
Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality - kposehn
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/16/17357592/net-neutrality-senate-vote-cra-reinstate-fcc-rules
======
andrewla
This seems like the way that this should be addressed. The case against Net
Neutrality was made almost strictly as a case of regulatory overreach and
overly burdensome regulations that inherited irrelevant restrictions and
unenforceable provisions designed for specific telecom use cases that don't
apply to ISPs.

The first issue is clearly addressed by a legislative approach -- it stops
being regulatory overreach when the regulators are mandated to enforce. The
second issue depends on how this bill is worded, but in theory it gives an
opportunity to create more specialized regulations that directly address the
issue at hand without bringing on board historical cruft that applies to a
different problem domain.

EDIT: after actually reading the article and the actual resolution [1], I see
that the second point is unaddressed; this just directly reverses the ruling.
Even the first point is barely addressed because it doesn't expand the
mandate; it just asserts that the mandate means something that it arguably
does not mean.

[1] [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-
re...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-
resolution/52/text/is?format=txt)

~~~
Consultant32452
I feel like the root problem is lack of competition at the ISP level. If we
had that, net neutrality regulation would likely not be necessary. Instead
we're trying to fix a bad regulatory environment with even more regulations.

~~~
dragontamer
The market conditions are set up for what is called a "natural monopoly". Its
inefficient for new companies to build wires to an already wired up
neighborhood.

Companies therefore become de-facto monopolies on a neighborhood-by-
neighborhood basis. The exception are cities where a dense population of
people can support additional carriers for sake of competition. But at a basic
level, the economic conditions just make the ISP problem complicated.

\---------

Frankly speaking, all options to deal with natural monopolies kinda suck.
Socialism simply has the government take over for example, so the legal
monopoly is at least owned by the people.

Capitalism can't solve the problem. Its more efficient for companies to wire
up other neighborhoods. Why become a competitor when you can simply become a
monopoly holder somewhere else?

An interesting blend of capitalism / socialism is to have the wires owned by
the municipality, or perhaps a highly-regulated entity (such as a utility
company). The law is then rewritten to state: "It is illegal to be both a
physical-wire company AND an ISP at the same time", or something to that
effect.

Physical wire companies are then forced to rent out their wires to different
ISPs. For example, if Verizon owned the wires of an area, they'd be forced to
reorganize and split-off the wire-owning portion into a "Verizon Local utility
coporporation".

Then, "Verizon Local Utility Inc." (now an independent company) will sell the
time on the wires to various ISPs, like Verizon or Comcast.

ISPs will still be responsible for interfacing with the population, as well as
bandwidth, routers, and other such details on the data-center side. The local-
utility company will be responsible for physical maintenance of the wires,
with a strict regulation regime to ensure that they provide equal-opportunity
access to large ISPs, as well as any startups who wish to enter the space.

Its certainly "more regulations" towards this problem. But I've never heard of
a more complete solution than this kind of scheme. Its not necessarily
"Socialism" either, because the US has a long-record of tightly regulating
local Utility companies, due to similar economic issues (the concept of local
power companies being a natural monopoly. The "deregulation" schemes that
exist today to allow local residents to buy solar energy or nuclear energy,
delivered by local wires under a tight regulation / utility regulation scheme)

So its American, its a familiar model to many municipalities, and it works in
practice. As demonstrated by power-companies and phone companies of ages
past... as well as a few European countries who have adopted this scheme.

\----------

Under such a regime, "Net Neutrality" can become an ISP's defining trait. And
we can let the market decide if its worth the cost. If people want a "Net
Neutral ISP", they simply pay for the competitors who offer such a service. So
the overall regulatory burden is lowered, IMO.

~~~
rascul
> as well as a few European countries who have adopted this scheme.

Do you have examples of which countries that have implemented something
similar? I recall reading about this in the past, and I would like to read
more about it, but I can't think off the top of my head which countries I
might have read about.

~~~
rickycook
afaik it’s how power distribution works in australia? i think there are energy
“retailers” and energy “wholesalers”, and you legally aren’t allowed to be
both. wholesalers cover plants and wires, and retailers handle billing and
connection.

thats not a glowing recommendation of he system though because our electrical
network is all kinds of expensive :p (but that could be for other reasons; i’m
no expert on it)

~~~
caf
_thats not a glowing recommendation of he system though because our electrical
network is all kinds of expensive_

Yes. The distribution monopolies are only allowed to make a fair rate of
return on their operating and capital expenses, as determined by the
independent regulator (this is to prevent them from raising their prices to
the point that they capture all the economic surplus, as they otherwise
would). Unfortunately this has incentivised over-investment in the
distribution networks (the more they spend, the more profit they're allowed to
make) - referred to as "gold-plating" \- which ends up being passed on in the
prices faced by consumers.

Specific to the ISP issue, this is how the NBN works in Australia too - the
NBN provides the underlying network, but isn't a retail ISP itself.

------
caf
It's interesting the way that the Congressional Review Act operates, to
require both houses and the president to sign off on overruling the decision
of an executive agency.

In bicameral Westminster-style systems, delegated legislation (ie. executive
regulations) can usually be vetoed by _either_ chamber. This being under the
principle that if the regulation in question had been enacted as regular
legislation it would have required the approval of both chambers to pass.

