
Net neutrality is dying with a whimper - urahara
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/19/15971344/2017-net-neutrality-protest-fcc-repeal
======
unclesaamm
This article buys way too much into the concept of "democratic efficiency",
that "being heard" leads directly to government action, and therefore lack of
action (or the wrong kind of action) is _caused by_ a lack of "being heard".
This is so, so, so wrong, and is just further setting the stage for net
neutrality to be repealed and for the blame to be cast at activists' feet. Net
neutrality is one of the most popular policies in recent memory, and for it to
be constantly assaulted by the same handful of large ISPs is a perfect
encapsulation of why capitalism is failing our society. We're going to get
tiered Internet not because the "Day of Action" was unsuccessful, but because
there is no way that Ajit Pai would have satisfied himself with anything
except a repeal of net neutrality. Do you really think he's going to sit there
reading the comments, and think, "I have been wrong my entire career!"

The issue at hand is clearly about a government that is utterly unresponsive
to its people.

~~~
ajross
Pai's immediate predecessor literally flipped his position on net neutrality,
owing largely (at least as is commonly assumed) to political pressure from the
White House, itself driven by clearly expressed sentiment among the democratic
base. Absent the earlier burst of activism, it's unlikely the Obama
administration would have cared enough to lean on Wheeler.

That doesn't mean that it's going to work on Trump and Pai in the same way,
but arguing that activism "doesn't work" based on this one data point is
silly. It does work, sometimes. The details matter.

~~~
chestervonwinch
There's a number of studies showing how legislation doesn't represent the
preferences of constituents. See for more info, represent.us or the Anti-
corruption act [1]. The last net neutrality outcry was unique in that nearly
every major internet-based company joined in the protest. I don't think I've
ever seen that happen for any other issue before.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-
Corruption_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Corruption_Act)

------
crispyambulance
Net neutrality is dying because no one has been able to make a compelling case
for it that can be understood by constituents, let alone politicians.

There is one thing that just enough politicians do understand, however, and
that's money. In their pockets. From ghouls who will profit handsomely when
online access in the USA becomes effectively equivalent to shitty cable-tv
service.

~~~
metalliqaz
Funny, isn't it, that a free and neutral Internet is one of the key
technologies that allowed the acerbic alt-right movement to bubble up from the
fringes, to become grassroots, and then mainstream, finally to put Trump in
office. Then, his team gleefully work to destroy it. I suppose they think that
greedy, unfair measures that currently benefit themselves will never be handed
to their opponents. That's a lesson the left never learned. _sigh_

~~~
cribbles
The alt-right is a small fringe movement with outsized presence in election
post-mortems due to their visibility on digital platforms used by journalists
and bloggers.

Trump voters were (mostly) Romney voters.[1] Clinton lost by failing to
galvanize voters who turned out for Obama in prior elections[2] and neglecting
to campaign in Rustbelt states.[3]

[1] [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-
trump...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-
victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/)

[2] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-
no...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-non-voters-
who-decided-the-election-trump-won-because-of-lower-democratic-turnout/)

[3]
[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trumps-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trumps-
road-to-victory/507203/)

~~~
gremlinsinc
Clinton lost because the DNC cheated to get her where she was in the first
place... She was supposed to be the candidate that could never lose, and
Bernie Or Bust isn't a real thing... Sure as heck was, I know Bernie
supporters who voted Trump out of spite (mostly the independents) -- I wrote
Bernie in personally, because I'd rather see the shit storm that is Trump --
piss people off so badly and ruin the entire reputation of the Republican
party that progressive politics will come back in full force in 4 years. Than
see clinton in office starting more wars we don't need and doing more regime
change and taking money from special interests.

There's a real hatred for the elite class right now in America, some idiots
thought Trump was that answer but he IS an elite. Bernie was the answer but
the DNC thought they could quash him, now he's the most popular member of
congress - and more progressives are running and winning than ever before.

2020 will be interesting to see if he runs again, if he does he'll probably be
the next president. Even Nate Silver has said that Bernie is currently the
front-runner for 2020 much as Clinton was in 2013.

