
Ask HN: How can we stop the plan to end net neutrality? - Dangeranger
In the following week the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to roll out their plan to end net neutrality.<p>It appears that the public at large and even some internet stalwarts have become apathetic to the coming changes, which threaten to alter the internet as we know it going forward.<p>If this happens without massive public outrage it may indicate to other democratic nations that treating all traffic equally is no longer the norm, and they are free to enact their own &quot;play-to-play&quot; schemes in addition to those imposed by the U.S.<p>What can be done to reverse this course of action?
======
flaque
First: Call your congress person. Right now.
[https://callyourrep.co/](https://callyourrep.co/)

\----- Some students from Gonzaga Uni are trying to build something to help.

Right now we're trying to build a site that will let folks send a physical
letter to your congress person. Letters in bulk may be effective alongside
calls.

Demo here: [http://savethenet.today/](http://savethenet.today/)

# We need help!

Github here: [https://github.com/gu-app-club/save-the-
net](https://github.com/gu-app-club/save-the-net)

## Programmers

There's a few bugs need to be sorted Built in React/Nextjs

## Designers

We would love a design review <3 Please please please, all criticism and PR's
are welcome.

## Non-profits and Biz folks

We're trying to launch this week, (hopefully tomorrow) but in order to take
money with Stripe (to pay for postage), we need a EIN. That means we'll either
need to register as a non-profit or partner with one. Expediting seems to cost
a fair amount of money that we don't have. (We're just uni students) So we're
looking to partner. If this is something you could help us with, please please
please reach out (@flaqueeau on twitter):
[https://twitter.com/flaqueeau](https://twitter.com/flaqueeau)

(Also, if we're doing the non-profit thing wrong, please let us know)

~~~
rjv
Honest question: is it worth calling my Congress person if they are already
vehemently against repealing the current net neutrality rules? Does it count
for anything?

~~~
flaque
Yes. If nothing else, it removes their political capital. Politicians are
weighing which unpopular things they can do while still maintaining their
donor base.

Make this cost them. Even if they vote for it. Even if they've supported it
all along.

Make this cost them.

~~~
karmelapple
And encourage all your family and friends to call, too. The tipping point for
getting a representative to change their mind might be smaller than you think,
just like how lobbying dollars required to get a vote for a law are smaller
than you may think.

I don’t have numbers for how many calls might be needed to flip a vote though.
Does anyone have experience with this?

~~~
deskamess
Exactly... most pro-proposal folks are not going to call in asking them to
support (since it benefits industry). So as many anti-proposal folks that can
call in, the better. Also document their response for the next election cycle
- pro Trump, pro cable company, anti internet freedom, etc.

If a scenario is possible under the new proposal, point that out =>

"Soon, your cable company can intentionally make your
Youtube/Pinterest/Facebook slow. Ask your congress man/woman why they are
willing to support this? <Congress contact info> <Website to protest>"

or

"Are you ready for slower Youtube? You can upgrade for $X to make it normal
again. Your friendly ISP/Cable company. Ask your congress man/woman why they
are willing to support this? <Congress Contact Info> <Website to protest>"

You have to use simple language in terms people understand, and provide a
number to call.

------
avs733
A small counter suggestion. I know we all tend to be introverted but...go
visit your reps. Visit them in DC, visit them in their offices in your area.
Most will be home this week for thanksgiving and almost all will be home over
the holiday break. Email them to schedule a meeting or call. Make them explain
this to your face.

I tried this and after five emails have meetings with my rep and both my
senators scheduled less than a week out.

~~~
jakebasile
This is a great idea. I wasn't able to easily find scheduling contact
information for John Cornyn, but my representative and other senator, Cruz,
have an email published to get scheduled. I'll dig more for Cornyn tomorrow.

If I do get on their calendars, I hope I can articulate my reasoning well. I
doubt I'll be given much time.

~~~
heurist
I've read that Cruz only takes meetings with representatives of formal groups.

~~~
jakebasile
I'll find out soon enough!

------
shmerl
What's going now with Net neutrality is a symptom of a bigger problem. We need
to repeal Citizens United[1] and make the government less corrupted to prevent
cases like this.

But in narrower scope, the best way is to support the inevitable court case
against FCC that will follow their expected decision. That will prompt
politicians who are backed by ISP monopolists to propose a "solution", i.e.
legislation that will supposedly address Net neutrality.

That's where the real fight will begin. They'll try to push a fake law that
won't protect anything but will make it even harder to ever change things for
the better. The public will have to put a lot of pressure on their
representatives to voice interest in a proper law.

Another part of the solution would be pushing for more municipal networks and
for ending of the obnoxious monopolistic grip of Comcast and Co. That also
requires repealing a lot of anti-competitive state laws (so again, put
pressure on your representatives if you live in one). Real (not fake)
competition will naturally prevent many of the issues that Net neutrality
tries to address.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC)

~~~
tzs
> What's going now with Net neutrality is a symptom of a bigger problem. We
> need to repeal Citizens United[1] and make the government less corrupted to
> prevent cases like this.

