
Tech luminaries call net neutrality vote an 'imminent threat' - kjhughes
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/11/16754040/steve-wozniak-vint-cerf-internet-pioneer-net-neutrality-letter-senate
======
betterunix2
Not that this will make a difference in the outcome of Thursday's vote. I urge
everyone to look at the actual proposed rules, and in particular the technical
background and explanations. Basically, if ISPs claimed something in their
comments, the FCC assumes it is true and dismisses any contradictory claims
submitted by others.

The entire comment period was for show. Pai and his republican co-
commissioners are going to jam this through regardless of what anyone says or
does. He was brazen enough to admit, early on, that he does not care whether
or not his plan is unpopular and that what the public thinks makes no
difference whatsoever.

The only way to change this is to convince Congress that this is an election
issue. Unfortunately there are too many other things happening right now, so
net neutrality is being drowned in the noise and will likely continue to be
drowned in the noise.

~~~
pythonaut_16
I'm actually somewhat satisfied with how they're ramming this vote through
right now. Not because I want to lose Net Neutrality, but because if it is
going to happen, it's best that it happens now, early in Trump's term, and
that the process of forcing the vote is messy.

Two possible silver linings if it does get removed on the 14th:

1\. We were wrong the whole time and reversing net neutrality launches us into
a golden age of fast and cheap internet for all. (Very unlikely)

2\. We were right, and reversing net neutrality is as bad as we feared. While
it will be painful in the short term, hopefully it's bad enough to The
Internet/Net Neutrality a relevant election issue for more people.

Either way, the sure silver lining is that by hashing this out now the
consequences will be fully felt by the time the next presidential election
rolls around.

Can you imagine if they were trying to shove this through in the lead up to
the 2020 election when everyone is distracted by all the other issues at stake
in the election?

~~~
8ytecoder
Most people are not going to realise the pain. It's one of those issues that
affect people but they would never understand why. In spite of scientists
saying climate change is real and it's affecting us directly (floods, heat
waves,...etc) people still can't put 2 and 2 together to ask for change. I
don't think ISPs would be dumb enough to drastically become cable-operatorish
and charge customers for every website. The pain will be felt by small
companies and competition (albeit indirectly).

~~~
takeda
I'm fairly sure they early stages will even look like it was a good change,
making some people wonder why were they even fighting it.

For example excluding affiliated sites from any caps (let's stream 4k movies
from Hulu, RedBox etc even if you have lower bandwidth than necessary, you
would be excluded for these services) or have data caps not apply for
affiliated sites.

For an extra fee you could also get similar treatment for non-affiliated sites
(Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Video etc).

In the mean time everything else will gradually is getting slower and slower.
Tough luck for any new startup trying to enter the market. As it already is
difficult right now, it will be nearly impossible after that.

The absolutely bad things (throttling/blocking/modifying content of sites the
companies don't agree with) will happen much much later.

~~~
nerfhammer
More like they use the fees from content providers to make service nearly
free, then they'll be able to plausibly say that bringing back net neutrality
will make internet service more expensive. Then, no one will want to bring net
neutrality back.

Like how cell phones are "free" so it's impossible to buy one without a
contract.

~~~
astrange
None of the major US carriers have contracts anymore, since the start of this
year.

[https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/verizon-kills-two-
ye...](https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/verizon-kills-two-year-
contracts-and-smartphone-subsidies-raises-activation-fees-by-10-0)

------
matchagaucho
For all the zero-rated services that Google and Facebook subsidize globally,
they've actually become part of the problem.

It seems hypocritical for them to take a pro-net neutrality stance when
they're funding the capture of entry-level mobile data plans.

~~~
saghm
I might be wrong, but didn't the net neutrality regulations that were put into
place before the current rule change allow zero-rating? A large part of the
opposition to the rules change is that it allows paid prioritization, not just
zero rating.

~~~
matchagaucho
Zero-rated services were the trojan horse that led to paid-prioritization.

Both producers and consumers have already been conditioned to accept this new
model.

------
theptip
An interesting counterpoint to the standard arguments equating support for Net
Neutrality with support for Title II classification of broadband providers,
from Ben Thompson:

[https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-
ii/](https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/)

> Allow me to state this point plainly: I am absolutely in favor of net
> neutrality... The question at hand, though, is what is the best way to
> achieve net neutrality?

> Any regulatory decision — indeed, any decision period — is about tradeoffs.
> To choose one course of action is to gain certain benefits and incur certain
> costs... equally difficult to measure is the inevitable rent-seeking that
> accompanies regulation, as incumbents find it easier to lobby regulators to
> foreclose competition instead of winning customers in an open market.

> A classic example of this phenomenon is restaurants: who could possibly be
> against food safety? Then you read about how San Francisco requires 14
> permits that take 9 months to issue... and you wonder why anyone opens a
> restaurant at all.

> This argument certainly applies to net neutrality in a far more profound
> way: the Internet has been the single most important driver of not just
> economic growth but overall consumer welfare for the last two decades. Given
> that all of that dynamism has been achieved with minimal regulatory
> oversight, the default position of anyone concerned about future growth
> should be maintaining a light touch. After all, regulation always has a cost
> far greater than what we can see at the moment it is enacted, and given the
> importance of the Internet, those costs are massively more consequential
> than restaurants or just about anything else.

