
I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality - mjfern
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rosenworcel-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal-20171122-story.html
======
netsec_burn
Nick Gillespie: Your plan will, according to a write up in Politico, and I
think this is accurate, it quote, "will jettison rules that prohibit internet
service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so called
paid internet fast lanes." Question for you, do you think fast lanes will
become a thing? What is the value of a internet fast lane?

Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We've never seen them
before and that's part of the reason why I thought the rule in particular was,
that was adopted in 2015, was very premature banning something that's simply
didn't exist.

I took the time to read Ajit's argument here. It's completely mislead. If
murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be "too preemptive" to
outlaw it? Fast lanes DO exist in other countries _right now_. This is
outrageous.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
> "If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be 'too
> preemptive' to outlaw it?"

But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but
rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason).

> "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now."

But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't
consider fast lanes to be a problem.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Wait a minute, the opposite of net neutrality is called "net _freedom_ "?

This is sick (the lack of net neutrality is more likely to _reduce_ freedoms
than to promote them). If you remotely support net neutrality, please never
use that term again. This is self defeating.

~~~
sambe
I'm pro-net neutrality and I'm against dishonest marketing, but I think
overall it's important to take the higher ground and remain intellectually
honest. Doing otherwise results in a mud-slinging contest.

Existing regulations are a restriction on the freedom of service providers.
That is undeniable. There many cases where we restrict freedoms for the
greater good, but I don't like to pretend we are not doing so in those cases.

I'd also add that freedom is not the right to demand other people give you
something you want. I wouldn't say that I've lost my freedoms if there are no
good ISPs left after the regulatory change. Everyone involved can still either
choose an existing provider or set up their own. We have monopoly/anti-trust
laws when that ceases to be the case. Of course, this may not be the efficient
path to a world that a huge majority of people want - which is why I slightly
side with net neutrality.

~~~
marcosdumay
> Existing regulations are a restriction on the freedom of service providers.

Then go ahead and call it "corporate freedom". The network isn't getting any
more free without neutrality.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
An ISP doesn't necessarily have to be a corporate entity. It could be a
municipality (e.g. city of Chattanooga) or hypothetically owned by residents
directly.

~~~
loup-vaillant
> _An ISP doesn 't necessarily have to be a corporate entity._

In practice, they are. There are exception, but they remain exceptions.

------
RpFLCL
>Reach out to the rest of the FCC now. Tell them they can’t take away internet
openness without a fight.

How?

As this article mentions, their comment system had issues (spam and DDoS) and
the only other avenue I've seen is to beg our representatives (who aren't part
of the December vote) to do _something_.

It was a clean and concise piece, but I was hoping that an insider would
provide a new course of action.

I've seen action across online media from users (reddit, Twitter, etc) as well
as among peers. But not as much from the platforms themselves. Remember SOPA?
Do those pushing for this really not hear the public's outrage yet?

~~~
coliveira
This may be about the Internet, but doing online "protest" will get us
nowhere. Real protest means people going to the streets and making the
government afraid of real violence. Other than that I don't see any way out.

~~~
agf
Real protest means going to your local government to fight the internet access
monopolies and duopolies. It means voting with your wallet and not supporting
the companies pushing for this. It means showing up to vote next time instead
of staying home. It means educating your neighbors about what this will mean
for all of us.

Don't pretend we've exhausted all alternatives to violence -- we haven't.
We've barely done any of the things that have been successful in the past at
causing change. Suggesting otherwise reduces our power, it doesn't enhance it.

Sometimes we lose ground before we make progress. But that doesn't mean we've
been defeated.

~~~
vvanders
When I only have one option for Internet > 5mbps and my job depends on it how
do I fight with my wallet? I would happily pay 3x for municipal fiber but
it'll never happen.

The monopoly of ISPs is what makes this whole free market argument completely
unbalanced.

~~~
isostatic
Halve you looked at gathering like minded people and starting a WISP?

The problem with specialist isps is they tend to attract expert users, who are
currently subsidised by the average Joe. If your ISP has a 1G port upstream
for $3k a month, and 100 customers, you'd be paying $30 for 10mbit each,
excluding the rest of the isp's costs, which we'll put at $30/month/customer.

So they should charge $60pcm for 10mbit, but instead they sell 500 customers
at $32/month, and offer up to 20mbit. This covers the upstream port, but one
gives you 2mbit, but it sets the expectation that bandwidth is far cheaper
than it really is.

Start up a fair ISP and you'll have to win customers who see your option at
$60/10mbit // $90/20mbit, or the competitor at $32/20mbit. You'll need to
attract 100 customers to pay for your uplink for 3 times the price. You'll
then realise those numbers don't really work for a small isp - with 100
customers at $60/month minus upstream you'll have $3k/month for running costs.

------
frogcoder
This is how China "blocking" web site from most of the world other than China.
When many sites are blocked out right, many more are accessible but painfully
slow. On the other hand, if you go to any major Chinese site, it would be
lightning fast. By doing this, those foreign sites are rendered almost
useless.