Your error is in assuming that this is due to corruption, rather than due to
Republicans' philosophical belief that minimal regulation and free markets are
better [1]. The Republican position on net neutrality is consistent with, and
entirely predictable from, their positions on internet and telecommunications
regulations going back long before Citizens United.

> But in narrower scope, the best way is to support the inevitable court case
> against FCC that will follow their expected decision.

Will there actually be a serious court case? There were court cases when the
FCC made net neutrality rules, in both 2010 and 2015, but _making_ a rule
requires exercising authority, and so the question of whether or not they
exceeded their authority can arise, and be litigated.

In the case of _repealing_ one of their prior rules, instead of _making_ a
rule, is there really a plausible litigable issue? Since there is nothing that
requires them to have a net neutrality regulation, it is hard to see how they
could be exceeding their authority by dropping their net neutrality rules.

As long as they don't make a procedural mistake, it is hard to see what
grounds they can be challenged on.

[1] Yes, I know that ISP markets are usually not competitive, which is one of
the requirements for a free market to work well, but that's not relevant since
I'm not saying that Republicans are _right_ that minimal regulation and
markets will protect the internet. I'm just saying that this is what they
believe.

~~~
michaelt

      You error is in assuming that this is due to corruption,
      rather than due to Republicans' philosophical belief that
      minimal regulation and free markets are better [1].
    

I think people find this hard to believe, as it requires one of two things;
either (a) they _are_ aware of the impacts of giving monopolies expanded
powers to extract economic rent without productive action, _but_ they believe
repealing net neutrality will be good for the country; or (b) they have
somehow got elected to public office without knowledge of that impact, despite
the fact I've seen it taught to first-year undergraduates in economics,
politics and history courses; and they will have received briefs and letters
informing them about it.

------
vorpalhex
I have a recommendation, and it's going to sound scary at first so please read
all the way through.

We should convince the firearms industry that Net Neutrality is in their
interest. They benefit heavily from an internet presence, and recent actions
on Youtube related to demonitizing firearms content have already affected the
community.

Firearms related content is absolutely an easy target for ISPs to block and
censor.

And if there's anything the firearms industry is good at in the US, it's
fighting tooth and nail and using their reps to get things done.

I realize it's an uncomfortable and unlikely alliance, but it could be a
powerful one.

~~~
craftyguy
The NRA would be all behind this the first time someone reports a 'suboptimal
experience' when trying to access their site to become a member, or order ammo
from some random M&P gun shop.

------
temporallobe
I don't usually like to be political, but it has become quite evident that the
US government is a true oligarchy. Even if the entirety of the US population
were to petition against this, Mr. Pai would do the bidding of those he
serves, which is, hint, not the general US population.

~~~
djellybeans
He's looking forward to his cushy job at some telecom after his term is over.

It's an odd bird these types of positions when they are handled like this. To
Illustrate how odd they are, imagine you apply for a job which a friend helped
discover for you, then that friend recommends you to his manager. You get
hired but instead of taking orders from your managers you ignore them, and you
work for your friends instead.

~~~
temporallobe
Except that by definition his role is to serve the greater good of the
population, not special interest groups. The FCC is a government agency, not a
private corporation in which case your argument might apply. Their entire
mission is provide reliable, fair, reasonably-priced access to all forms of
communication, including broadband. Their own mission statement for broadband
states "Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality". How sadly
corrupt our government must be if an entire agency can't fulfill its own basic
mission because of ridiculous nonsense like this.

~~~
djellybeans
Trump decided to appoint the guy who is pushing this to the head of the FCC.
The FCC as an institution didn't decide this. The administration did.

------
akhilcacharya
Vote out your Republican rep and vote for Democrats that vocally support Net
Neutrality.

That is literally the only thing that can be done. This would not be happening
if Hillary Clinton was President.

~~~
programmarchy
Neoliberals like Clinton aren't looking out for the consumer either.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
They were very invested in the status quo of net neutrality, regardless of
what you think about their sincerity.

~~~
shmerl
It didn't help, since Republicans made it a point to oppose it out of spite.
Overall it became a partisan issue, instead of a normal common cause.

~~~
DubiousPusher
"a normal common cause"

For better or worse, those no longer exist. Everything is politics now.

~~~
shmerl
Which is why we have such dysfunctional results.

------
fuball63
I wrote my congressman and senators about this issue, both "libertarians".
Here were their responses: 1) Its not the executive branch's job to legislate.
2) The ISP's know whats best for innovation and serving their customers.

Number one is like saying "I see the iceberg ahead, someone else on board
steered the ship away, but its my job to steer the ship so I'm putting it back
on course for the iceberg".

Number two is just laughable given the lack of competition in my area.

I do not believe either of them will change their stance, so I asked a friend
that works in politics to do. He recommended: \- Write an op-ed in the local
papers. These are surprisingly effective because it reaches senior citizens as
well as the politician in the form of daily briefings. \- Get involved in
voter participation initiatives. In my area turnout is super low, and we need
a more diverse viewpoint voting to potentially unseat officials that do not
serve the public interest.

~~~
Avernar
> 1) Its not the executive branch's job to legislate. 2) The ISP's know whats
> best for innovation and serving their customers.

