
Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality - lotusleaf1987
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/republicans-no-compromise-possible-on-net-neutrality.ars
======
gammarator
Notably, Boehner's top campaign contributer in the last election cycle was
AT&T:

[http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C...](http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=N00003675&newMem=N&cycle=2010)

------
mcantor
I'm not sure how to post this without seeming like a troll, but... is this guy
campaigning _for_ or _against_ net neutrality? I can't tell from the article.
He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? So... he _wants_ net
neutrality? But then he says "no taxpayer dollars [should be] used to fund
these net neutrality rules."

I'm sure I'm being either naive, stupid or both right now, but I'm honestly
confused.

~~~
reedlaw
As a libertarian, I would interpret protecting "our most basic freedoms"
meaning the right to freely enter into agreements with whichever service
providers we choose. If a service provider chooses to limit bandwidth to
certain sites I would be free to buy Internet service elsewhere. But, as a
libertarian, I also recognize the fact that this will never work as long as
government continues to regulate these services in any way. If government
gives special favours to big providers there will never be an opportunity for
small ISPs to compete.

~~~
jshen
in a libertarian world who owns the cables to your house? How does someone
with a better idea/business model get new cables out to everyones house?

~~~
warrenwilkinson
Who needs to own cables? You could rent cable in some areas, rent satallite
for others, build short range wireless towers in others, use laser
transmission here, build above ground infrastructure there, channel packets
through power cables here, and phone lines there, and speed it up with local
caching here, here and here.

Technology changes, don't expect the ISP killer to look like an ISP. Just as
the land-line phone killer in no way looked like a better land line phone
provider.

~~~
jshen
Who would you rent them from?

In a libertarian world who should have owned the cables for the past 20 years?
How would competition happen when the cost of running new cables all around
the country is extremely high?

~~~
warrenwilkinson
As with everything, if you want something you either buy it or build it. If
the cost to use existing infrastructure is too high, demand for alternatives
will grow. If this demand can supplied, great, if it can't, then nothing can
be done by market or government.

You've correctly pegged me as a Libertarian =), but I don't know who should be
the title holders of the existing infrastructure.

~~~
jshen
The point is that a new business can't dig up everyones backyard if they think
the current phone companies are doing a bad job, even if there is demand. I
don't see how the libertarian model can work in this case.

~~~
warrenwilkinson
Can I give you a link?
[http://server.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Ca...](http://server.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Category=26&id=377)

Mary Ruwart (2008 Libertarian Party presidental nomination) answers a very
similar question about roads.

The short answer is: Most of the infrastructure would be built and maintained
by the people who lived next to them. A university and some nearby
business(es) might build a high speed connection. Then some adjacent
neighborhoods might tie in. As low-cost regional hubs grow, entrepreneurs
might focus on cost effective inter-regional infrastructure.

------
DanI-S
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing America that freedom
for corporations equates to freedom for individuals.

~~~
ars
Corporation are MADE of individuals.

A corporation is not a person and does not think. There is an actual human on
the other end, and it is that human to whom you are giving that freedom.

People have a tendency to anthropomorphize corporations. A corporation did
this, wants that, etc.

~~~
bootload
_"... Corporation are MADE of individuals. ^A corporation is not a person^ and
does not think. ..."_

Yes they are.

 _"... In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to
contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered
into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In
the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394,
the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for
purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. ..."_ ~
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation#United_States>

A dubious outcome in what was meant in spirit to uphold a person's (black or
white) civil and political rights being interfered by any state. cf: 14th
amendment ~
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Citizenship_and_civil_rights)

------
beatpanda
All of these stories point to one solution- re-decentralize the Internet.
Depending on either corporations or the government for a functioning Internet
is a recipe for disaster.

~~~
webXL
Decentralization depends on standards, infrastructure and property rights.
That's all. Bureaucrats and corporations not required. If you want to hook up
your network to mine, so your users can share data with mine and vice versa,
all we need is power, hardware, ethernet and good 'ol TCP/IP.

Net "Neutrality" advocates would make better use of their time starting their
own networks, where anything _neutral_ goes, including equal prioritization of
XXX porn and 911 VOIP packets. On my network, if you freely agree to the
terms, your porn packets would _not_ be neutral. If you don't like that, you
don't have to use my network. Don't like it? Tough. It's called freedom.

------
blueben
There are a number of disturbing aspects of this news, but I find the new "no
discussion, no consideration, no compromise" attitude of the Republican party
to be extremely frightening.

~~~
maxxxxx
It works pretty well though. Every issue is framed as a decision whether the
country as we know it will be destroyed. Seems a lot of voters like this
style.

~~~
gnosis
Just a few years ago all the news was about how the American public was sick
of this sort of "polarizing" style of politics, and wanted a kinder, gentler
style epitomized by "compromise".

Of course, that was when the Democrats were coming in to power.

Now that the Republicans seem to be coming back in to power, it seems that
"compromise" is off the table. Not that it ever was on the table for
Republicans.