~~~
fjsolwmv
It's a fiction either way. There's no way to decide whether the vetoed action
was in or out of scope of the original delegated authority. Maybe one chamber
just changed their mind.

~~~
caf
Well, no - the idea is that the delegated authority is simply _" you may make
regulations without prior approval of the legislature for the sake of
expediency, but it is subject to veto so you can't use it as an end-run around
the legislature"_.

------
alistproducer2
I am on the one hand happy to hear about this, but I couldn't help but laugh
at the way it was reported on NPR. They said Democrats see this as an issue
that can bring voters to the polls. I immediately thought of how few people
even know what the heck net neutrality is (about 1 in 4 [0]). Either NPR is
making stuff up or the Democrats are seriously in need of some new advice.
[0]:[https://americanactionnetwork.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02...](https://americanactionnetwork.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02..).

~~~
smsm42
1 in 4? That is insanely high. I would be surprised in 1 in 10 can explain
what NN is properly (not "evil ISPs are gonna to make us pay for pr0n!") and
about 1 in a 100 to explain what actually happened in 2015 and what happened
in 2018 and what is the state of current legislation around ISP-content
provider relationships. These things are complex patchwork of years of
legislation and require non-trivial knowledge to understand. I rate the chance
of 1 in 4 of Americans having this knowledge as the chance 1 in 4 Americans
can fluently speak ancient Sumerian.

~~~
fourthark
They don't need to understand in order to vote.

------
Andre_Wanglin
Isn't this how things are supposed to be done anyway? I imagine I will have to
keep waiting for Congress to re-assert their authority over making war.

------
boomboomsubban
Again, this is meaningless. Currently the future of net neutrality is the
decision of the courts, and if this miraculously passes the house and
president, the future remains in the hands of the courts.

A new law is necessary to guarantee net neutrality. This has been known for
over twelve years, both Clinton and Obama cosponsored a bill on it in 2006,
but so far neither party has made any serious move towards passing a bill.

------
virtzzz
My rep has already sent me a firm, automated "fuck you" but I've sent him an
email anyway.

~~~
letsgetphysITal
Your email went into the junk folder. Send a letter and phone call.

------
bifrost
Considering where this has been politically, this isn't going to change
anything. And really all "killing" NN does is move this back to the FTC, where
it was for a decade+

~~~
drawkbox
Internet is a utility now though and only the FCC can make network / internet
a utility / common carrier.

ISPs want it at the FTC for that reason, so it isn't seen as a utility, it is.

Internet is as required as radio, phone, tv, water, electricity etc, it makes
more sense under Title II and 80%+ of people support that. [1]

> _Americans embrace a Title II vision of internet service. A strong majority
> (88 percent, 48 percent strongly) agree that “when I buy internet service, I
> am paying to transmit information between my computer and the websites I
> visit, free from interference.” This finding demonstrates that the public
> views internet access as a Title II telecommunications service, similar to
> phone service. Americans recognize the vital role the internet plays, with
> 83 percent agreeing that the “internet is essential infrastructure, like
> roads and bridges.”_

[1] [https://www.scribd.com/document/353285485/Freedman-
Consultin...](https://www.scribd.com/document/353285485/Freedman-Consulting-
Net-Neutrality-Poll)

~~~
moduspol
This kind of polling really bothers me.

> when I buy internet service, I am paying to transmit information between my
> computer and the websites I visit, free from interference.

Of course they'll agree with that. Now ask them if they think their VoIP
landline phone calls should be required to be treated with equal priority to
their neighbor's cat videos or bittorrent traffic. Ask them if their provider
should be able to regulate disruptive / chatty protocols used by a tiny
minority to improve the quality of the service for everyone else. Ask them if
it bothers them to have their Netflix traffic be zero-rated as a bundled-in
perk from their ISP.

You'll then find the number much lower than 80% in "support." It's difficult
to imagine a more leading question.

~~~
dhimes
You have to dumb your questions down to terms "everybody" can understand, or
else they won't know what the question is. The first question most people will
understand.