Ran that through congressman/senator double speak to english translator and
got this:

1) You're unable to offer us election funding and/or a high paying job after
we leave office so we're not going to do anything. 2) The ISP's know whats
best for themselves and screwing their customers.

~~~
fuball63
I understand that libertarians believe the free market should determine
winners and losers, and like any viewpoint, there's truth in it when not taken
as an unwavering silver bullet with no exceptions.

What bothers me so much about this is that net neutrality should be a no
brainer when it comes to "maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing
freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment and self-
ownership." (wikipedia). Why is corporate control of our daily lives so
acceptable but government control opposed indiscriminately?

~~~
Avernar
I all for the free market at the ISP level if and only if the last mile is run
by neutral third party with equal access to all ISPs.

As for corporate control is so acceptable and government control isn't is
because the corps control the media and the government. Anytime someone in the
government tries to control the corps there's a big media backlash against it.

------
013
If net neutrality was ended, would ISPs actually charge incrementally for
website access?

Websites like savetheinternet.com seem to argue that if net neutrality is
ended, only major websites will be offered. They say "And without Net
Neutrality, millions of small businesses owned by people of color wouldn’t be
able to compete against larger corporations online, which would deepen
economic disparities."

Why are ISPs going to targets people of color? I don't understand..

How will ISPs decide what websites I can not visit? Will they have a
whitelist/blacklist?

Will there be ISPs that offer packages that we have now? (I.E bandwidth only
restriction)

I've seen good arguments both for and against net neutrality and I really
don't know which would be better.

~~~
ams6110
They won't, because they've seen what happens when they do that. People are
leaving cable TV because it is a selected menu of channels. No choice. ISPs
who attempt to limit choice will find themselves without subscribers. If
Comcast decided I can't access Netflix on my internet plan, I'm gone.

~~~
saadullahsaeed
Except where I live, I do not have any other ISPs besides Comcast.

~~~
otp124
This is the crux of the issue. Without consumer choice, an ISP can target
whatever local regions it wants with specific, anti-consumer plans. Unless
there is an regulation to keep them in check..

------
Delmania
Donate money to causes that support Net Neutrality:

[https://indivisible435.org/](https://indivisible435.org/)
[https://supporters.eff.org/donate](https://supporters.eff.org/donate)
[https://contribute.itstarts.today//2018](https://contribute.itstarts.today//2018)

And make a point to try to either call or directly visit your representative.

------
dingo_bat
I hate how everyone on hn and reddit just accepts "nn is good"
unconditionally.Beleive it or not, if it were such an open-and-shut case, it
would not be an issue. You don't see anybody trying to legalize murder, do
you?

So at the risk of repeating myself, I want to know what is the problem with
the current internet that nn will solve, and why do you consider it to be such
a world-ending issue, above things like "hundreds of people being regularly
murdered by some random gun-toting lunatic".

I present to you my arguments why nn is bad, just as a thought exercise.

1\. The company that builds and operates the network has a right to charge for
it as it sees fit.

2\. If competition is limited in the ISP space, that is due to over-regulation
like granting monopolies. Instead of piling on more regulation, we should
solve the root cause and do things that promote more competition. NN doesn't
do that in the least.

3\. Internet infrastructure is expensive to build and operate, especially
wireless networks. And bandwidth and capacity is not unlimited. If Verizon
thinks they can provide a better service by limiting 4k streaming over LTE,
let them. If you don't like it, switch to an operator who provides a better
service for you.

I would prefer to see arguments for NN, not responses to my arguments. My
arguments may be poorly thought out, but my main point is we need solid
discussion on this topic and I have only seen vague bullshit till now.

~~~
jankiel
I agree with all your points, but:

1\. ...but why give them ability to charge based on _what_ you're doing with
access they give you? It's like your electric power provider would charge you
more if you have a blacklisted freezer...

2\. ...but maybe let's start by lowering the bar for new ISPs and getting rid
of monopolies instead of giving them more means to squeeze more money? How
getting rid of NN helps with that? Google couldn't get into that market.

3\. ...but what if my provider throttles wired network, not wireless, and not
4k, but full HD? What if they throttle my twitch, because they got a deal with
google to serve unlimited access to Youtube Gaming at the cost of limiting
access to twitch? Sure, change IPS! Whoops, there's no competition in my area.
What now?

~~~
dingo_bat
> 1\. ...but why give them ability to charge based on what you're doing with
> access they give you? It's like your electric power provider would charge
> you more if you have a blacklisted freezer...

The electricity analogy doesn't work because the electricity company literally
cannot figure out what brand of appliance you're using. Again, if you enter
into a contract with your electricity company locking you into only running
apple chargers, that's on you. No regulation needed.

> 2\. ...but maybe let's start by lowering the bar for new ISPs and getting
> rid of monopolies instead of giving them more means to squeeze more money?
> How getting rid of NN helps with that? Google couldn't get into that market.

Makes sense. Except nobody's getting rid of nn. They are trying to prevent nn
from being introduced. Till now, there hasn't been a concept of nn enforced by
the regulatory authority. So no change in status quo, as far as nn is
concerned. And Google _did_ get into the market without over-reaching
regulation like nn. It seems logical to me to continue the current state, it
has allowed much innovation to occur.

> 3\. ...but what if my provider throttles wired network, not wireless, and
> not 4k, but full HD? What if they throttle my twitch, because they got a
> deal with google to serve unlimited access to Youtube Gaming at the cost of
> limiting access to twitch? Sure, change IPS! Whoops, there's no competition
> in my area. What now?

Fully agree. This indicates the actual problem with ISPs today. They are
operating as monopolies or duopolies or I'd even say cartels. This
monopolistic behavior must be tackled. But enforcing nn will be like throwing
the baby out with the bath-water.

As I said earlier, my points are not very well thought out. I really want to
hear about problems that will get solved by enforcing nn. Thanks for
responding, and not just downvoting.