~~~
guelo
The argument that network neutrality is a new regulatory burden is wrong.
Before the 2000s network neutrality existed because the ISPs did not have the
network equipment to do deep packet inspection and filtering at large scale.
By 2004 the FCC began looking to enforce network neutrality and began testing
various legal authorities starting with the Madison River case, and
culminating in the 2014 loss in Verizon vs FCC which forced Tom Wheeler to
reclassify ISPs as common carriers in order to enforce net neutrality.

In other words, the whole history of "the single most important driver of not
just economic growth but overall consumer welfare" has occurred under defacto
network neutrality.

~~~
Terr_
Right, I think it's increasingly important to distinguish between (A) the
_end-result situation_ of neutral-networks and (B) any specific
regulations/laws that are trying to preserve that status-quo.

I fear there are a lot of people out there who don't understand the
distinction and are confused when they hear that NN is both the status-quo
_and_ that NN is new regulation.

------
AngeloAnolin
Aren't government officials supposed to be working _FOR_ the public, rather
than some vested interests by a few?

And shouldn't you be listening when the people who have made internet possible
today (Tim Berners-Lee, Steven Bellovin, Steve Wozniak and Brewster Kahle to
name a few) is very much against it?

The vote, the process and the resulting decision otherwise should be done in
an objective and transparent manner. Just the way that the internet has been
envisioned to be.

~~~
zeep
They are supposed to work for the good of the majority while not crushing
minorities... and since corporations are considered people and could be
considered minorities, I guess it makes sense.

See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)
.

/s

~~~
nerfhammer
This will benefit some corporations (Verizon, Comcast) and hurt others
(Google, Facebook).

~~~
zjaffee
I would assume that this would ultimately help google and facebook, they will
be able to afford to pay for fast lanes while also making deals where their
services are faster than new comers.

~~~
nerfhammer
It doesn't help them at all. Google and Facebook can afford to pay whatever
their users are worth to them and the ISPs can demand every last cent of that.

It's exactly analogous to the RIAA squeezing music startups dry: You
absolutely have to pay them so why would they demand anything less than
everything you make?

So why should ISPs demand anything less than everything the internet companies
make?

~~~
gibybo
Google and Facebook are large and rich enough to replace the ISPs if they felt
they needed to. They've both dabbled in this area and would surely turn it
into a serious effort if their core business was threatened. They just haven't
done it because it's still cheaper (for them) to let the existing ISPs do it.

Comcast/Verizon/etc don't want to pick a fight with Google or Facebook. They
want to pick fights they can easily win and gain extra money from: companies
too small to pose a threat.

------
glitcher
All signs point to net neutrality being killed this week no matter who opposes
it, but I applaud all those that stand up for their voices to be heard. Just
because those currently in power are choosing to ignore those voices doesn't
mean they aren't heard, and even if net neutrality dies this week doesn't mean
it can't be resurrected later. The more voices loudly protesting, the more
momentum there will be to help correct this travesty in the next election
cycle.

~~~
guelo
The next time this political battle comes up the ISPs will have the legal
authority to censor any pro neutrality voices.

------
jokoon
What about the devil's advocate?

As the internet kept growing for the last 20 years, "global bandwidth" have
increased by a lot because of services like youtube, netflix. The
democratization of smartphones multiplied this effect: people listens to music
using streaming, and you could say it doubled the amount of connected devices
(not to mention smartphones update apps quite often).

I'm not against net neutrality, but the internet is still a very centralized
platform, and it's not surprising that very popular services can become
problematic for ISPs.

If you look at bandwidth, the largest actors are using a disproportionately
larger share of it compared to smaller actors.

I just want to ask, is there some accounting of how those big actors
contribute to the internet infrastructure, or how much they pay for its access
considering the bandwidth usage?

I know that monopolies are bad, but I'm really curious about the business of
internet infrastructure and how things works.

~~~
Treblemaker
This question touches on something I've wondered about for a while. Why are
large actors' usage questioned as if they alone were responsible for their
internet traffic? Bits go in and bits come back out somewhere. There are
always two endpoints in a connection.

Netflix, for example, pays for Netflix's internet connection according to
their usage at their endpoint[1]. The consumers cumulatively pay for the same
amount of usage; it's just spread across a large number of endpoints.
Netflix's ISP and the consumers' ISPs pay for the infrastucture to connect the
two together, and set their end user rates accordingly. Nobody in this chain
of connections is getting a free ride.