~~~
jquery
China has net neutrality. You are quite naive if you think NN is a solution to
censorship. Browse eff.org for more than a few minutes to see that NN doesn't
even scratch the surface of underlying issues. I don't want NN because then
everyone will think the internet is just fine, when NN is a joke of a solution
that doesn't even cover anything more than the FTC already covers.

~~~
dengnan
I am a Chinese and I am curious starting when we had net neutrality? Every
major sites has to pay all major ISPs to connect into their network so that
all ISPs' customers can access the site. When you rent a server, you need to
make sure that the server is connected to at least two of the major networks
otherwise ISPs will throttle traffic from other competitors. It is also true
that connecting servers outside the country is terribly slow if it even
accessible

~~~
jquery
Wow so a nicely named govt policy has the opposite effects it’s intended to
have? I’m shocked!

~~~
jankiel
But it's not result of Net Neutrality, but the lack thereof... What makes you
think that China has NN?

------
luckydude
I feel helpless. In this and in many things that this administration has
brought on.

Vote? Yeah, right.

Sign a petition? Yeah, right.

I feel like unless there are real ramifications to the people doing this
stuff, nothing we do matters.

~~~
throwaway5752
You're a dope if you don't vote. It's impolite to mention this, but it is not
a political problem, but a _Republican_ problem. A Democratic administration's
FCC enacted Net Neutrality, a Republican one is attempting to dismantle it.
Vote for Democrats at every level of government, in every election possible.

This will change some day, but today the Republican party has lost its mind
and morals.

To be clear, I'm not calling you a dope.

~~~
taohansen
both parties don't make decisions i consider sane or particularly clever yet
those are the only two parties i may vote for with any chance of success. the
voting system is broken by outmoded/gamed structures (gerrymandering, an
electoral college), and all-or-nothing outcomes (if i vote for one candidate
and they don't win, i may make no second or third choice with which then to
put my voting power behind).

i simply feel an unrelenting despair when engaging in the realm of politics.
it's two devils on a stage lording over minions who condemn and pollute the
miracle of human life daily with short-sighted greed and a stunning lack of
ethics.

a revolution is out of the question because the very tool that was meant to
fight back against such sloven corruption no longer disbands after war but
simply persists against an invisible Enemy none of us can touch, see or feel.
what is this insane existence we find ourselves in where the only choice i
have is to acquiesce or ineffectually protest?

~~~
ryanobjc
That's because you have an unrealistic and naive view of the world and
politics!

Abandoning politics because you're... too "moral" to deal with such things
just leaves the field to those who do not feel that way. Those people you may
not be wishing to represent you, eg: the current head of the FCC.

Secondly, yes there are only two parties and a suboptimal outcome, but that's
what is happening. Your lack of a vote doesn't help, and in fact hurts.

Thirdly, you don't have to be fully 100% on board with everything, you just
have to pay attention to (a) what are you able to do and (b) what are the
likely outcomes.

Revolution is hardly a great idea. How would the US civil war work with
nuclear weapons? Not well. I have a friend who lived thru a real revolution,
and yeah, you don't want that.

The reality is simple. We have gotten to where we are by incremental changes,
and we can get back via incremental changes. It's not sexy, it doesn't make
for good front page articles. But that's the reality.

Politics doesn't get better if people opt out.

------
stretchwithme
In Switzerland, any legislative action can be put on the ballot with enough
signatures. Citizens can actually block what the Federal Assembly does.

In the US, we get to comment on it. And they get to say "That's nice."

~~~
ep103
No, actually. If comments are largely against what a regulatory body is
proposing to do, it can be used in court against the regulatory body in court
to block the action. That just very, very rarely happens. When captured,
regulatory agencies tend not to try to pass measures that very obviously go
against public opinion, or are too complex to arise public wrath. This is a
special situation that's only happening due to arrogance of the Trump
administration, and the fact that he simply does not care about appealing to
voters outside his base.

If and When this passes, it will be immediately challenged in court, and this
will be one of the things brought against the FCC. That's why the FCC
conspired with ISPs to flood their own public opinion pages with comments from
ISPs several months ago.

Again though, this is all not normal. Its a damn important thing to remember
in Alabama and in 2018, however.

What I haven't been able to find any good articles on, however, is how strong
those safeguards actually are.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _This is a special situation that 's only happening due to arrogance of the
> Trump administration_

Pai was nominated by Obama on McConnell's recommendation [1]. Trump only
elevated him to Chairman.

I'm curious about his personal motivations. Is it as simple as him having
served as associate general counsel at Verizon? Is it a legalistic
interpretation, that the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate this? Or
about the role of government in general?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_V._Pai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_V._Pai)

~~~
umanwizard
It’s possible that he actually believes Net Neutrality is bad policy.

I’m for net neutrality but I at least recognize that it’s possible to disagree
in good faith.

~~~
convolvatron
it is. I can't recall seeing a well reasoned argument against it, but one can
presume there is one.

but this process seem pretty perfunctory. in this corner the open exchange of
ideas and the free market, and in the other...the idea that if we allow
service providers the ability to package and toll all the content in the
world, somehow that will be better for all of us.

maybe this decision is too important to delegate to appointed commissioners.

~~~
raarts
Here's one: getting rid of net neutrality increases the freedom of ISP's to
monetize their control of your internet connection.

------
Jedi72
I dont necessarily agree with the following but its a devils advocate argument
I rarely see shared, and it has a lot of merit. Like everything, this issue is
shades of grey.

Bandwidth is a limited amd expensive resource. When government mandated price
controls are in effect ("Net neutrality" is a marketing meme) this expense is
effectively socialised across the entire country. It is illegal for a telco to
go to a hospital and offer a dedicated nine 9s reliable robot surgery link
(technically its just illegal to charge a fair economic price for it but
same/same). So the cost gets divided up, averaged out, and smalltime users end
up paying a big chunk of the cost while people above the magic median point
get massive benefits. YOU subsidise the cost of the BigCorp. video conference
call between Sydney and Tokyo every day. You subsidise the cost of your
neighbour streaming The Bachelor every night, and make it illegal for me to
pay a higher price for the quality of service I need to work. Its a total
mismanagement of resources. If the consumer was forced to bear the true
economic cost of their internet usage then of course heavy users (like Netflix
subscribers...) would end up paying more. Not directly to Netflix but the true
cost of their product still goes up. This is obviously bad for
Netflix/Youtube/the top 1%, who are the ones _extracting_ wealth from this
thing we call the internet. These whales love having their infrastructure
costs socialised. You dont even have to be a Google customer for you to be
giving them money, no wonder they're so rich!