~~~
pjc50
> electricity company literally cannot figure out what brand of appliance
> you're using

That's a technological limitation; I know various companies that have half-
working solutions for discriminating what _kind_ of appliance you're using
from a smart meter, based on its consumption profile and noise profile.
Nobody's yet attempted plug-level DRM but it's not technologically impossible
...

Really what America needs is "local loop unbundling" _in addition to_ net
neutrality. But we're in the realms of what's politically achievable.

~~~
theandrewbailey
> Really what America needs is "local loop unbundling" in addition to net
> neutrality.

If we have local loop unbundling, NN will come on the backs of meaningful
competition it would ensue (as opposed to Pai competition).

------
spdustin
Contact your congressional representatives. Resistbot makes this easy:

[https://resistbot.io](https://resistbot.io)

It's free, and will fax/write your House rep / Senators on your behalf with
your own message. Call them, too. It takes just a few minutes to tell the
staffer that answers that you want your congressperson to protect net
neutrality. Just your name and, usually, zip code (to confirm that you're a
part of their constituency) gets your quick opinion tallied.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Congressional staffers don't pay any attention to faxes any longer. The
likelihood that your member of Congress pays attention to your contact is
proportional to the amount of work you put into it. Faxes used to be good, but
Resistbot changed the dynamic due to making sending one frictionless.

Source: A Senate staffer I had drinks with a few months ago.

------
DanielBMarkham
It's a good question. As tech folks, we're first in line to see this wonderful
dream we have crumble, both from government and private actions. (I'm looking
at you, Facebook)

In my opinion the only hope we have is to eliminate anything looking like a
Democratic or Republican talking point from our language. We live in an age of
people forming up into these two groups and yelling at the other one. If we
play that game, then it's much more profitable for the politicians to keep the
debate alive than settle it.

Our model should be the temprance movement which ended up outlawing alcohol in
the early 1900s. They didn't care which political party you were in, as long
as you voted the same way on a very simple proposition: should alcohol be
banned or not. (Making it simple prevented politicians from playing weasel-
word games)

They were effective. Politicians feared them.

I don't see this happening with tech issues, sadly. Instead, I see the big
tech players setting up lobbying firms and the troops all rallying around one
party or the other. That's a strategy for a long, losing battle, not a winning
one.

~~~
pjc50
I don't think it can be simplified enough for that approach to work. There's
also limited room for single issue votes - you can't be a single issue voter
on multiple issues! And a big part of American politics is people being single
issue voters on guns or abortion regardless of how corrupt the candidate is
otherwise (see Alabama).

Maciej ("idlewords" on HN) has started
[https://techsolidarity.org/](https://techsolidarity.org/) as one possible
solution.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I'm not a single-issue guy myself, but the question was something along the
lines of "How can we make this happen?" and the answer is "focus". Otherwise
you're just going to be another special interest group in a vast sea of
special interest groups. The American political system has an entire machine
dedicated to folks like that. I don't see that as being worthwhile.

But admittedly, I'm just random-internet-dude. If somebody can start something
I think has a chance, I'm happy to help out in any way I can. It's an
important (critical) issue.

------
xienze
Why is it considered a foregone conclusion that removing net neutrality will
change anything in the first place? I mean, we’re talking about rolling back
the clock to the situation as of ~2 years ago. Which was just fine. I would
prefer net neutrality to stay in place, but it’s intellectually dishonest to
make claims about the internet as we know it coming to an end within minutes
of the repeal.

~~~
xenadu02
No, the FCC has been trying to pass NN rules for many years. The courts kept
striking down their common-carrier-lite rules so they finally acknowledged
reality.

Prior to that many people were still on dialup and the fight was to get people
to sign up for broadband. Now the market is saturated so it’s time to seek as
much rent as possible.

They successfully squeezed Netflix. You don’t think they see dollar signs?

------
lumberjack
How hard is it to build a non-profit Internet infrastructure?

We can already do last mile ISPs quite easily. How about we start connecting
them together?

Of course this is not a short term solution but this is what we need to
accomplish in the long run. Infrastructure should not be in private hands
because of reasons like this. They will never stop trying, because of the
innate perverse incentives.

~~~
faet
Muni/Public broadband has already been limited in 20 states.