~~~
wcarron
> Clinton lost because the DNC cheater to get her where she was in the first
> place

There is no grand conspiracy. Stop kidding yourself. More Democrats preferred
Hillary over Bernie. End of story. The reason is obvious: Bernie Sanders is
not a democrat. Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist. He joined the
Democratic party solely for a larger support base and because the Democrats
align more with his ideals than Republicans do.

It is absolutely no surprise that the DNC establishment preferred an
establishment candidate who had long been a prominent member of the party. Not
some coat-tail hanger-on using the predominantly liberal base of a party that
he only nominally belongs to. He does not represent the interests (arguably)
of the majority of the Democratic party voters. That's why he lost.

~~~
gremlinsinc
So you're sayin no Bernie or Bust movement existed? Because there was a
petition w/ at least 100k signatures of people who were #BernieOrBust.. do you
think 100K votes mattered at all in the last election cycle? Do you think many
people who were pro-bernie and never vote for clinton might be closet Bernie
or Bust, or vote Trump, or Jill Stein?

I'm guessing for every outspoken Bernie/Bust person there were 2-3 more people
who voted 3rd party or abstained...as a result...

It was an ugly primary, and if you don't think the DNC cheated then you
haven't watched any of the news... DNC chair was fired because of it, CNN
anchor got in hot water for GIVING CLinton the questions to the debate before
hand... that's not conspiracy because it's fact...

------
metalliqaz
The government's response to its constituents has been a flatline for many
years now. I don't expect today's FCC to be any different.

However, the battle will continue with some of the heavy hitters that have
been so instrumental for creating real change: advocacy groups with good
lawyers. (EFF, Fight For the Future, Public Knowledge, et al.)

They will be the ones that really take the fight to the Pai-hole. It's an
uphill battle, but probably our best hope.

*edited for grammar and clarity

------
payne92
We may need to first live with some ISP shenanigans before everybody fully
understands what network neutrality is about.

A few years ago, I noticed that frontier was hijacking Google searches. A
search bar search for "Amazon" went straight to amazon.com, complete with an
affiliate id!

I wrote a letter to the Frontier CEO, sent it via FedEx, and she called me
directly within hours of receiving it. The gist of my letter was, "by behaving
this way, you are bringing the debate on yourself." She was unaware her
company was doing this and stopped the practice.

This is a small example that's easily detectable externally (unlike internal
network traffic shaping). But we may need to cycle through a few stories like
this to cut through the rhetoric.

~~~
mreome
My concern is that they won't make it so obvious though. If they simply
install fast lanes and the big-players start paying, will the average internet
user notice that the few small sites they visit load slower? Would it really
be that much more obvious then traffic shaping?

------
aphextron
I think it is a growing sense of complete helplessness in American politics.
Corporations and politicians will do as they wish, and we'll sit back and
watch it on CNN. What can we possibly do? Yes, there will be protests and
such. But as we've seen endlessly in this country, the money always wins. The
slacktivism shown in this article exemplifies the state of complete cynicism
we've reached as a society.

------
d--b
Is there any hope that some new ISP gets created that does follow net
neutrality? What's likely to happen to an ISP that doesn't play the fast/slow
lane approach?

~~~
uncletammy
I would expect the major hurdle by any new ISP to be ownership of
infrastructure. If anti-neutral firms own the poles, they are likely to put up
one hell of a fight to keep them.

That being said, it would make sense to me that scrapping neutrality might be
the very thing needed to encourage Google to finish their fiber roll out
across the US. Incumbent telecoms have incentive to restrict access to
content. Google being an advertising company, has incentive to encourage the
flow of content.

Google owning the internet is probably way worse in the long run but it might
just be a great short term solution to the neutrality problem.

~~~
Arubis
Screw poles. In sufficiently dense metro areas, microwave or similar is
competitive on price and bandwidth.