Blocking freedom of people to publish on the web doesn't have much to do with
net neutrality. This is big company lobbying and public propaganda from the
tech industry. Tech companies are the new oil barons, in 80 years when the bio
lobby is pushing for access to proprietary databases and end "Data detention"
(you heard it here first) we'll look at tech giants the way we look at oil
companies lobbying for clean coal now.

~~~
Steeeve
Boy... I guess I'll go one piece at a time here:

> Bandwidth is a limited amd expensive resource

No, it's not. Bandwidth has been and still is throttled so that it can be
perceived that way. Where it gets expensive is in rural america where you have
few customers per mile, but those customers have long been subsidized by
everybody else and mostly are STILL underserviced. Despite the subsidy, and
despite repeated large public investment handed over to providers.

> When government mandated price controls are in effect

There are no mandated price controls. What is mandated is a lack of
interference.

> this expense is effectively socialised across the entire country

Infrastructure has, in large part, been laid at public expense on public land.
Communication providers always cry poor when they are forced to invest in less
profitable areas, but they have repeatedly and consistently charged exorbitant
amounts to the public to provide communication services. They have done so to
such a degree that stopping these practices has required repeated
congressional attention and sanctions.

> It is illegal for a telco to go to a hospital and offer a dedicated nine 9s
> reliable robot surgery link

It is not illegal to provide high availability service to anyone. It is not
illegal to charge a fair economic price. There are highly available
connectivity solutions all over the marketplace.

> So the cost gets divided up, averaged out, and smalltime users end up paying
> a big chunk of the cost while people above the magic median point get
> massive benefits.

Low bandwidth users are given lower cost service today. High bandwidth users
are given higher cost service today.

> YOU subsidise the cost of the BigCorp. video conference call between Sydney
> and Tokyo every day. You subsidise the cost of your neighbour streaming The
> Bachelor every night, and make it illegal for me to pay a higher price for
> the quality of service I need to work.

False. BigCorp pays significantly more for high quality service, support, and
reliability. If I don't watch streaming video, I have a lower cost service
plan than my neighbor that does.

> Its a total mismanagement of resources.

It's a completely fabricated and misinformed argument.

> If the consumer was forced to bear the true economic cost of their internet
> usage then of course heavy users (like Netflix subscribers...) would end up
> paying more.

ISPs would love for customers to pay more, especially considering the
popularity of Netflix. They would love to make Netflix pay as well. The fact
is that Netflix has found a price point that works for them. Changing the
dynamic changes the business model. Their profitability and popularity are not
unlimited. The model that ISPs are demanding is that they be inserted as
legally required middlemen into an existing marketplace, with the ability to
skim profit from every popular online business model. Of course they want it.
Of course they lobby for it.

> Not directly to Netflix but the true cost of their product still goes up.
> This is obviously bad for Netflix/Youtube/the top 1%, who are the ones
> extracting wealth from this thing we call the internet.

The top 1% of businesses are profitable entities that will suffer a loss of
revenue which in the end will be passed onto the consumer, but they will also
be provided with the protection of decreased competition and increased cost of
market entry. Today, anyone with the gumption can walk into lionsgate and come
up with a "Netflix for ..." business. Tomorrow, it will require significant
venture capital simply to deal with the connectivity issues. Today that
business can prove itself and then seek out investment. Tomorrow, that
business needs investment in order to prove itself. That's a huge dynamic
shift that knocks out MANY would be innovators of the kind that formed the
world wide web into what it is today.

> These whales love having their infrastructure costs socialised. You dont
> even have to be a Google customer for you to be giving them money, no wonder
> they're so rich!

Google has paid and will continue to pay plenty of money for bandwidth. Just
like consumers already pay plenty of money for bandwidth. The cost that we pay
has NOTHING to do with infrastructure or maintenance costs. It has nothing to
do with the cost of running that infrastructure. Comcast for example has had
significant revenue and profit increases for the last 5 years. While internet
usage has steadily increased and the usage of high bandwidth content has
steadily increased. There is no resource limit they are running into. There is
no financial constraint preventing them from doing anything. They aren't
struggling to pay their workers who are frantically trying to squeeze more
network out of the network at no cost.

> Blocking freedom of people to publish on the web doesn't have much to do
> with net neutrality

It has everything to do with net neutrality. So Netflix pays a big chunk to
Comcast. Does pornhub? Do they pay more because they are porn? What about
SnapChat and other user-to-user video sharing services? What about all the
youtubers, camgirls, streaming game players, twitch streamers? How does that
all change? What segment of them is going to be cut off because the cost model
doesn't make sense or because Comcast has arbitrarily decided that they either
must pay a different price or that their content should not be allowed?

> This is big company lobbying and public propaganda from the tech industry.

There is certainly a lot of lobbying going on. And plenty of propoganda.
Oddly, though... the lies, misinformation, and nonsensical arguments seem to
be all coming from the telecoms and ISPs. Like there's some sort of concerted
effort to do what the internet community has repeatedly and loudly expressed
that it does not want.

> Tech companies are the new oil barons, in 80 years when the bio lobby is
> pushing for access to proprietary databases and end "Data detention" (you
> heard it here first) we'll look at tech giants the way we look at oil
> companies lobbying for clean coal now.

We _should_ be a long way off from that. If we stagnate today, maybe that will
be so. Maybe we have a 75 year future of pop-up ads and click-farms while
communication is relegated to single sentence slang laden snippets that are
designed to be provocative.

I see a stronger, better future for the web, technology, and communication
networks. There is innovation happening all around the world. There are
fantastic ideas that are being nurtured and others that have yet to be
discovered. Don't advocate for stagnation. We can do so much better than this.

(I can't believe I spent an hour on this. I've been trolled and it totally
worked. This was the top comment when I hit reply.)