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-
al...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-
limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/)

------
greggman
this episode of Radiolab More Perfect actually convinced me the court decided
that case correctly (as much as Radiolab clearly tried to push to opposite
opinion)

I don't like the results but the solution has to be something else IMO

[http://www.wnyc.org/story/citizens-
united/](http://www.wnyc.org/story/citizens-united/)

~~~
ubernostrum
Part of the problem is how little people understand or think about the basics
of the relevant body of law. "Corporate personhood", for example, makes
perfect sense when you consider that generally we want people to be able to
start businesses, and the business needs to be able to, say, own property or
enter into contracts (and potentially use the courts to have them enforced).
It means nothing more than granting corporations some of the rights of humans,
in order for corporations as legal entities to be able to fulfill their
function.

The issue then is not things like "corporations are people" versus "no they're
not"; it's to what extent the rights of a corporation should mirror the rights
of a human. And generally, the argument people should make to fight _Citizens
United_ is one of granting only those rights which are necessary for a
corporation -- an artificial, legally-created "person" \-- to fulfill its
designed function, and avoiding those which are problematic.

Once you reframe the argument that way, you get to talk about how it's useful
to have some corporate speech rights for purposes of advertising, but
_political_ speech isn't necessary or useful, and may even be self-
contradictory. Consider that unlimited corporate political speech also opens
the door for forced corporate political speech: if a shareholder can make an
argument that, say, Candidate A's positions will increase shareholder value
while Candidate B's positions will decrease it, then the shareholder now also
has an argument to force the corporation to "speak" on behalf of A and against
B as part of the corporation's responsibility to shareholders. So granting
"free speech" to corporations could well lead to _compelled_ speech. And it's
probably not in the interest of public policy to clog up courts with those
kinds of arguments, which then gives you the way in to restricting corporate
political speech.

~~~
rhino369
>how it's useful to have some corporate speech rights for purposes of
advertising, but political speech isn't necessary or useful, and may even be
self-contradictory.

Most mass media speech is corporate. Banning corporate speech would mean
shutting down every for-profit news paper and tv station in the country.

Is the Washington Post putting out a story any different than Amazon putting
out a story?

~~~
ubernostrum
You seem to think it's impossible to craft a ruling that allows, say, a
newspaper to exist at all without also having exactly the current system we
have. It's not impossible.

------
daveguy
Here is the number for the congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121

Googling your reps by zip code is also helpful (direct lines).

Call them and let them know you want _legislation passed to guarantee title ii
(2) net neutrality_. Title 2 is the "internet as a utility" provision.

Title 2 is important because opponents are claiming they are for "net
neutrality" too. Title 2 is the "treat it like a utility" neutrality that has
been in place since 2015.

If you're making less than $75k you may want to mention that you don't want
your taxes to go up while you're at it.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Title 2 is important because opponents are claiming they are for "net
> neutrality" too.

The opponents on the FCC (well, the 2 of the 3 that were on the FCC then)
voted against the most recent proposal under Title I that preceded the current
Title II reclassification. Insofar as they claim to support net neutrality,
they oppose _any_ regulation, regardless of basis, that would enforce it.

> If you're making less than $75k you may want to mention that you don't want
> your taxes to go up while you're at it.

From my experience in a legislative office, for anything short of an in person
meeting with someone you have an established relationship with, you want to
keep any contact to a single subject: if you want to address two issues, make
two separate contacts.

------
floatingatoll
Today? You can try calling your congress person. In ops terms, this is like
'service httpd restart'. It may or may not help, but you'll feel like you did
something.

Long-term? You need to vote in every election, for every human candidate
position. Study the candidates in your local election and vote for one in
every category that is _not_ loony and disconnected from reality. It'll take
_hours_ of work. Like choosing a vendor, only you don't get paid. If you want
to save your friends time, post the results of your research on Facebook and
talk them down or unfriend them if they're mean instead of curious/rational
about discussing it.

(Actually, you would get paid, long-term, because all the access fees for "HD
video" would be made illegal, because you took the time to speak up for your
interests and statistically that works out at scale.)

Also if you're rich, donate money. Use lobbying in plain view, and say that
you're doing so after you do it. It only takes a million bucks to buy a
senator for a year. If you're going up against Big Telecom, you might need ten
million bucks. Consider it angel investing in the nation's infrastructure.

------
timthelion
The best way would be to destroy Comcast with community networks. Get fiber
and provide free wifi to your neighborhood. Drive them bankrupt.

~~~
Delmania
In several states, lobbyists from Comcast and Verizon are working to make it
illegal for community owned ISPs. Their claim is that this is essentially the
government participating in free trade and that it gives those communities an
unfair advantage.

~~~
timthelion
For one, this doesn't need to be provided by the government. We have community
wifi in Prague run by hobbyists and volunteers. For two, isn't the freedom of
democracy (aka, the freedom of the people to have their government do what
they want, such as provide community wifi) even more fundamental than net
neutrality? Doesn't it make sense to fight the monopoly than to regulate it?