------
russell
The idea of net neutrality comes from the concept of Common Carrier in the
Communications Act of 1934: carriers cannot block communications between any
two parties (such as favoring their subscribers over those of another
carrier). In exchange the carriers are not liable for the content of the
communications.

Another thing that seems to totally ignored by Boehner et. al. is that you
sometimes need regulation to protect basic rights, the Civil Rights Act for
example. Net neutrality (hacker view) is the right to communicate whatever
with whomever. The FCC has actually been protecting the Internet, bu ever
since Powell the child's term as FCC chairman, the waters have been
considerably muddied.

(In order to give my rant some measure of verisimilitude, I attempted to vet
it against Common Carrier and Communications Act of 1934 over at Wikipedia. I
found two of the worst and most incomplete articles that I have ever
encountered. The Act itself is a 333 page PDF. tl;dnr So please be kind. :-)

------
CulturalNgineer
Check the following totally misleading article put out by the Corporate front
"Ameripac":

FCC: Information Superhighway Traffic Cops
<http://conservativeactionalerts.com/blog_post/show/2120>

This looks to be a campaign intentionally designed to confuse with the goal of
restricting a truly free Internet in order to benefit big money interests.

Frankly I've had more than enough of mega-corporations corrupting good
governance.

------
Dornkirk
Can someone tell me if net neutrality was to fail and big service providers
did restrict access as they saw fit - what ways would there be around it
without paying extra $ to line their pockets? VPN? Something else? (I don't
know much about this stuff so sorry if this is a dumb question)

------
runjake
Summary:

Do you want corporations to act as unregulated "traffic controllers"? Then
you're against net neutrality.

Do you want an accountable government agency with a lackluster track record
for citizens' digital rights to act as a "traffic controller"? Then you're for
net neutrality.

* Before voting me down, look at the actions the federal government has already taken in regards to traffic control (ala exempting wireless carriers, and kill switch legislation). This smells like traffic control to me.

~~~
blueben
Then you aren't familiar with network neutrality, which has nothing to do with
the FCC dictating what kind of traffic is and is not allowed or controlling
traffic.

~~~
jimmyk
No it certainly doesn't have anything to do with that. However it does set the
precedent that the FCC can set rules for how businesses operate their
networks, and once that precedent is set it will become much easier to extend
it to regulation of traffic. Keep in mind that governments rarely give up a
power once it's become accepted, but that they are quick to extend any powers
they do have.

This isn't necessarily the first or last link in that chain, but it is _a_
link in the chain.

~~~
wmf
Isn't the FCC already regulating the Internet through CALEA? I don't quite
understand the idea that NN is the FCC's "foot in the door".

~~~
jimmyk
Yes that's a good point. I edited my comment before I saw your reply and once
after I saw your reply.

I'm not too familiar with CALEA but it seems to be an example of the
phenomenon I was describing. It began as a way for law enforcement to monitor
VOIP but expanded in 10 years to cover all internet traffic.

~~~
runjake
A good little technical overview of what CALEA entails here:

[http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/io...](http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/lawful/intercept/65LIch1.html)

------
protomyth
I still want a technical definition of what Net Neutrality is. No using words
like "freedom", given me something that is not open to interpretation.

~~~
sorbus
As I define it: No packet shaping based on what service users are accessing;
all packets are created equal.

Wikipedia also has a quite good definition. A key line from it: "The principle
advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on
content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and
the modes of communication."

Sadly, it's a term which is used to mean whatever the speaker wants it to
mean. Political language does horrible things to words.

~~~
protomyth
Actually, I want packet shaping as long as its under my control (my netflix is
more important than the download of software updates).

"Sadly, it's a term which is used to mean whatever the speaker wants it to
mean. Political language does horrible things to words."

You nailed the words to my biggest problem. I see how bills are named, and
really won't say I support something unless I have a real definition.

------
webXL
Oh, Republicans are against net neutrality, so we should be for it, right?

If there's one dominant theme I've seen over the years when politics rears its
ugly head in an online discussion, it's that

    
    
      Republicans = Corporations (Evil)
      Democrats = Workers (Wholesome goodness)
    

Now, it's entirely possible that those statements are true 100% of the time,
but isn't it much more likely that there are exceptions to them, and if you're
intellectually honest, you can acknowledge them? I'm not sure if Google
results are a trustworthy source, but look up "corporate donations by party"
and you'll see countless examples of corporations taking advantage of whatever
party is in power. So you must acknowledge that neither party is completely
beholden to "wholesome goodness".

Whichever side wins in the net neutrality debate, some corporations will lose,
and others will win. If net neutrality needs to be enforced, it means that
politicians will hold more power. Do we really want to keep giving those
people more power, especially over something that's pretty free at the moment?
Give more power to the same people who just renewed the Patriot Act?!

------
l0c0b0x
I'm sorry, but I've heard a lot of topics from Boehner that include:
"protecting our most basic freedoms".

Of course, by "our", he mostly means "Corporations" (IMHO, viewed as first-
class citizen groups).

Just my opinion.