~~~
Jedi72
Not a troll, thanks for the good dialogue.

------
jlgaddis
It's probably futile, but you might sign this "Do Not Repeal Net Neutrality"
[0] petition on the White House petitions site. It already has over 100,000
signatures -- the threshold at which the White House is supposed to, at
minimum, respond to it.

Since we can't vote on this and our representatives aren't voting on it
either, it's worth a shot.

[0]: [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/do-not-repeal-
net-...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/do-not-repeal-net-
neutrality)

~~~
ep103
battleforthenet.com and democracy.io are two much more direct alternatives.

Battleforthenet will be over the phone (and therefore be a bit more
influenential), so I recommend it. But democracy.io (from the EFF) will have
you contact all of your representatives directly, via email, within a minute
or two.

I highly recommend them.

~~~
jlgaddis
I don't understand the "contact all of your representatives". As I mentioned
in the comment you replied to, "our representatives aren't voting on it".

You think that somehow we're going to cause our reps to put pressure on or
"sway" the FCC? No, their votes have already been bought.

------
jakeogh
NN is an excellent example of framing by naming. Imagine if it was called the
the "More Internet Regulation Act". Prima facie it's a more accurate name.

Since this is going to happen (reverting to the way it was for ~25 years),
I'll point out that an echo chamber forms by default because most of us who
might spend time arguing about it don't see a good reason to.

Aside... the largest cable provider decided it would be a good idea to edit a
cleartext page on the way to me ('helpfully' inserting a JS popup about
upcoming metering changes), I called and canceled my decade old ~$90/mo acct
on the spot when the refused to put it in writing that they would not edit my
inbound data in the future. Consumer reaction is equiv to voting. See NFL.
Spare me variations on the 'normies don't care' arg.

~~~
kelnos
> ... I called and canceled my decade old ~$90/mo acct on the spot

So... what do you do for internet access now? Oh, you have more than one
legitimate option in your area? Lucky you. Many people don't.

~~~
jakeogh
Tethered my ATT acct for now. Prob go with my local microwave provider here in
Tucson. Why arg for 'NN' when the real beef when you get down to it is the
lack of competition?

~~~
kevinchen
Lack of competition often comes from municipal governments granting local
monopolies. Good luck fighting that out city by city.

~~~
jakeogh
So argue for federal NN instead? It's so odd, can you not think of some alt
universe where local monopolies are preempted regarding physical internet
access? You are arguing for the logical (data) FCC parallel (or you think you
are, I disagree that NN means that but lets not go there).

When local monopolies block data, they get sidestepped. It's not like water
gas or electricity. 4G is fast. Heck I'm happy here tethered to my old 3G
phone.

------
xpac
If you're wondering, how the wonderful invisible hand of the market would use
"net freedom" \- say hello to Portugal.

[https://mobile.twitter.com/rokhanna/status/92370187109244108...](https://mobile.twitter.com/rokhanna/status/923701871092441088)

I don't see how this benefits anybody besides the ISP. It just makes them find
a multitude of reasons why $everybody should pay double and triple to get a
proper connection.

~~~
maho2nd
Khanna’s original tweet implies that Meo is blocking or limiting certain
“packages” unless you pay for them, the way that you can’t watch HBO without
the right cable plan. But that's wrong.

It’s an add-on to general-purpose mobile subscriptions, which let you access
any service — including the ones above. The idea is apparently that if you’re
into apps like Snapchat and Facebook (or... LinkedIn, I guess), you pay around
$8 a month to specifically get more “Social” data, so you can use your regular
allotment for everything else. It looks a lot like the “Vodafone Pass” service
in the UK, where subscribers can pay for unlimited access to a similar stable
of services.

~~~
gerbilly
>if you’re into apps like Snapchat and Facebook [...] you pay around $8 a
month to specifically get more “Social” data...

Ugh. This kind of cable plan confusopoly is so annoying.

I hate how marketing creates all these plans and promotions, then expects us
jump through hoops to figure them out.

What a waste of time playing these silly games.

------
jupiter90000
If what is happening now is that the 2015 vote for net neutrality rules is to
be repealed, couldn't a later FCC vote again to return to the 2015 rules?

~~~
baldajan
I've asked myself the same question. But back in 2015, when the rules were put
in place, there was a controversy (Netflix and a court ruling) and people
cared. When will the next time people "care" to put it back in? Just how
politics work.

------
valine
It’s amazing how the FCC can go against the American people when there is such
overwhelming support for net neutrality.

~~~
dingo_bat
Mob support for NN does not justify it. There's a reason we let domain experts
make technical decisions.

~~~
_jal
...And you believe that's what is happening with this decision?