~~~
Delmania
That works in a large hub like Prague, where fiber is present. In the US, NYC
Mesh would be one. The issue is that for many communities within the United
States, fiber is not available at all. There is a single ISP, usually Comcast
or Verizon, and they have implemented data caps. The cost of running fiber
would be prohibitively expensive even for a group of people, and you can be
sure Comcast would use every legal tactic to fight, like they did with Google
Fiber.

Your latter sentence is a great idea, except that in the US, we had a court
decision known as Citizens United (notorious Republican double speak) that
essentially made money into speech. Many of these issues now pit small
communities with limited funds versus large internal companies with nigh
limitless resources.

------
cprayingmantis
If you really want to stop it I think we’re all going to have to call our reps
and become single issue voters.

------
gigama
In addition to contacting your gov representatives, apply economic pressure on
the companies who seek to profit from this bass-ackwards legislation, namely
Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.

If you are a Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T subscriber contact your respective
provider and tell them you will cancel your service (or if under contract, not
renew) if they continue to support the FCC's plan. Find friends and family who
might also be current customers and ask them to file complaints with customer
service.

Appealing to heads and hearts is certainly worthy, but when we grab them by
the financial balls we will have their undivided attention.

------
31reasons
I feel like we need a permanent solution to this so that we don't have to
panic and raise awareness every year. If we create a fund to protect Net
Neutrality and "out-lobby" the ISPs in Washington would be great. If we just
donate 10% of our internet bill every month we can definitely become a force
they can't out-lobby without going bankrupt.

------
krisives
Use cryptography to solve problems not legislation. Net Neutrality means
nothing on Tor because nobody can be identified via their link connection.

~~~
n4r9
If lots of ordinary people started using Tor, then perhaps this would solve
something. Until then, ISPs will just throttle "unidentified" connections
along with anything not coming from Netflix, Amazon etc... .

~~~
krisives
Properly configured Tor connections look like regular HTTPS connections on
port 443 otherwise most who need it couldn't use it without getting thrown
into "re-education camps"

Also I'm not talking about using Tor to connect to "regular HTTPS" sites like
Amazon or Netflix where they see you as some special citizen of the Internet
(one they don't like) I'm talking about things like Hidden Services where
there is no external gap between networks being exploited.

~~~
n4r9
I wonder if one or both of us is missing the point here.

The concern is that ISPs will throttle all traffic which they don't recognise
as being served from a big-name domain (Netflix, Amazon, Facebook...).

In such a situation, if I use an ordinary https connection to watch my
favourite Netflix shows, then they won't throttle me. But if I do _anything_
through Tor, then they will.

~~~
krisives
My point is that on a network with onion routing you have nothing to block.
You are mixing the two networks that's a separate issue.

~~~
n4r9
Based on this and your other comments, it sounds like you're suggesting
running the entire Internet on a cryptographic protocol like onion-routing. Am
I right?

This still isn't a practical solution to the problem at hand. Most people want
to watch a lot of streamed video, which isn't doable over a Tor-like network
in the foreseeable future. Also, it would be impossible to get the support of
the internet giants, without which I don't know how you could do this. They've
invested a lot into being able to see and analyse almost everyone that's using
their service.

------
ransom1538
Wont this create a massive demand for VPN services? How can they stop/throttle
VPN'ed access?

~~~
harry8
your vpn is not on the whitelist of ips that they allow large bandwidth for
because you paid extra. Throttled.

That's one way and there will be variants on it, other methods, bait and
switch etc. etc.

~~~
ransom1538
I can't see ISPs doing whitelists (that would almost certainly become a public
court document). I can't see just banning vpns (due to work etc), I _could_
see them charging for a VPN line. At that point they have accomplished
nothing?

~~~
pjc50
> that would almost certainly become a public court document

Why?

> I can't see just banning vpns (due to work etc), I could see them charging
> for a VPN line. At that point they have accomplished nothing?

They've accomplished quite a lot: getting you to pay extra for a service that
was previously included.

There are also technological solutions that detect video streaming within a
VPN (by size and frequency of packet), so you might find that you still can't
watch Netflix unless you pay the extra Netflix ransom to the ISP.

~~~
ransom1538
> that [ip white list] would almost certainly become a public court document
> >> Why?

If a medium sized company and was excluded, I imagine a law suite would be
filed within hours. Any internet company not on the list would be in court
just to survive. The first document in question would be the white ip list.
That white ip list would never leave the courtroom (international headaches,
federal districts courts, county courts then all the one offs: schools, .govs,
.mils! -- ugh what a mess). This isn't a plan.

> They've accomplished quite a lot: getting you to pay extra for a service
> that was previously included.

Really? They win an extra fee of $10 on 0.5% of users? They can't do that now
- just raise it now $10? Sure make it $20? I guess they can try to tell if you
use a video source over a VPN - and haggle customers over video usage. Have
millions of false positives. Ugh. ISPs shudder when you say "add more call
centers." SO --- Hiring expensive tech fluent english customer service teams
to hunt down VPNs (at $10 a pop) - sounds like a plan a board will almost
certainly _ditch_. A call to my mother about her VPN using video traffic would
take 17 phone calls and over 200 man hours. I don't think any of this is a
money maker plan.

Yeah when you logically break down the parts, I don't see ISPs gaining a thing
but headache. But I do see ISP losing almost all their influence to VPN
services.

