
The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality - vwadhwani
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/9/17333108/net-neutrality-congressional-review-act-cra-resolution-vote-senate
======
tzs
> 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).

~~~
davvolun
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.

~~~
Yhippa
Pretty much every sport? You don't go all out every opportunity you have the
instant you have priority. Nearly every sport has some concept of setting up
plays: American football, soccer, basketball, boxing, MMA.

They can't even score a goal now. The purpose of this within the US legal
system is a pure intermediate play. And the when net neutrality doesn't get
overturned as a result of this instance people will feel demoralized and
hopeless.

------
nateconq
"would need a bare majority in both the Senate and the House, as well as the
president’s signature"

"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.

------
craftyguy
> 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..

~~~
rhcom2
Not to introduce flame bait but one of the reasons the NRA is powerful is the
ability to quickly motivate their very vocal members.

~~~
mch82
It would be amazing if someone could figure out a way to measure constituent
opinion that didn't involve people showing up at or calling in to an office.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Well, that's kind of the thing. Everyone's willing to kill and die for their
beliefs on the internet; a lot fewer will actually campaign and canvas and
march and _vote_ for their beliefs. The inconvenience of calling or mailing
your politician tells them that you have passed a rock bottom threshold of
willingness to act, and might conceivably have an effect on their vote totals
next election.

------
boomboomsubban
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.

------
ryanpcmcquen
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.

~~~
nercht12
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".

~~~
cdancette
So we can summarize saying it's customers freedom against ISP freedom.

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

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

~~~
ianai
I’m thinking it over.

------
jordigh
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.

~~~
mirimir
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.

0) [https://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/land-
docs/rm95-8-00w....](https://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/land-
docs/rm95-8-00w.txt)

~~~
mch82
What's your definition of freedom?

~~~
mirimir
Being unconstrained.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
So you’d obviously want to ensure net neutrality then?

~~~
donatj
Net neutrality is literally constraint on how data passing through networks
can be routed and shaped. It’s exactly “constraining the Internet”. It’s not
“freedom” in any shape or matter. Freedom is never constraint on others. It’s
a popular constraint, and people just happen to confuse and conflate “things I
like/feel positivity about” and “freedom”.

It’s controversial to say here but I don’t think it gets discussed enough: Net
neutrality only really __helps __established players. That is not to say it
hurts others, but it certainly helps established players.

That’s why they all love it. Facebook, Hulu, Netflix, GitHub, Tumblr,
Microsoft. Unestablished unpopular players are not the ones getting throttled.
It’s the ones already using tons of bandwidth getting throttled and odds are
good most new players bandwidth usage is hardly even noticeable to the ISP.
They wouldn’t be touting the joys of something that had the potential to
displace them.

The one who would be getting throttled is primarily Netflix, who literally
uses over half of the bandwidth of the Internet. Literally slows everything
else on the Internet down. Netflix doesn’t want to be throttled, so of course
they love net neutrality.

I’m not saying net neutrality is inherently bad, I just don’t think it’s as
innately good as a lot of the cheerleaders attest.

~~~
boomboomsubban
This doesn't make sense. Why would the ISP's want to throttle the websites
that their customers are using? Even with the lack of ISP competition, pissing
off your users that much seems like a bad strategy. And they can already
throttle users based on bandwidth used, how would eliminating net neutrality
help them achieve this goal.

I predict the ISP's selling a default throttled connection to everything, and
then for $10 more you can unthrottle Netflix or YouTube. Competitors would
need to convince ISPs to allow unthrottled access to even have a chance.

~~~
daveFNbuck
Your prediction is exactly what you said doesn't make sense. Your prediction
also doesn't match history. In 2014 Netflix was the one that had to pay
Comcast to end its throttling.

~~~
boomboomsubban
In 2014, my prediction was illegal due to net neutrality regulations, while
limiting Netflix based on usage was possible.

------
yosito
If you live in Arkansas, Louisiana, or Ohio, call your senators and urge them
to vote in favor of net neutrality!

------
WheelsAtLarge
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.

~~~
Rapzid
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.

~~~
kmkemp
What? He is literally the person who appointed the guy who made this happen.
While Trump is erratic, so no one can rule out a complete 180 at any moment,
to say that is "to his credit" is ridiculous.

~~~
craftyguy
I get your point, but he is also the guy to fire multiple people in his
cabinet for arbitrary/popularity reasons, so don't put it past him to throw
ajit under the bus because it would make him 'look good'

~~~
Rapzid
Exactly. He is fine with seeing if ideas or people will float or sink; it's
his modus operandi.

Plus, Trump is a master at walking stuff back and saving face with his party
and base. Net neutrality comes back? Well it's Trump net neutrality now, way
better than broken Obama net neutrality. Obama job numbers fake, Trump job
numbers great. Trump economy(which has basically not deviated from the Obama
economy trajectory) doing great, Obama economy was broken. Etc, etc. All that
matters is if it floats, and he can brand it Trump.

------
enknamel
Why do we need NN? I have yet to hear any valid argument for it. Everything
that people complain about is already illegal under multiple laws.

~~~
boomboomsubban
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.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Screenshot-2017-10-28_MEO...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Screenshot-2017-10-28_MEO_-
_Televis%C3%A3o,_Internet,_Telefone_e_Telem%C3%B3vel.png)

If you believe some other law already prohibits this, please tell me.

~~~
Tyr42
Just to be 100% clear with the packages shown, they offer the benefit that
those apps don't count towards your mobile data, rather than just being
available.

Still not great though, since it just increases the moat for existing
companies. Also companies in the states have tried exactly the same thing
before with _their_ video streaming service not counting towards you data cap.

------
mnw21cam
This is about the USA. Perhaps the title could be updated to say "The US
Senate..."?

------
ghba66
Why are people here so pro-net neutrality? I don't have NN in Europe and I'm
happy: because of it, I enjoy zero-rated services at a fair price.

~~~
garmaine
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?

~~~
spiralx
> The USA is big. Like, really fucking big.

So? Most of that is empty space nobody is trying to serve. The key metric is
population density, which is comparable between urban areas in Europe and the
US. The size of the US has nothing to do with lack of ISP choice, as evidenced
by the fact that the same problem doesn't occur in countries with lower
population densities than the US (33.8 people per km²) such as Sweden (21.5),
Finland (16.2), Norway (13.4) or Australia (3.1).

~~~
garmaine
ISPs serve more than just downtown urban areas.

~~~
monocasa
They don't have to when they start. Google Fiber hasn't gone into any rural
areas AFAIK.

