India due to the protests from people. This was a
standadlone incident which happened in 2016. Later 2016 saw the introduction
of Jio 4G service provider which began to provide super cheap 4G service for
the masses (approx 5$ for 28GB and it was free when it launched) which made
other telecoms to drop the prices massively. Apart from some sites which
Government has censored I have experienced no major problems with India's
Internet. I even traveled from the southern part of India to the northern part
in train enjoying uninterrupted 4G Internet earlier this year(Around 2400Km).
We are happy how India's ISPs are going and don't have much to complain. Thank
you.

~~~
studentrob
> Apart from some sites which Government has censored I have experienced no
> major problems with India's Internet.

Good luck with that.

~~~
hackerkid
To be clear the websites blocked in India by the government are majorly piracy
sites.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_India)

------
mychael
Follow the money. Do you really think the biggest corporations in America
support Net Neutrality because of some altruistic need for things to be
"fair"?

------
forgotmysn
If anyone would like to ask more direct questions about Net Neutrality, the
ACLU is having an AMA on reddit right now
[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/6mvhn3/we_are_the_acl...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/6mvhn3/we_are_the_aclu_ask_us_anything_about_net/)

------
Anarchonaut
Net neutrality (government's involvement in the Internet) sucks

[https://www.google.de/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-...](https://www.google.de/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-
are-the-arguments-against-net-neutrality-and-why-theyre-wrong/amp/)

------
daveheq
When everybody relies on the internet, even moreso than phones, it's a public
utility that needs protection from the greed-feeders.

------
thinkingemote
Forgive me as a European but are there companies who oppose net neutrality? As
in are there HN readers who work for them? If so, who are they and what are
their reasons? Is the issue like same sex marriage where the only opposition
is so laughably out of date or are there nuances?

~~~
bubblethink
One reason is that a lot of these tech companies make a bulk of their money
from selling content, which is in large part dependent on production houses
that are run by cable companies anyway. So on the one hand Netflix will make a
show of supporting net neutrality, but will discriminate among different
internet users (vpn users), by denying them access.

------
yarg
The only real way to ensure net neutrality is to ignore the bullshit and
implement a distributed secure internet.

Net neutrality could be forced into place, regardless of the laws passed by
Congress or the malfeasance of the ISPs.

I see no reason why Google would ever support such a thing.

~~~
rhcom2
The US government probably would fight such a thing too. They already fight
municipal broadband.

------
aaronbrethorst
Consider this your friendly reminder that Clinton would’ve preserved the NN
rules set up under Obama, and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion had
she been elected.

Especially consider this the next time a friend says ‘every politician is the
same,’ or whatever.

------
tmaly
Another channel to consider, but much more of a long tail play is to put some
effort into the state level political races. Many politicians with the
exception of wealthier business people get started at the state level.

------
geff82
Greetings from Europe where we have er neutrality. Good luck to my American
friends with voting for a sane government in 3 years. Maybe there are some
remainings of the country you could have been.

------
protomyth
Does anyone have actual legislation written up that I can point my
Congresspeople to? Is there a bill that can be introduced that will accomplish
the objective of "Net Neutrality"?

------
wenbert
If this turns out to be big amongst other things, then some "big" news will
come up in next few days to cover it up.

At least that how they would do it in Philippines.

------
rnhmjoj
Google trying to preserve the Open Internet... yeah right.

------
pducks32
Off topic: this is a very nice site. It’s clean, easy to read (iPhone and
iPad), and I think it makes good use of Google's design language.

------
nickysielicki
(This comment is a little bit disorganized, so I apologize for that.)

Far too many people don't seem to understand the arguments against net
neutrality as it has been proposed... There's been much made about the
"astroturfing" and automated comments on the FCC website that go against net
neutrality-- but what about the reverse? John Oliver doesn't know what the
hell he's talking about. Reddit and HN provide warped perspectives on the
issue.

Don't you guys realize that no matter what policy is chosen, someone is
getting screwed and someone going to profit? Don't get me wrong, the ISPs are
not exactly benevolent organizations. But I don't think they're evil either.
Plain and simple, if you think this is a cut-and-dry, good-versus-evil,
conglomerates-versus-littleguy issue, I think you're not hearing both sides of
the issue. This issue is between content providers that serve far more bits
than they take in, and ISPs, and there are billions of dollars on both sides.

In other words, don't think for a second that this is about protecting small
internet websites from having to pay ransom. That's not what is going to
happen. The only people who are going to be squeezed are the giants like
Google, Netflix, etc., and it's no surprise that these are the people who are
making such a fuss about it today.