~~~
moduspol
If it has to be dumbed down and leading that much, the result of the survey is
meaningless.

~~~
dhimes
Just the opposite: If you ask questions they can't understand, _then_ the
survey is meaningless. You always have to make sure the respondents understand
the question.

------
exabrial
The root issue is entrenched (literally and figuratively) local monopolies. We
_want_ Net Neutrality because we can't switch providers when our ISPs behave
badly.

I think if they go after that issue think manner they will get the votes.
However, I see them going after the regulatory route, which unlikely to be
pass.

~~~
shmerl
They do all they can to pretend that there is "competition". It's the only way
they can ignore the obvious, that opponents of Net Neutrality are simply
proponents of monopolies.

------
ryanpcmcquen
I am surprised this even passed the Senate. It is almost as if Senators want
to get re-elected.

~~~
fjsolwmv
The Senate has 51 Republicans but 3 of them are rather independent/centrist
and sometimes vote with Democrats.

~~~
ryanpcmcquen
A lot of Republicans support Net Neutrality, including the stalwart
conservative Scalia. The main reason so many current Republicans oppose it, is
the association with Obama, and the piles of money Telecom is floating their
way.

------
briandear
I am not in favor of government enforcement of net neutrality under
libertarian/free market grounds, however, that being said, I am really happy
about this vote on a ideological/philosophical level because one of my
problems with government regulation is that it is often unaccountable — it’s
via executive/administrative or quasi-government entities that aren’t directly
accountable to voters. The Congressional Review Act (proposed and passed as
part of the Republican Contract with America) is an exceptionally important
law because it allows the public, through their representatives, to
essentially override bad regulation (bad, as determined by voters.)

So while the outcome of this particular vote isn’t one With which I agree, I
wholeheartedly agree and endorse the vote itself. My big problem with
government and regulation in general is that I feel that regulations lag or
exceed the will of the public and there is little recourse when those rules
are made by officials removed from the direct accountability from the voter.

I could be wrong on Net Neutrality, but if it passes or is defeated, at least
the process of our actual representatives voting on such an important issue is
happening. Such consequential decisions ought not be at the whims of
bureaucrats. Bureaucracts should implement the law, they shouldn’t be making
it.

------
mattnewton
A lot of people are dismissing this as political theatre, but it serves a
useful function as recording the names of everyone against reinstating net
neutrality publically, so that challengers can make it a campaign issue in
November. No, it probably isn’t going to pass the house, and smart money is on
Trump vetoing it even if that miracle came to pass. However, Democrats are
testing the waters for a campaign pledge, and some Republicans might notice.
We absolutely want this represented in the midterm campaigns.

~~~
fjsolwmv
It's essentially a party line vote, so no recording is needed.

~~~
mattnewton
The record is important, because unlike party / representative positions, it
won’t change in the midterms.

------
Lionsion
Time to call your Congressmen. I live in a purple district, and I'm going to
make it clear to my Republican representative that:

1) I'm going to vote in November,

2) I will vote for him if he votes to keep the pre-existing title II net
neutrality regulations, and against them if he does not, and

3) Net neutrality is even supported by a majority of Republican voters [1], so
if he votes against it's clear he's voting against his constituents.

[1] [http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-
states/overwhelming...](http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-
states/overwhelming-bipartisan-majority-opposes-repealing-net-neutrality/)

~~~
komali2
For everyone's amusement, can you let us know what he says?

When I lived in Texas, the responses I got from my representatives were
comically evil. Straight up bond villain.

~~~
poulsbohemian
That sounds exactly like what I got from Cathy mcmorris Rodgers in eastern
Washington as well

~~~
chocolatebunny
I wonder if there's a "Letter's from my Congressman" website where random
people post letters they got from their congressman.