This is deeply unfair to less dense areas, though. Google Fiber is shiny and
alluring, but there's other solutions for us urbanites. What I'd love to see,
and would make a difference, is competition for last-mile delivery _outside_
of cities.

------
throwitlong
Politicians will always be voted into office for something that looks
important to people but politicians do not care the least.

Then they silently implement what they really care about.

~~~
hnal943
Or because Net Neutrality is not as popular in the society at large as it is
in the SF headquarters of big tech companies.

------
drewmol
After FCC rule change[1], it seems the Telco mafia is also seizing control of
available wireless spectrum which could be viable for alternate ISP
service/media broadcast options. Although I do think there's more productive
utilization of this frequency spectrum than broadcasting digital video
signals, unfortunately it looks like the same oligopoly will soon control all
the terrestrial broadcast licenses[2][3], essentially owning the whole
spectrum. Then I'd suspect they'll lobby to repurpose all of them for
authenticated (subscription-based) wireless IP/data use[4].

[1][http://fortune.com/2017/04/20/fcc-broadcast-tv-station-
owner...](http://fortune.com/2017/04/20/fcc-broadcast-tv-station-ownership/)

[2][https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/business/dealbook/tv-s...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/business/dealbook/tv-
station-owners-rush-to-seize-on-relaxed-fcc-rules.html)

[3][http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/comcast-nation/FCC-
announ...](http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/comcast-nation/FCC-announces-
results-of-spectrum-auction-Comcast-big-buyer-for-cell-phone.html)

[4][http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/04/13/fccs-tv-
airwa...](http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/04/13/fccs-tv-airwaves-
auction-drew-19-8-billion-led-by-t-mobile.html)

------
longliveNN
I work at BigCo and heard that we wanted to do more for the net neutrality day
of action but were deterred due to getting "gentle reminders" from certain
politicians and regulators from within the government about other avenues for
potential consequences. Which makes me suspicious that the other BigCos were
put into a similar position.

------
rotten
Non-neutral internet bandwidth packages will only be offered if there is
profit to be made. Cell phone companies didn't give us free long distance out
of the kindness of their heart - it was simply too expensive to administer the
billing. So, the trick is to make non-neutral packages very expensive to
maintain or support for the ISP's. How? By making it too hard for them to
implement in a way that isn't easily subverted or disrupted. (And by simply
not buying the premium packages in the first place.) Too few customers with
too much maintenance and software and administrative overhead, and the
companies will flee from this idea except in the cases where they are
intentionally engaged in censorship of some sort.

~~~
hnal943
I think competition was more responsible for free long distance than the cost
of billing customers.

~~~
rotten
One of my friends was a software developer for the billing software for a cell
provider, so I had some "inside scoop" in learning that...

------
hartator
I don't see what this fuss is all about. If Facebook wants to offer cheaper
Internet with their services prioritized, why not?

Plus Internet is far from being neutral right now. Emails got deliver
depending on your server IPs. CDNs already pay to be hosted by ISPs for a fast
lane. Torrents don't reach the full capacity of your bandwidth. Etc.

The case against government regulations for the Internet is easy to make:
Easier to start an ISP, cheaper services for the end consumers, less
government expenses to enforce all of that, etc.

~~~
fredley
Because the fear is that the internet will become like TV: you can't buy
access to 'TV', despite the fact there's no technical limitation. You have to
buy packages, from different providers in order to get what you want. You have
to sign up to hefty subscription packages with loads of bundled shite just to
watch 7 hours of Game of Thrones.

Currently you buy access to the internet, and that's _all internet_ , at equal
priority. You can connect to my little $6 VPS or raspberry pi as easily as you
can to Google or Facebook. And that's a great thing. If I want to get my show
on TV, I have to negotiate with different channels and studios to try and get
it broadcast, anywhere. And even then it would probably be on some shitty
channel with tiny viewership, interspersed with ads for medication and
financial scams.

On the internet I can publish on my own terms, and anybody else with an
internet connection can view it, on my terms. Undermining net neutrality
threatens this.