The particular event that made me reconsider net neutrality was digging into
the details of the Comcast/Netflix/Level3 fiasco a couple years ago.
Everything I had heard about that situation made it sound to me like Comcast
was simply demanding ransom. The reality of the situation is that L3 and
Netflix acted extremely recklessly in how they made their deals, and IMO
deserved everything that came to them. Much is made about "eyeball ISPs" and
the power it gives them. In reality, I think Netflix has more power in swaying
consumers, and I think they used that power to bail themselves out of a sticky
situation by badmouthing Comcast.

I don't see how compensatory peering agreements would work out well in a net
neutral world. Specifically, the FCC proposal for Title II classification
(paraphrasing here) said that the FCC would step in when it believed one party
was acting unfairly. It is far too open-ended, doesn't list any criteria for
what that means, and it's not the FCCs job anyway, the FTC should be doing
that.

But in general I don't think net neutrality is a good idea. I think that
people are out of touch with internet access in rural parts of the US, and I
don't think NN is beneficial for that situation at all. My grandmother pays
$30/mo for internet access that she barely uses, and I don't think it's right
to enshrine into law that Comcast can't offer her a plan where she pays $5/mo
instead for limited access to the few sites she uses.

As a bandwidth-hogging internet user, a lack of net neutrality will probably
mean that I will pay more. But maybe that's how it is supposed to be. The
internet didn't turn out to be what the academics once hoped it would be. And
that's okay. The internet should serve everyone, however they want to use it,
and the market should be built around that principle-- not around decades-old
cypherpunk ideals.

I think it's incredible that behemoths like Google have the nerve to paint
this as if they care about an open internet. It's obvious that their dominance
is what makes an open internet irrelevant.

~~~
soundwave106
Network neutrality probably would not be as big of an issue if ISPs in America
were not quasi-monopolies. In a market with healthy competition, it seems much
less likely that the only choice available would be some tiered, managed
entity that throttles back "non-favored" traffic -- perhaps that option would
be available at the lower end, but a "power user" market with net neutrality
practices would probably exist as well.

Unfortunately, many markets are served by only one high speed ISP in the
United States. This makes the net neutrality fears somewhat more realistic.

I will say that from this angle, I put quite a bit more weight on correcting
other anti-competitive practices pushed into law by communications companies.
Things like states banning and suing municipal broadband efforts come to mind.
The American marketplace for Internet ISPs as a result is quite distorted,
certainly far from an open, competitive marketplace.

------
unityByFreedom
I'm just bummed Google didn't change their banner like the SOPA days. Big miss
there.

------
aryehof
Is this just an issue in the USA?

------
valuearb
I have never understood the need for net neutrality. That doesn't mean we
don't need it, it means that no one has ever explained the need to me in a way
that makes sense. Give me real world examples. What has any ISP done that
would violate Net Neutrality that I would object to?

~~~
unityByFreedom
> What has any ISP done that would violate Net Neutrality that I would object
> to?

Here's a list:

[https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-
vio...](https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-
brief-history)

Excuse me for being blunt, but you're being willfully ignorant if you ask this
question. A simple Google search of _the exact wording of your question_
reveals this [1]

> "Internet providers have attempted to throttle traffic by type or by user
> (Comcast in 2007), have imposed arbitrary and secret caps on data (AT&T
> 2011-2014), hidden fees that had no justification or documentation (Comcast
> in 2016), and tried to give technical advantages to their own services over
> those of competitors (AT&T in 2016). These attempts were only revealed in
> retrospect once they were discovered and lawsuits filed."

[1] [https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-are-the-arguments-
ag...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-are-the-arguments-against-net-
neutrality-and-why-theyre-wrong/)

~~~
valuearb
Thanks for the first link, it's a pretty good summary of the arguments for. My
question would be why don't most of those fall under fraud statutes.

The second link is the example of crap I've read about the issue that never
resonated with me, please don't tell why arguments against are bad, tell me
why I need it the the first place.

And calling me "willfully ignorant" is a good example of why net neutrality
has failed to get wider support. I'm a full-time developer, I do read a lot
about a lot of issues, but I'm also busy with a full life. Guess what, my
governments tax, drug, school funding, and police policies get more of my
attention than a poorly explained argument for limits on ISPs.

Advocates should learn to tell their audience clearly and concisely why Net
Neutrality benefits them. And without being dismissive or condescending. I
mean, only if they want to build more support.

~~~
unityByFreedom
> Thanks for the first link, it's a pretty good summary of the arguments for.
> My question would be why don't most of those fall under fraud statutes.

Because they're not fraud unless we make laws regulating such behavior. And,
lawmaking can begin with setting proper FCC policy.

> And calling me "willfully ignorant" is a good example of why net neutrality
> has failed to get wider support. I'm a full-time developer, I do read a lot
> about a lot of issues, but I'm also busy with a full life.

Dude, if you're a developer, I'm not going to let you off the hook so easily.
You should be familiar with the arguments, both for and against. Whether you
agree with one side or the other is up to you-but you should at least be aware
of the issues.