~~~
hasahmed
Time to make it happen

~~~
scottmf
We’re on Hacker “I could make Airbnb in a weekend” News. Why doesn’t it exist
yet?

------
pasbesoin
My Comcast bill, over the course of two consecutive months since the beginning
of this year -- and since the apparent, "inevitable" coming end of net
neutrality, increased about 25%.

My Congressmen are going to hear about this. About how, for the better part of
20 years, Ameritech/SBC/ATT refused to upgrade my neighborhood trunk line,
that doesn't even support DSL. In a high-density suburban neighborhood in the
home/headquarters state of the corporation.

About how Ameritech/SBC (now rebranded ATT) received the better part of three
quarters of a billion dollars in tax breaks and other incentives from the
State of Illinois, in return for a commitment to provide "universal" (minimum
95% coverage) broadband access throughout the State. Whereupon, they
immediately turned around and lobbied the State legislature to let them out of
their side of the agreement, that commitment, while keeping the tax breaks and
incentives.

They're going to hear how, several years ago, I couldn't watch Netflix
streaming without constant interruptions, particularly during prime viewing
hours, because Comcast refused to peer with Netflix in their datacenters -- at
_Netflix 's_ expense and providing of the necessary equipment and
installation. That problem didn't resolve until the bad publicity and outcry
was giving Comcast (and its ilk exercising similar manipulation) an enormous
PR black eye.

This right at the time Comcast was attempting to launch and gain traction with
one of their "competing" streaming video offers.

About paid advocacy promoting lies about support for their actions within non-
profit centric communities, such as... was it the NAACP, or another
organization, that was supporting Comcast quite apparently in return for
contributions.

How Congressmen supporting these telcos' agenda are functioning as paid shills
for these private companies. Not just lobbied. Outright bought, with no effort
or success in actually understanding the issues involved.

And I don't vote for paid shills.

\--

P.S. My State Democratic representative made the rounds, a couple of years ago
after some heavy local storm damage. I took the opportunity to tell him about
our local problem with ATT. (This was after the storm aftermath's crisis
period was passed; he wasn't overloaded with it.)

He told me that actually, he had a meeting with ATT executives the following
day and would bring it up. And that he'd get back to me on that.

I never heard a word. And when I followed up later with his staff, I still
didn't hear anything.

I don't vote for him, any more. I faced that decision again, this past April.
And no, still no vote for him.

~~~
frockington
State reps seem much more willing to help out/listen to their constituents.
Every time I've reached out with a state representative they have helped me
out. One even drafted a bill and politely told the city to f __* off

~~~
pasbesoin
He sounded very interested during our conversation.

But, ATT is a _very_ big big-money and political player in our state. Even if
he wasn't originally dissembling, the ATT executives may have just shut him
right down.

Part of my point: I don't care which political party it is. If a member is in
bed with this crap -- or even just silently acquiescing, to hell with them.

I'd liked this rep, up to that point. If he'd told me there was nothing he
could do, or hadn't specifically told me he'd follow up. Maybe I'd grant a bit
more benefit of the doubt. Well, I'd still expect him to address the issue --
take a position against the behavior.

Instead, silence. Like the silence amongst our supposed "mainstream"
politicians in response to the hard right pushing beliefs and policy with no
backing in fact. (Or the hard left, when they do that -- although then I can
usually at least sympathize with the compassion, when present.)

Democrats need to understand that their weak tea "centrist", big business
trend no longer sells to the base they need and that needs effective
representation.

I'm all for effective business. I'm not for monopolies and oligopolies
hindering progress for their own relative advantage. Nor sucking at the teat
of public money and policy while complaining about their taxes.

------
ocdtrekkie
Can we not frontpage things that suggest happenings that aren't? As noted in
the article itself, the House is not going to vote this way, and this is a
largely pointless political drama thing. The headline is _technically_ true,
but has no meaningful effect whatsoever.

~~~
Lionsion
> the House is not going to vote this way

Unless you have a working crystal ball, that's a prediction, _not a fact_.

> and this is a largely pointless political drama thing

Not true. The repeal of net neutrality is extraordinarily unpopular (including
among Republicans) and _all_ of the House is up for re-election this year. The
Republicans may lose their majority.

In my opinion, this has a better shot of getting through than most. That is,
if you don't prematurely give up hope.

~~~
supertrope
The Republican Party is not only against regulations in general but they have
explicitly come out against Net Neutrality rules. They (House Republicans)
even made it part of their demands before the 2013 federal government
shutdown: [https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/revealed-house-gops-
de...](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/revealed-house-gops-debt-ceiling-
plan-jonathan-strong/)

~~~
dragonwriter
> They (House Republicans) even made it part of their demands before the 2013
> federal government shutdown

Not the same people that are there now, and not the same political
circumstances. It is unlikely _but not impossible_ this will pass the House.

------
dreamcompiler
Whether this passes now or not is immaterial. Net neutrality is guaranteed to
come back in the next administration, which will have as its primary agenda
undoing all of Trump's damage. The question the big ISPs need to ask
themselves is whether it makes any business sense to try to capitalize on this
for a short time, knowing that they'll have to spend money to undo it all
later.

------
HillaryClinton
It's a victory for Democrats today, but this'll die in the House. Still it
will make for good campaign material for the Democrats in the coming midterms.

------
dogruck
This is political noise, so some representatives can say “I voted for Net
Neutrality.”

~~~
mmanfrin
Senators, you mean, and from the party not in power so that voters _know_
their stance and the stance of the in-power party.