In the UK some ISPs are providing 'free unlimited access to WhatsApp'. It's
just the start of a road that leads to the default model changes from paying
for internet access, to most people getting free 'internet', restricted to
just those companies who pay the ISP instead to provide free access. This is a
slippery slope: once it starts, it will continue until smaller sites are no
longer visible to people without 'premium' internet - who will be a minority.
This is bad.

~~~
splintercell
> Because the fear is that the internet will become like TV

But I would rather take that than Internet becoming like TV, where govt can
pass 'fairness doctrine' and other stuff, or restrict it significantly during
war time.

I'd rather trust economic incentives to keep Internet free than political
incentives. If people are willing to pay for full coverage of the War, then
even though govt is pressuring ISPs, it results in a losing prisoner's dilemma
for ISPs (take for instance the popularity of Al Jazeera during Iraq War).

~~~
burkaman
What are the economic incentives to keep Internet free?

~~~
splintercell
There are economic incentives to deliver what people want. Fox news is hugely
profitable because it delivers to people what no other media organization
delivers, and that is a right wing perspective on events. Throughout the Obama
years, Fox News made insane amount of money precisely for this reason.

~~~
uncletammy
You're being downvoted for making people read the words "Fox news" but you're
absolutely right about this.

I would state it another way though. Fox news is hugely profitable because it
provides information to people that validates, reinforces, and legitimizes
their particular social and political beliefs. It thickens the walls of their
bubble. Fox news led the way with this and every other network quickly
followed suit.

~~~
s73ver
No, they really are not. "Economic incentives" only come into play when there
are choices. Most people do not have any kind of choice in their ISP, thus the
"Economic incentives" argument carries no water.

~~~
splintercell
Currently there isn't a strong enough economic incentive. You may think that
your service sucks, but that does not create an enough economic incentive.

This does not counter the argument that if tomorrow an ISP not delivering the
content you desire, then there wouldn't be a rise of a newer service/solutions
(they don't really have to be a new ISP btw) which allow consumers to access
the suppressed viewpoint.

~~~
s73ver
Which will then be shut down by the ISP, as the new site won't have enough
money to pay the toll.

I'm sorry, but this argument that "everything will work out for the better"
isn't convincing me.

------
Fej
The best way I have seen to describe net neutrality to laypeople was uttered
by John Oliver: "preventing cable company fuckery".

A good example: like the water company suddenly saying that you're not allowed
to use your water to fill reusable water bottles, unless you pay a further
monthly fee, but they do have a partnership with Dasani to deliver water
bottles to your door for cheaper than the store price.

------
s73ver
So question: Google, Facebook, Netflix, et al all say that Net Neutrality is
extremely important to their business. Why are they not drowning legislators
in lobbying and "campaign contributions" to make sure it stays? I mean, they
have to be able to outspend the cable companies. And if the GOP position
suddenly flip flops to be in favor of NN, it's not like any of their base will
notice.

~~~
MagnumOpus
Google and Facebook don't really care - they are big enough to be in the fast
lane or zero-rated no matter what, and their startup competitors being killed
is good for them.

Netflix alone is just not big enough by itself to outspend the half-billion or
so that the Media Big 6 and the Baby Bells spent on buying politicians, ads
and spin.

------
Something1234
If this is so important to our industry, why are people in our industry
helping to destroy net neutrality?

------
pteredactyl
Internet and consequently, ISPs, should be a public utility. Like water and
electricity.

------
jd75
Why would Ajit Pai care what we think? How much money have we given the GOP?
What kushy job do we have lined up for him if he does what we want?

------
honestoHeminway
The mistake was for the internet to grow on the ISPs infrastructure in the
first place.

Now they will murder anything new by slowing it to a crawl. So to succeed, on
must have superior compression- and/or a alternative infrastructure.