~~~
pjc50
On what grounds would you litigate? We're not talking about a _ban_ here, it's
just that if you're not part of the ISP "partner programme" you wouldn't be
included on low-tier subscriptions and connections to your website would be
either unreliable or get an ISP upsell banner.

> haggle customers over video usage

Just degrade it, enough to stop working. Have the connection dribble to a
halt. All automated. Tech already built for China's Great Firewall. And
obviously you don't call the customers, you have them call you, at which point
you upsell them.

~~~
ransom1538
> "On what grounds would you litigate?"

Thousands of companies couldn't do business and no lawsuit? I don't see this
happening. I could see everything from freedom of speech issues (newpapers,
churches, private schools.. ), to freedom of commerce, Antitrust issues (my
competitors blocked internet to), to political parties worried about their
sites service, -- I would really need 10 white boards and 4 lawyers to map out
thousands reasons.

"The Antitrust Movement".[i]

A more interesting current issue related(ish): [ii]

[i] [http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-
action/bria-16-2-b-...](http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-
action/bria-16-2-b-rockefeller-and-the-standard-oil-monopoly.html)

[ii] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-linkedin-
ruling...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-linkedin-ruling/u-s-
judge-says-linkedin-cannot-block-startup-from-public-profile-data-
idUSKCN1AU2BV)

> Just degrade it, enough to stop working.

Ok let's say we go as far as 'China's Great Firewall'. I worked with may
chinese crews they just use VPNs through "ok'ed" lines just furthering my
point.

------
lwansbrough
Can DNSSEC ensure net neutrality? Seems to me if an ISP can’t see what domain
you’re visiting, they can’t stop you from visiting it. Is this correct?

~~~
krylon
Does DNSSEC provide encrypted queries / answers?

I was under the impression it only provides authenticity and integrity for
answers. (I am by no means an expert, though!)

~~~
jwilk
> Does DNSSEC provide encrypted queries / answers?

No, it doesn't.

~~~
krylon
In retrospect, I could have just asked Wikipedia or a search engine of my
choice instead of asking dumb questions. ;-)

Thank you very much!

------
tzs
From the official Republican Platform adopted in 2016 [1]

    
    
        The survival of the internet as we know it is at
        risk. Its gravest peril originates in the White
        House, the current occupant of which has launched a
        campaign, both at home and internationally, to
        subjugate it to agents of government. The President
        ordered the chair of the supposedly independent
        Federal Communications Commission to impose upon the
        internet rules devised in the 1930s for the
        telephone monopoly.
    

This was the position of almost every contender for the Presidential
nomination during the primaries in 2016, it is the position of the one who won
that nomination and went on the win the Presidency, and it is the position of
almost every Republican in Congress.

Most of them openly promised during their campaigns to repeal the Open
Internet Order of 2015. Before that, they had openly fought the earlier Open
Internet Order of 2010 (the FCC's first net neutrality rule--the one that was
struck down by the DC circuit due to a lawsuit from Verizon, which is what
lead to the 2015 order to reinstate net neutrality in a way compatible with
the court's ruling).

Since Republicans won with this as part of their platform, and openly
campaigned on it, they take winning the Presidency and a majority in both
houses of Congress as a sign that the voters agree with them on this.

Making noise now is probably not going to change their minds. They see that as
just the usual whining from people whose side was rejected by the voters. The
noise that will matter is the gentle scratching of a #2 pencil filling in an
oval [2] next to a candidate who is in favor of net neutrality in 2018 and
2020.

(It also doesn't help that many of the people making noise to save net
neutrality are making exaggerated arguments that undermine their
creditibility. I've seen many that are predicting that repeal of the 2015
order will almost be an extinction event for the internet as we know it...yet
all this will be doing is taking is back to what the rules were at the start
of 2010, and the internet worked quite well in 2010, and so it is hard to take
these people seriously).

As a practical matter, at this time, that probably means saving net neutrality
requires voting in Democrats. A lot of Democrats.

This could be a problem for those who support net neutrality, but on other
issues support Republicans. For example, if you are strongly against gun
control, and against abortion, but in favor of net neutrality, you will
probably find voting for Democrats unacceptable because you probable think
those first two issues are more important.

If voting for a Democrat is not acceptable, then consider getting active in
Republican primaries and caucuses. There ARE Republican candidates who support
net neutrality, but they usually lose in the caucuses or primaries because the
kind of moderate Republicans who would support them are not as active in the
primaries and caucuses as are the far right Republicans.

[1] [https://prod-cdn-
static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FIN...](https://prod-cdn-
static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL%5B1%5D-ben_1468872234.pdf)

[2] or whatever noise the voting mechanism makes in your district...

------
exikyut
I have a question on this subject that I've been wondering about for a little
while now. The following could fairly be argued to be a a crazy theory, and
there may indeed be conclusive proof that debunks it, which I wouldn't mind
hearing. This is basically a "what if..." borne of lack of information, and I
recognize this as potentially a bit "out there".