Is this deliberate misdirection from the ISPs? Do I have some fundamental
misunderstanding? Is it more nuanced than this?

[1] ignoring CDNs etc. for the sake of simplyfing the argument

------
notliketherest
I hope these individuals and companies fight for and win the change they want
to see in the world because I agree with them. But I hope the vote passes
tomorrow and ISPs no longer fall under Title 2 regulations. A 100 year old law
cannot possibly fit the world of global, decentralized digital information
sharing that the internet has become in the last 20 years. We need a new law
for the new time. And it's this passion and energy we need from these
luminaries and large companies to get people aware enough of the problem to
pressure congress to do something about it. So the fight doesn't end tomorrow,
it starts tomorrow.

------
danjoc
Apple Siri promotes Google over Bing for billions of dollars. Net Neutral.

Mozilla promotes Google over Yahoo and switches user search preferences back
to Google. Net Neutral.

Google blocks YouTube access from Amazon's streaming devices. Net Neutral.

Netflix throttles AT&T and Verizon customers. Net Neutral.

You know why I don't care if Pai "repeals" NN?

~~~
WiseWeasel
The FCC regulation of ISPs isn't expected to right every wrong in the
technology sector; the only US laws those cases might have transgressed are
anti-competition/monopoly, regulated by the FTC. You've not provided any
support for ending the regulation of ISPs as common carriers.

 _Netflix throttles AT &T and Verizon customers. Net Neutral._

They've limited the bitrate/quality for the benefit of the consumer, since
those ISPs have low monthly bandwidth limits. This allows them to watch more
video before they hit their bandwidth limits, something most would probably
find to be a desirable tradeoff.

~~~
danjoc
>the only US laws those cases might have transgressed are anti-
competition/monopoly, regulated by the FTC.

That's the point. When you put up a law that says "Cable Co can't do this, but
Internet Co can" it offends my sense of fairness.

------
westurner
> “The current technically-incorrect order discards decades of careful work by
> FCC chairs from both parties, who understood the threats that Internet
> access providers could pose to open markets on the Internet.”

Paid prioritization is that threat.

Again, streaming video content for all ages is not more important than online
courses.

------
danblick
I don't understand how the administration can support this change.

Allowing carriers to discriminate against content providers seems like
legalizing extortion.

Is there an argument in favor of this change that would convince a reasonable
person?

------
notadoc
> Tech luminaries call net neutrality vote an 'imminent threat'

If tech companies and luminaries genuinely considered the loss of net
neutrality as an existential threat, wouldn't they be hiring every lobbyist
under the sun to fight for it?

~~~
1_2__4
They have. The fact that it didn’t work should inform you about how politics
works today

------
joering2
I keep asking: where the HECK is Facebook?

Zuckerberg needs to forget about profits for a moment, and put a 5-minute
blackout page instead of people's feed. And phone number Geolocated to their
representative.

I guarantee this will change the winds of internet history!

~~~
Crespyl
Facebook _wants_ NN gone, so that they can sell their curated "Free Basics"
plan with ISPs, blocking everything outside of Facebook and maybe Wikipedia.

They want to lock low income people into the Facebook bubble.

~~~
joering2
? I thought that Zuckerberg was for internet freedom?? Project Free Internet
in India and his non-profit??

~~~
Crespyl
Quite the opposite[0].

"Free Basics" was the name of the program, and it only allowed access to
Facebook and whatever sites whichever sites Facebook (in all its infinite
wisdom) decided were appropriate for the users to visit. The program was
eventually found to be in violation of India's neutrality rules and was shut
down.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Basics#Net_neutrality_cri...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Basics#Net_neutrality_criticism_in_India)

------
coding123
So why does no one complain when they benefit from non-net neutrality:
[https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/6/16262086/t-mobile-free-
net...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/6/16262086/t-mobile-free-netflix-
family-plan-deal)

See the comments and tell me if I missed any.

~~~
8ytecoder
Zero rating is a complex subject. Prior FCC chairman had vowed to look at zero
rating on a case by case basis. In the case of T-Mobile, they treated all
video services the same and more important did not own a competing video
service that they prioritized unfairly over others. Seems sensible to me.

~~~
betterunix2
I can see objections to T-Mobile's plan:

It is a layering violation, since the network is dictating application
requirements (the video streaming technology must be "T-Mobile friendly" to
benefit from the zero-rating).

It fails when users use VPNs, because the network cannot inspect packets or
determine which service is used. Likewise with proxy servers, Tor, etc.

It is not applied equally to all streaming services; T-Mobile maintains a list
of registered services that is not even remotely comprehensive.

So yes, this is a net neutrality violation, even if it is not the sort of
behavior prohibited by the 2015 rules.