~~~
the_common_man
Well, people who are anti-NN would never voice their opinion in this climate.
They will get downvoted to hell.

~~~
ikeboy
I recall trying to argue against NN years ago here and getting down voted.

It's interesting that economists largely are against NN as well.

[http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-
ii](http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii)

~~~
extra88
See my other comment, that's not what those charts say. Less than half of
those economists surveyed think that net neutrality is bad policy.

~~~
ikeboy
There's a significant number of uncertain ones but those should be excluded,
and then the ones against NN significantly outnumber the ones in favor. I
don't see any other reasonable way to spin that.

~~~
kelnos
> There's a significant number of uncertain ones but those should be excluded

That's not how polling works. Well, unless your plan is to twist the results
to fit your desired narrative.

~~~
ikeboy
Assuming you're building a policy off of poll responses, how would percent of
uncertainty change the policy? It's not clear to me that it should. If it's
possible to test, then maybe higher uncertainty should mean you spend more on
testing before rolling out policies, but otherwise I don't see what else you'd
do with it. Could you enlighten me on what you would do?

------
protomyth
We don't have a group that scares the hell out of politicians like the NRA.
This crap comes up every year no matter what the party in power is. Until we
find people with a killer instinct and skill, we will keep loosing. No one
fears the EFF.

Someone with some clout needs to form a single-issue (no other politics
allowed) net neutrality advocacy organization that effectively frames anyone
who opposes net neutrality as an evil villain.

------
sytelus
I think the best possible investment one can ever make is politics. These
people have probably got paid million or less dollars and they would generate
the reruns of literally 10s of billions of dollars. Nearly guaranteed 10000X
returns in just year or two is unheard of anywhere else. I wish politicians
were available as ETFs.

~~~
loup-vaillant
> _I think the best possible investment one can ever make is politics._

It's not an investment. It's a birthright —at least at the top levels. Good
luck being a politician if your family doesn't already have ties with this
caste.

------
em3rgent0rdr
"There is something not right about a few unelected FCC officials making such
vast determinations about the future of the internet."

Is she talking about 2015 or 2017?

~~~
xenadu02
Bullshit is so easy to spread. People willing to peddle falsehoods often end
up winning if they can just repeat the lies until everyone else gets tired of
repeating themselves.

Network neutrality started in the early 2000s because some ISPs started
blocking VPNs and other services. Network Neutrality was simply how the
internet had always worked prior to that. The FCC wanted to take a light hand
toward regulation but preserve neutrality so they imposed NN regulation.
Verizon sued to overturn the regulations. The battle went back and forth
several times. Eventually the courts said the FCC had the authority to impose
the regulations but had to reclassify ISPs as common carriers to do so. That’s
what the FCC did in 2015. Because the courts said so. Because Verizon sued to
block network neutrality and overturn the way the internet had always worked
up until that point.

The telco and cable companies all have handshake agreements not to “overbuild”
- that is to lay lines in each other’s territory - because that would trigger
competition. They hijack DNS queries to serve ads for mis-typed domain names.
They hijack HTTP responses. They’re rolling out bandwidth caps.

If you think they aren’t going to exploit the rollback of NN for rent-seeking
purposes then you’re naive at best.

P.S. they couldn’t exist without right of way to lay cables on other people’s
private property! The internet and WWW were invented using government research
money. ATT, Verizon, Comcast, et al are the ultimate welfare queens who exist
thanks to suckling on the government teat.

~~~
jquery
Who is spreading "bullshit", the person who knows that NN never existed until
2015 when it barely did, or someone who is trying to claim that 2015-style NN
was necessary resolve issues in the early 2000s and is using FUD to push for
NN?

~~~
alchemism
The enforcement actions taken against the carriers in the early 2000s only
went through because they wanted to avoid an explicit legal ruling against
them. Thus NN has implicitly existed since the beginning of the Internet.

------
pdimitar
Seriously? You are on the FCC and expect other people to fix your problems?
What are you doing, playing Solitaire all day?

 _YOU NEED TO BE DOING STUFF RIGHT NOW_ , not tomorrow, not next week. Now.

Call ISPs which are against NN repeal. Tell them to pull all the strings they
have available. Call senators. Do counter-lobbying, aren't you americans big
fans of lobbies? I don't care what you do. DO SOMETHING. The internet is in
danger.

And you come forward and tell us that _we_ have to do something. Wow. We
really are doomed.

~~~
specialist
Alas, that's not how policy making works. She doesn't have the votes. But if
you/we bring the heat, the other commissioners will see the light. Then
opponents of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness will wait until the heat
cools off, and then try again while no ones looking.

Been there, been done like that.

~~~
pdimitar
Yes, and they will keep trying. Corruption won't be stopped by seeing the
light I am afraid.

But I have no solution to the problem, I admit. Still, whoever can help should
help, like right now.

------
jacobreg
What is the most effective avenue to voice my concerns?

~~~
Something1234
I'm working on composing letters to my state representatives for a contingency
plan(city broadband). I read on reddit, that it might be more effective than
directly contacting my federal representatives(I plan on doing that too.) I'll
post my letters if there's any interest in them.

Would these letters be of any use?

~~~
ep103
Yes. All elected politicians monitor public input on major issues.

It usually goes something like this:

1) Comcast lobbyist: Hey politican, we'll donate 10k to your campaign this
year, and another 100k+ if it becomes a tight race, just promise you'll vote
against net neutrality if that ever happens, ok?

1a) Comcast, that's a deal.

2) Office Aid: Hey politican, after the FCC announced today, our phones are
ringing off the hooks. People are really upset about this Net Neutrality
thing.

2a) Okay, poll our constituents, and figure out just how many votes I'll lose
if I vote for this thing.

3) If the number of votes > than the amount of votes the politican thinks
(s)he can buy via the lobbyist's money, they change their position.

So your letters greatly affect step 2. Of course, its less cut and dry than
above. Democratic politicans by and large believe in NN. Republican politicans
these days rarely do. And polls are expensive and slow, so sometimes step 2a
is skipped entirely and the politican makes a gut call based on the amount of
feedback they receive.

But the point it, yes, your letters matter.

------
mc32
Would someone outline the pros and cons of the FCC vs FTC overseeing
regulation of the internet?