Or- one could try to hijack the fastlanes.

~~~
metalliqaz
Sufficient competition in the market would be enough. Unfortunately, the
government has allowed total monopoly on fixed line broadband. They've done it
in two ways: first through exclusivity contracts with companies such as
Verizon, ATT, Cox, and Comcast. They give fat payments in the form of cash,
tax breaks, and local monopolies in exchange for the companies to build out
infrastructure. Second, they have allowed consolidation in the marketplace to
a level that should never have even been considered.

I agree that, long term, only a replacement infrastructure will be a viable
solution. Unfortunately the only technology that currently has a chance is
4G/5G mobile service, and it is even more consumer-hostile.

In the mean time, we need Net Neutrality.

~~~
uncletammy
I also expect new infrastructure to be the most likely solution. I wouldn't
expect it to be 4G/5G mobile service though.

I always thought that the next infrastructure would be a series of wireless
mesh networks. They are extremely censorship resistant and can operate on
unlicensed frequencies which makes them resistant to centralized control.

I've heard about projects like [https://nycmesh.net](https://nycmesh.net) and
[http://guifi.net](http://guifi.net) that have sprung up even while the
internet was fairly neutral. That leaves me hopeful that this type of project
will quickly replace wired infrastructure if it quickly becomes needed.

I'm nowhere close to an expert in this field so I would love to be corrected
if I'm wrong about any of that. I would also love someone more informed than
myself to talk about the current state of wireless mesh and/or 4G/5G mobile.

~~~
cr0sh
Mesh can work for short-haul. But long-haul routes are a problem. For
instance, how would you mesh network between Los Angeles and Phoenix? Or
Phoenix and Las Vegas? Those are "local" but long-haul routes for me. I can
see the (slim) possibility of Phoenix to Tucson or Flagstaff. There is
(almost) enough intervening users (potentially) to form the mesh (although it
would be very bottlenecked).

Mesh networks right now are great for large urban populations - megacities,
dense sprawl areas, etc. But for everything in between, at least here in US
where the issue of Net Neutrality is the thing - not so much.

~~~
drewmol
My understanding is that the "internet backbone" market is fairly competitive,
as it's not too difficult/costly to install new infastructure across rural
land areas if existing network operators are price gouging, etc. Do you think
mesh networks combined with consumer hardware could be a viable option to
bypass "last mile" ISP/Telco mafia infastructure?

------
cmahler7
Wouldn't getting rid of net neutrality actually be good for startups and
smaller companies? People are effectively subsidizing the internet giants
right now, if telecoms charged extra for them people would move on to
different services?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's odd to see people banding together
to defend Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc. Although the companies on the other
side are obviously scum as well.

~~~
rpedroso
Suppose that we eliminate net neutrality. Further suppose that, in a few
years, I start a video streaming service called "Notflix".

Because ISPs are no longer required to be dumb pipes, they've started charging
their customers a premium for access to video content. This is bad for
Netflix, of course, because it cuts into their subscriber base.

They crunch some numbers and come up with an amount they're willing to pay the
ISPs to exclude their subscribers from this segmented pricing scheme. The ISPs
accept this mutually beneficial deal, and everyone's happy, right?

What about Notflix, though? We don't have the capital that Netflix has to pay
into this protection racket, so our subscribers must choose between paying the
ISP video premium + our subscription fee, or Netflix's subscription fee.

That's an uphill battle and straightforwardly anti-competitive, but is also
the precisely the promise of a world without net neutrality.

I also disagree with your assessment that anybody is subsidizing internet
giants. All those players pay for the bandwidth they consume to dump their
data into the network. The end-user pays for the other end of the connection.
Everything is being paid for, proportionally to the usage.

The last-mile ISPs simply want to double-dip. Comcast thinks Netflix should
pay both Level 3 AND Comcast for using the pipes, which fundamentally
undermines the architecture of the internet.

~~~
cmahler7
>I also disagree with your assessment that anybody is subsidizing internet
giants. All those players pay for the bandwidth they consume to dump their
data into the network. The end-user pays for the other end of the connection.
Everything is being paid for, proportionally to the usage.

I know very little about the situation, hence the naive question, that
statement was based off all the websites like reddit putting up fake pay walls
to show what things would be like without net neutrality.