I'm sure you've told someone to Google answers to a simple question before.
This is no different. I got those links by Googling your question.

Generally speaking, the concise arguments are to spread awareness among non-
tech folks. They are a dumbed down version of the details. The old CP Grey
video is good [1], as are recent graphics showing what could realistically
happen [2].

[1] [https://youtu.be/wtt2aSV8wdw](https://youtu.be/wtt2aSV8wdw)

[2] [https://i.redd.it/ehh1nypob79z.jpg](https://i.redd.it/ehh1nypob79z.jpg)

------
hzhou321
Google, Amazon, Netflix vs. ATT, Verizon, Comcast.

Monopolies vs monopolies.

Where's the freedom for us?

------
blue_leader
All this going and Darpa wants to put ethernet jacks into our brains.

------
tyng
Funny thing is, I can't even visit blog.google from China

------
mnm1
Sorry Google (and FB, Amazon, etc.) this doesn't actually count as taking
action. Not even a single link on their home page. An obscure post on a blog
won't do shit. Let's stop pretending that you want net neutrality, Google, et
al. Day of action my fucking ass.

~~~
krath94
Google is pissed because the Internet is now under Title II making it nearly
impossible for them to lay their fiber along public roads anymore. You know
how to really fuck over Comcast? Allow google to bring Fiber to every major
city. But they can't because regulation.

~~~
bratsche
Then maybe they, or Chairman Pai or someone, can talk about how to protect net
neutrality in some way other than Title II.

Title II was instituted basically as a last resort. And nobody has been coming
forward saying, "Okay.. we have a plan here to undo the Title II but still
preserve net neutrality."

~~~
scottLobster
To be fair, the previous FCC tried that. The courts struck it down and told
them if they wanted to regulated ISPs in that manner they had to go Title II.

Non-Title II regulation of ISPs would require an act of Congress, a
Republican-held congress with a Republican President. Good luck with that. :P

------
dzonga
Simple way to understand Net Neutrality, look at the way AT&T prioritizes
DirecTV Content on Mobile. It should be illegal, but well

------
openloop
I am starting a small business. One of the decisions I must account for is
network performance versus price. Perhaps I choose to partner with a company
that my network deprioritizes. I am already at a disadvantage because I cannot
afford to run my own lines or peer like large corporations.

These same corporations can invest or purchase smaller new buisness and
enhance their portfolio. Some already support network neutrality as they
understand this.

I know my buisness depends upon my own effort. But I am sure many other small
buisness owners face the same difficulty.

I know it is hard to be fair and objective in allowing access to the entire
electromagnetic spectrum. Thanks for the article.

~~~
dingo_bat
"Boo hoo it's so hard to do business!" is not going to cut it, I'm afraid. The
government and all citizens do not exist to enable you to do business. The
policy should be what's right, and it should preferably follow the basic
principles of modern society: free market.

Whether NN enables competition or kills it is debatable. But difficulty in
business is not a reason.

~~~
spencerflem
Imo ISPs shouldn't be allowed to be a free market as they are monopolies.
Whether they should be codified as monopolies like electricity/water is
debatable. They absolutely should not be treated like a restaurant where you
can just go next door if they start screwing you over though.

~~~
dingo_bat
> they are monopolies

If being granted monopoly status is the problem, let's fix that. Instead of
treating it as a given and imposing unneeded regulation on top.

------
openloop
I am starting a small business. One of the decisions I must account for is
network performance versus price. Perhaps I choose to partner with a company
that my network deprioritizes. I am already at a disadvantage because I cannot
afford to run my own lines cross state like large corporations.

These same corporations can invest or purchase smaller new buisness and
enhance their portfolio. Some already support network neutrality as they
understand this.

I know my buisness depends upon my own effort. But I am sure many other small
buisness owners face the same difficulty.

I know it is hard to be fair and objective in allowing access to the entire
electromagnetic spectrum.

------
tyrrvk
I see a lot of shills posting their anti-Network Neutrality stuff here, so I
wanted to chime in reminding folks of a few things: Telco's were forced at one
point to share phone lines. Remember all those DSL startups? Remember
speakeasy? This was called local loop unbundling. What did the Telco's do?
everything possible to break or interfere with these startup service provides.
The telco's felt that it was "their lines". Customers were angry and
eventually local loop unbundling was dismantled. Ironically - France, South
Korea and other nations copied this idea for their high speed network
providers - and it actually worked! You can get high speed internet in these
countries from a variety of providers. Competition! If the FTC/FCC wasn't
completely under regulatory capture, and telcos like AT&T were punished for
this behaviour and competitors were allowed to provide services over last mile
connections then yes, we might not need something like Network Neutrality.
Instead we have entrenched ISP monopolies and no competition. So we need
consumer protections like TitleII and Network Neutrality. We also need
community owned fiber networks springing up everywhere, which then over time
could lessen the need for regulation as market forces would prevail. However,
entrenched monopolies like Comcast and AT&T have to be shackled. It's the only
way.

~~~
dang
Accusations of astroturfing and shillage aren't allowed here unless you have
evidence, and someone else having a different opinion doesn't count as
evidence. Please don't post like this to HN.

For those who want to read further about HN's approach to this, there's
another thread from today at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14753932](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14753932)
and links to much more from there.