I live in Australia. I'm admittedly completely ignorant of the laws here, but
I don't think we have anything resembling net neutrality locally. This has not
really had a impact, but it did allow mobile operators to structure their
offerings in specific ways. I'm not sure if the way everything worked here was
done similarly in the US.

Back in 2006-2007 when I had a phone with '3' (I stopped in ~2008 for variety
of unrelated reasons), I could open the web browser on my feature phone (an SE
K608i) for free but by default it would only allow me to access an extremely
limited range of websites. By buying a "data pack" for $5/mo I would be given
a fixed data cap to use to access the general Internet. To do this I'd need to
switch the phone's APN (Access Point Name) from "3services" to "3netaccess".

There were other data packs available; the "news pack" would let me get access
to pre-curated news segment recordings (as cute-bitrate .3gp files :P) and the
like, for example. I'd need to be on the 3services APN to be able to access
this.

Generally speaking, what US ISPs want to do nowadays is honestly not _toooo_
much different from what I experienced literally 10 years ago. An ISP does a
deal with Netflix, then I install today's equivalent of the "movie pack" and I
can stream as much Netflix as I want. Cool; that honestly doesn't seem that
radical. The practical advantages make a lot of sense to me technically and I
see the whole thing as pretty benign as I've experienced it and I'm still
alive to tell the story. Hollywood loves big fat contracts so they'll likely
always play the game this way.

Here's the "....?!" that I'm getting at.

What if, _this whole Net Neutrality scare is actually a careful act of social
engineering_?

What if, someone carefully started up hype about _everything_ being the end of
the world - being able to restrict access to websites unless we pay, etc - ?

Bam, you kill two birds with one stone: you've gotten legal approval that
ultimately just allows you to shift bandwidth costs around a bit, but you've
convinced the people that this has also given you permission to do a lot more.
So when it comes time for those extra things to be convenient, you've already
dealt with the resistance/backlash that would have come up anyway.

_IF_ I'm right, that turns the "support" of net neutrality into a giant
conspiracy ring instead of a freedom-fighter sort of thing.

This is an idea that popped into my head after I remembered my days of having
a cellphone years ago, when I stumbled on an imgur post highlighting a recent
ad from a random ISP in a different country that offered something that was
exactly like what I'd used.

This tiered internet approach isn't a radical idea, and I used it myself to
great effect. So I'm kinda suspicious. Maybe this suspicion is out of order
and I'm barking up the wrong tree. Or maybe this was a social backlash test.

~~~
nu11p01n73R
> There were other data packs available; the "news pack" would let me....

Consider a hypothetical situation where you are talking with your friend and
they tell you about a wonderful blog that they read recently. You get very
much interested in the idea that as soon as you reach home you want to read
them all. Unfortunately you own a "video pack".

What you mentioned about the data packs make sense for many people. People who
spend most of the time on Netflix, Facebook etc. But that is not what internet
is all about. Internet is not Facebook or Google or Netflix. What makes
internet great is the fact that any random unknown person can host any idea
that they want to share with others and I can find that note and read it from
other part of the world.

~~~
blubb-fish
Well, sorry to break it to you but for most people the internet is FB, Google
and Nf ...

And if you want to take a look at a blog and you have the video pack - just
get the blog pack or ask a friend - or maybe your other friend can just
download it and send it to you?

~~~
exikyut
"Nf"?

~~~
blubb-fish
"N(et)f(lix)"!

~~~
steev
I know this is a little off track from the pertinent argument, but why
abbreviate Netflix? You aren't saving any time in typing out your response and
it can only serve to confuse the reader (I also had no clue what Nf meant).

~~~
blubb-fish
the parent explicitly refers to nf.

~~~
steev
The parent explicitly refers to Netflix, not "nf" or "Nf". You might say it
was clear from context, but for at least two people that read the comment it
was not at all clear. It's not a big deal, I'm just always curious about
everyone abbreviating things.

------
Slaul
Is there anything I can do to help as a Canadian?

------
SeaDude
Unionize the internet

~~~
forgotmysn
im confused, both by what you mean, and how that would help?

------
blubb-fish
I'm not even convinced that an end of net neutrality would be such a bad
thing. Less bandwidth? What specific activity would be impaired by that?
Wouldn't it maybe even be a motivator to waste less of it to annoying
advertisement? And the hackers of the world will simply come up with a new
digital web solution - no doubts about that - wouldn't that be exciting and
maybe even spare me the crappy consumerist parts? ig, fb, sc etc. and
realistically a governance of web content and behaviour is overdue. I can't
just run around outside and shout insults at random people, as well.

~~~
emiliobumachar
Less web startups, less innovation. Sorry, I can't be more specific about the
future. But I can be about the past:

Google probably would not have taken over search with its better ranking if
AltaVista could just buy being much faster.

Social networks probably would not have overtaken Orkut (culminating in
Facebook after may interactions) if Orkut could just buy being much faster.

Reddit (and Hacker News), if slow as molasses, might have lost to
traditionally curated news sites (this one is a stretch).

Stripe wouldn't seriously compete with PayPal if it was much slower when it
was starting.

So, what giants of the future will we be drowning on birth tomorrow?
Specifically? No clue. But I'm very confident that they exist.