~~~
austincheney
You could make the valid argument that no matter how beneficial net neutrality
may be it isn't within the regulatory authority of the FCC to define or
enforce such according to the agency's definition per their charter. This is
perhaps the best argument for killing net neutrality.

The common consideration is that killing net neutrality poses a direct and
immediate harm to consumers of potential discriminatory practices from a small
industry of commercial entities operating in a capacity similar to utility
providers. That said it would fall squarely within the regulatory confines of
the FTC.

I think something like net neutrality is important and necessary, but I also
think there is something more immediately important. I want the FTC to
regulate the online advertising industry. I am tired of slow websites even
though I get 900mbps up and down at my house. I am also tired of the excessive
spyware and occasional malware that comes from online ads. Online advertising
really is most horrid part of any online experience.

~~~
inetknght
[https://www.fcc.gov/about/overview](https://www.fcc.gov/about/overview)

> The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international
> communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50
> states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S.
> government agency overseen by Congress, the Commission is the federal agency
> responsible for implementing and enforcing America’s communications law and
> regulations.

I am _real_ curious why people think that the Internet, which is a
communication medium, is not within the regulatory authority of the FCC.

~~~
austincheney
> I am real curious why people think that the Internet, which is a
> communication medium, is not within the regulatory authority of the FCC.

Despite the name the FCC does not regulate communications. The FCC regulates
spectrum and interstate commerce thereof. Despite the definition on the
FCC.gov site and the Wikipedia page the FCC cannot regulate cable even if they
wanted to as mentioned by both Pai and Wheeler.

~~~
inetknght
I'd like to know more about the decisions that led to this then. It seems to
me like that's _exactly_ what the FCC is supposed to be regulating.

~~~
austincheney
Then you would be wrong. The FCC was created to regulate and license access to
the RF spectrum, because radio frequencies are a natural finite resource.

~~~
inetknght
Bits sent across a wire use radio frequency transmission to do it.

Bits processed in a routing system are a natural finite resource.

~~~
austincheney
> Bits sent across a wire use radio frequency transmission to do it.

No, they are either electrons pushed across metal with voltage or light
bouncing around fiber. This is absolutely not part of the RF spectrum.

~~~
inetknght
They are pushed across at a specific frequency.

Regardless, it is still communication. It's very clearly the domain of the
Federal _Communication_ Commission. If not, then the FCC is simply named
wrong.

Then whose domain does it belong a part of? FTC has clearly rejected the
ability to solve neutrality issues.

~~~
austincheney
It was named in 1934, and at that time the naming was fully appropriate.
Ignoring history, inventing your own terms, and sticking your head in the sand
could explain why you are confused about what the FCC is (as opposed to what
you wish it were).

------
jimmaswell
What indication is there that the current FCC would ever change course, no
matter how loudly the constituents complained? Is the only goal of all the
current outcry simply awareness?

~~~
PhasmaFelis
There's value in taking away a tyrant's velvet glove, if you'll pardon me the
hyperbole. Don't let them hide behind doublespeak about how this is what
people really want and it's just a few malcontents making noise. Make it very,
very abundantly clear that they're ignoring the desires of the people they
claim to represent. It may not change anything now, but it gets the attention
of on-the-fence voters and unites and galvanizes the opposition.

------
yalogin
Ajit Pai is an abomination. He is on the same level as Trump in shamelessness
and probably more corrupt.

------
jondubois
I was kind of confused why many big tech companies are for net neutrality. As
someone who doesn't trust big tech companies, it made me doubtful.

But I guess it makes sense; big tech companies have a lot of power right now
because of net neutrality and they don't want it to fall into the hands of
ISPs...

Big internet companies that currently have direct guaranteed access to users
don't want to be forced to make deals with middlemen who work for ISPs.

Getting rid of net neutrality will allow ISPs to claim a piece of the pie.
They will be able to cut into the profit margins of the most profitable
companies while allowing the least profitable ones to get a discount.

Getting rid of net neutrality would be similar to how it works in commercial
real estate; if your business isn't doing well, you can make a deal with your
landlord to get a discount on your rent... The rent prices are inconsistent.
But if the landlord always sees a long queue of customers outside your shop,
they may be tempted to increase your rent.

The main concern I have with removing net neutrality is what would happen to
peer-to-peer services... Maybe some ISPs will attempt to block them.

------
gaius
Google et al want the infrastructure to be dumb pipes so they can direct
traffic by manipulating search results. Ending NN is bad _for them_ but it is
yet to be shown it will be bad for the consumer.

You're your ISP's _customer_ but Google's _product_.

~~~
thirdsun
Ending net neutrality is, while not in their longterm interest, just fine for
Google & Co. - they are already established players that are able to afford
the bandwidth and overcome whatever other barriers ISPs might come up with.
It's the future services and companies that might challenge Google, Facebook
and Netflix someday. They won't be able to enter the market due to not being
able to afford access to the fast lane.

------
reacweb
It seems each time lobbyists and lawyers achieve to pass a law against
democratic will, it generates a lot of efforts to cancel it. This means many
years of mess and fights where lobbyists and lawyers will make a lot of
business. Bad behavior is rewarded.