~~~
tyrrvk
my apologies. I wasn't aware of this rule.

~~~
dang
Sorry about that—it's going into the site guidelines, just very slowly.

------
throwawaycuz
Serious question, could someone please educate me.

1) How is Net Neutrality different from a slippery slope to communism?

2) During the President Obama years, my ISP in the U.S. offered 3 different
tiers of service at 3 different prices. How is that pure "net neutrality"?
(this was similar to the situation where in the U.S., rich lefty-liberals
don't send their kids to public schools... but want poor conservatives to send
their kids to public schools, rich lefty-liberals don't want public housing
built in their neighborhoods... etc. etc... but still want to virtue signal
that they're in favor of public education and public housing)

~~~
dang
We've banned this account for starting ideological flamewars. If you keep
doing this it will eventually get your main account banned as well.

~~~
mod
Out of curiosity, what would banning the main account do?

I guess I understand if the threat of losing it is the impetus to behave well.

I have to imagine it would just drive the user to create more throwaways,
though.

~~~
throwanem
Only those of us with the 'showdead' profile setting enabled will see them,
though.

------
dmamills
This day is a joke.

~~~
dmamills
I know that HN hates "unproductive comments", but I feel my comment is as
likely as effective of "raising net neutrality awareness" as the silly grey
logo bar topping this website right now.

~~~
dmamills
I'm glad this comment sits at the bottom of this post. It's reflective of how
the zeitgeist actually cares about this issue.

The Battle For the Net website mentions a vast range of online companies who
apparently stood in solidarity to take action on this day.

* Github: a blog post displayed on your feed.

* Etsy: Nothing.

* Kickstarter: Nothing.

* Netflix: Nothing.

* Twitter: Nothing.

* Vimeo: A featured video on the landing page.

* Reddit: A tiny blurred logo.

* Hacker News: A grey bar!

* Mozilla: Nothing.

* OkCupid: Nothing.

What a great display!

~~~
mconley
> * Mozilla: Nothing.

Really not sure what you're talking about here.

Along with this blog post:
[https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/07/11/defending-net-
neutr...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/07/11/defending-net-neutrality-
day-action/)

There's a snippet on about:home about Net Neutrality for every Firefox user:

[https://ffp4g1ylyit3jdyti1hqcvtb-wpengine.netdna-
ssl.com/wp-...](https://ffp4g1ylyit3jdyti1hqcvtb-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/07/FX.png)

We've got a form here to make it easy to submit your comments to the FCC:
[https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/net-neutrality-
comments](https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/net-neutrality-comments)

We even voiced 9hrs worth of Net Neutrality comments that had already been
submitted:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=twksX_S3vkg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=twksX_S3vkg)

The most recent episode of the IRL Podcast is centered completely around Net
Neutrality:
[https://irlpodcast.org/episode2/](https://irlpodcast.org/episode2/)

~~~
dmamills
Sorry I wasn't able to discover that podcast, youtube video, blogpost and
form. Thanks for your efforts.

------
idyllei
Net neutrality has been a buzzword for a while now. Large new companies like
to harp on it just for views, and they don't really explain to viewers just
what losing it will mean. FOX News's motto "We report. You Decide" makes it
evident that large networks don't care about the validity of information, just
that it generates the largest amount of revenue for them. Companies (and
individuals) with money won't care about net neutrality--they can pay their
way around it. But the casual user can't afford that, and they aren't being
educated as to what this means for them. We need to get large news networks to
accurately report the situation and how consumers can help.

------
pheldagryph
I understand why tech companies and VCs want net neutrality. But this protest
is what is wrong with Silicon Valley "culture". It's incredibly out of touch
with reality.

Are we really being asked to take this hill? Why? By whom?

History will record the hundreds of thousands of children who will die of the
current-and-present famine affecting East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. It
will only exacerbate the current, historic, and costly human migration to
Europe.

This is a matter of life and death for millions. Though, unfortunately, the
cost can only be measured in human lives:
[https://www.oxfam.org/en/emergencies/famine-and-hunger-
crisi...](https://www.oxfam.org/en/emergencies/famine-and-hunger-crisis)

~~~
unityByFreedom
How ironic. Without net neutrality, you might have more difficulty raising
awareness about your cause of choice- famine. Yet, here you are railing
against it.

~~~
pheldagryph
Is it possible I'm railing against something other than network neutrality,
itself?