------
cabaalis
I am in favor of net neutrality. But the way you win this argument is not to
support it en masse, or to blindly ask your representatives to support it
because you think it's good. You have to craft an argument that overcomes the
"This is not the government's right or responsibility to control" response.
This is what the conservative talking heads are spouting, this is what average
Americans believe in and stand behind, and changing this argument is how you
win.

~~~
mikebenfield
I see very little reason to think that persuading people by rational argument
is an effective way to make policy happen.

------
billrobertson42
They seem hell bent on passing these new rules regardless of what anyone else
says or does.

I'm afraid that it will have to come to lawsuits after the fact to stop this
course of action.

------
BrainInAJar
Nationalize the internet.

I'm not kidding. We paid for it in the first place, and if it's such a
critical piece of economic infrastructure that market intervention needs to be
mitigated, the solution is to nationalize it.

How? Take the municipal broadband idea, and scale it up. It's not really hard.
Net neutrality only privileges one set of multi-billion-dollar corporations
over another set of multi-billion-dollar corporations. Nationalize the lot of
it.

~~~
RandomInteger4
There's a problem with that idea, which is that then the internet is at the
mercy of those in congress who want to shut down the government all the time,
because they won't pass a budget unless we go on a governmental starvation
diet, while at the same time giving tax breaks to the rich.

~~~
slimshady94
Then let's replace the government with open source AI and ML algorithms. End
corruption!

~~~
RandomInteger4
Given how well that works for YouTube at the moment, I'm not so sure that's a
good idea.

------
ht85
I see a lot of the discussion revolving around price, but I don't think this
is the issue at all.

Wiping net neutrality would give ISPs - and by extension their shareholders /
backers - leverage over any online content producer who cares about the US
market.

To me the most worrying scenario is "hey guys, we might want to moderate our
content more heavily, or we might be taken out of Comcast gold package next
year".

------
gigama
If you thought foreign (aka Russian) interference via social media was bad,
imagine your internet service provider having discretionary control over the
priority of your news and information feed.

It would be like telephone companies being allowed to decide which calls to
allow through and relegating the rest to busy signals.

------
Modj
Bottom line: This gov. is looking for more control. Comcast, Verizon, AT&T...
are looking for more profit.

~~~
lerpa
It's not like NN would make them have more competition, either. Which, if they
are greedy bastards that make anything for a profit, would make instead of
charging to access some websites, get that same money from raising prices to
everyone, easy as pie.

~~~
Modj
Fairly sure the prices are already set at max for the existing system, so
yeah, more competition needed. Corporations are for profit. Governments are
for control. No mutual exclusivity in this one. Fast lanes lead to more money
through a system change, and are a simple way to facilitate control, entrench
existing controls, and contain dissent.

------
tanilama
Can this be realistic stopped? What if FCC just don't give a fuck and proceed?
Serious question

~~~
syril
the fcc already said that they won't be swayed. nothing will be changed by NN
being repealed.

------
johansch
Wasn't sure what being a "member of the FCC" meant:

[https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/jessica-
rosenworcel](https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/jessica-rosenworcel)

~~~
heyheyhey
So is Ajit Pai her superior? Must be an interesting workplace with her being
so vocally against it.

------
unabridged
This is just one step to internet becoming a utility. If the companies take it
too far and mess with sites people like, the next set of politicians will make
it a utility like water or power.

------
shmerl
_> I think the FCC needs to work for the public_

Unfortunately Pai and Co, think that FCC needs to work for ISP monopolists and
not for the public...

------
doggydogs94
The obvious way to reinstate net neutrality is via legislation. Congress has
the power to do this.

------
sysdyne
EME supported by the same racket that wants neutrality. What is going on?

------
mychael
I used to support net neutrality. Then I did my homework on the issue and
realized so many of the arguments in favor of net neutrality rely on fear-
mongering and a false history of the internet.

~~~
takeda
Could you explain what false history are you taking about?

Internet from the beginning treated all traffic the same, this was because:

\- lack of technology to do deep packet inspection at large scale

\- competition, during dial-up times anyone with a phone could become an ISP,
the phone did not discriminate due to regulation, then ISDN and DSL came and
due to regulations telcos were required to lease their lines to anyone keeping
the competition

During those times Internet was neutral and all sites were treated the same.

In last decade we switched to cable which has regional monopoly and doesn't
have such regulation. They already were used to control what we could see and
for how much. Earlier we had to deal with cable because we had no choice. High
speed internet came and caused wave of "cord cutters" because people hated how
the cable companies treated them. The cable companies do not like that
movement, because with Internet they are losing control.

So why not make Internet like a cable? Provide basic access and allow paid
access to premium sites. Perhaps consumers wouldn't have to pay, maybe the
sites would? And if the users don't like it what they going to do, switch from
Comcast to Comcast?

There is also another issue that no one talks about and is even more
important. Current cable companies are also media companies and already have
power over traditional media (did you wonder why they never talk about NN?).

This change essentially gives them freedom to perform censorship. They can
alter/slow down/block sites they don't agree with. This gives them power to
decide which sites users will see and which sites will survive and can and
will be used for political gains. Imagine replacing ads and cutting income for
the site, or replace ads with messages that contradict articles. It slowing
down the site to be practically unusable.

I can't believe anyone would be ok with giving power to companies (ones that
have monopoly and consumer don't even have choice to vote with their wallets)
what sites we are allowed to see or not.

~~~
mychael
For ~20 years the internet somehow functioned well without title ii
regulations. So yes, I agree with you that "Internet from the beginning
treated all traffic the same" and "During those times Internet was neutral and
all sites were treated the same". Ajit Pai's proposal seeks to roll back these
relatively new title 2 regulations.

> I can't believe anyone would be ok with giving power to companies (ones that
> have monopoly and consumer don't even have choice to vote with their
> wallets) what sites we are allowed to see or not.

Likewise, I can't see why anyone would give more power to government
(especially those who don't support the current government) to decide what is
"fair" and "neutral".

~~~
takeda
> For ~20 years the internet somehow functioned well without title ii
> regulations. So yes, I agree with you that "Internet from the beginning
> treated all traffic the same" and "During those times Internet was neutral
> and all sites were treated the same". Ajit Pai's proposal seeks to roll back
> these relatively new title 2 regulations.

In US Internet was classified as a telecommunication service, so it was
following similar restrictions. Back in 2002 FCC reclassified it as
information service, with lesser restrictions. Since then companies violated
net neutrality multiple times[1], but each time they backed out after FCC got
involved. Not until Verizon sued them and won in 2014. The court ruling
essentially stated that FCC has no control over ISPs anymore until the
Internet would be reclassified. Because of that FCC reclassified it under
Title II.

So no, what happened in past ~20 years is just small taste what's will happen.
The 2014 ruling got the cat out of the box. Now all ISPs know that if Title II
classification is removed FCC no longer has any power over them. And worst of
all since there's monopoly, we can't just vote with our wallet, without
regulation we as customers are simply screwed.

> Likewise, I can't see why anyone would give more power to government
> (especially those who don't support the current government) to decide what
> is "fair" and "neutral".

The decision what's fair and neutral is very simple to make. ISPs are just
there to provide Internet access and can't control what we can access and what
not similarly as an electric company provides electricity, but can't tell me
what brand of a dishwasher I can use.

Regulations are there to protected a consumer, would you also be ok if FDA
would allowed companies to add poison to our food if that would help them save
money, because they will (especially when they are public companies when
number #1 goal is to make profit) if they were able to. Before you answer
that, know that requirement of labeling what's in the food is also imposed by
the FDA.

I know that you're thinking that FCC planned is not an issue, because free
market will solve this. The problem is that there's no free market right now.
Vast majority of people have at most 1 viable ISP, if you have 2 you're really
lucky.

It's extremely hard to enter the market right now, the best example is Google
Fiber, a company which almost has unlimited resources (they can afford to work
on projects like self driving cars, or photograph streets all over the world
so they can improve one of their products (not even a core product) that they
offer) is giving up. If they can't who else do you think could enter that
market?

When cities want to provide a municipal network they get sued by these ISPs.

The FCC plan to repeal also wants to prevent states on implementing own rules
in that area.

How can you be ok with this? It's not just other people who are affected by
it, you will be too.

Also, and it is sad that this is not mentioned, it's not just net neutrality
that is at stake here. Once that change is made, there won't be anything
preventing incumbent ISPs from filtering content that they don't like. A small
example is Telius from Canada blocking site that was supporting labor strike
against them. Imagine that this could also be used for political control.

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

------
exxo_
Maybe it's time to have national referendums...

------
shamaku
They buried this on reddit.

~~~
orthecreedence
It's the very first post on my home feed. I don't think it's being buried (the
one I'm seeing is /r/politics).

------
aerovistae
CSS / JavaScript challenge: remove whatever is blocking you from scrolling on
that page. I could not figure it out for the life of me after 20 min messing
with the it in the dev tools. Deleting the paywall is easy enough, but what is
stopping the scrolling?

~~~
awirth
body gets a class ".bx-client-overlay" that has "overflow: hidden!important"
which hides the scrollbar

~~~
aerovistae
Yeah I saw that, but even after I removed it and the scrollbar showed back up,
I still couldn't scroll with it.

------
severian1778
nope. Small ISP's need to thrive against monopolies.

------
VeronicaJJ123
Just for the record I support Ajit Pai on this issue. Putting this comment
just to show that not all on HN disagree with FCC.

------
avs733
Ajit Pai's home address is: 4868 Old Dominion Dr Arlington, VA 22207

That is public information.

------
mhb
Further thoughts on why the end of net neutrality will be fine:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15765461](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15765461)

------
exabrial
Sorry I'm not buying into the panic.

Between wide scale TLS deployment and larger swaths of bandwidth available,
I'd rather see free market solutions so these regulatory powers can't be
abused. Net neutrality only matters if your ISP can decrypt your traffic and
there is a limited share of bandwidth available.

~~~
brian-armstrong
You are probably a little bit ignorant of how the internet works to make this
comment. The big players are already peering with residential ISPs. That means
there's a fiber line that connects Google to Comcast, to use an example. They
pay for these arrangements.

The little guys have to use transit. They don't have enough clout or money to
peer. Without net neutrality, ISPs could start severely degrading those
connections. And there's nothing TLS can do to stop that.

~~~
visarga
Users need to get directly involved in protecting the content they desire. In
the long run we need a cross between TOR and bittorrent to create a
distributed cache to avoid throttling. Local "metropolitan" bandwidth is very
fast, hard drives have expanded 10x in 10 years. An alternative is to use WiFi
mesh networks.

~~~
brian-armstrong
What makes you think this peer-to-peer network wouldn't be throttled?

~~~
visarga
It has many peers. Even if it's throttled on each one, they could distribute
the load.

~~~
kd0amg
How much of that load is carried by Comcast-approved hosts?

~~~
visarga
It will be a cat-and-mouse game.

~~~
kd0amg
All Comcast has to do is not whitelist any of your peers.

