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 , 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.
Intellectual honesty demands that we admit that there really are problems with NN as it had been implemented. Trying to fit the technology of a massive packet-switched data network into very specific regulations designed for an ancient circuit-switched primarily voice network really was a kluge. The FCC while they were supporting it needed to take a lot of "poetic license" with the letter of the law just to get it to make sense at all.
While it's a a big burden being forced to start from scratch, it's also an opportunity to craft something that better matches the way our systems work today. Doing so removes the uncertainty and political caprice that comes from an unelected agency making the calls.
It would have been, had that been done, but it wasn't, so it wasn't.
The specific regulations applied to the telephone network under Title II weren’t applied to the internet, an entirely new set, specifically crafted for the internet and largely following the same outline as the net neutrality regulations adopted citing Title I authority in 2010 were.
The idea that PSTN regulations were being applied to the internet is an outright lie that was told by net neutrality opponents designed to manipulate the opinions of people who have ould trust the people selling the lie and not actually read the order and the regulations it included themselves.
So, while you may make the argument in good faith belief that it is true, I cannot agree that intellectual (or any other kind of) honesty required repeating this tired old lie.
Pai's net neutrality rollback targets the FCC's February 2015 reclassification of fixed and mobile Internet providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. Title II provides the regulatory authority the FCC used to prohibit ISPs from blocking or throttling traffic and from giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment. The FCC used Title II to impose the net neutrality rules after a previous court decision struck down rules issued without the step of reclassifying ISPs as common carriers. -- https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/ajit-pai-announc...
In April 2017, it was reported that Pai had proposed that the net neutrality rules and Title II classifications be rolled back, that ISPs should instead "voluntarily" commit to the principles, and that violations of them should be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission instead of the FCC as unfair or deceptive business practices. On April 29, 2017, a clearer understanding of the latest net neutrality compromise proposal was described. On May 18, 2017, the FCC voted to move forward with Pai’s Notice of proposed rulemaking -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...
Yes, they do. Particularly, you need to reread your own Wikipedia link, particularly the “Regulatory history” section, paying particular attention to the parts from 2004 forward.
The Ars piece also doesn't contradict my post, it just doesn't cover much background.
> What I'm seeing says that the FCC's actions are specifically related to Title II
The recent action is a rollback of a 2015 order classifying broadband as a Title II service and adopting specific regulations for broadband under Title II authority.
That order followed a 2010 order in which the FCC adopted mostly similar regulations to broadband as a Title I service, which was strcul down by the courts which indicated that the FCC could only adopt some parts of that regulation to broadband if it were classified under Title II, and that Title I did not authorize key elements of the regulation.
The 2010 order itself followed a period in which the FCC enforced a policy very similar to the one enshrined in the 2010 order through case by case action (also under Title I authority) without general regulation, an approach that was struck down by the courts just before the 2010 order was issued.
Many electric grids have gone through 'deregulation' which is actually more regulations regarding the usage and sharing of the physical lines, resulting in competition among power companies. In those areas the state essentially owns the lines now and power companies sell the power.
Why is this not true for the coax? At this point it should be reclaimed via eminent domain laws. The electric lines and poles already have been, as they have long been recognized as a physical monopoly.
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.
So you end up having to regulate how much profit that wholesale monopoly is allowed to make.
We should be pressing for NN right now and work towards the next steps of deregulation like the splitting of wire / ISP after this effort.
It was my understanding that Title I service providers, like cable companies, can use the lack of LLU requirements to charge exorbitant rates to competitors who want access to someone else's local loop, which secures the incumbent's effective monopoly in a neighborhood.
Would love to be corrected here if I'm wrong so I don't spread misinformation about this elsewhere.
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.
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)
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.
Ignorant American stereotype and all that jazz. If I were to guess, I think it was someone from Norway who told me about this. But I'm not 100% sure from memory.
We had a state owned company, telecom, which was then privatised by a National govt., and then as a response to local loop unbundling regulations from Labour, it split itself into two companies, telecom (now spark) for retail and chorus for infrastructure.
Bicameral Legislative process in the USA. Laws need to be passed twice before they have any effect, and Trump has the (nearly) final say in the form of a presidential veto.
Assuming the Democrats manage to vote as a bloc in the House, there still needs to be ~25 Republicans who switch sides on this issue. Net Neutrality is... for some reason... seen as a Democrat issue.
Legalized bribery. The phrase you're looking for is legalized bribery.
We've been discussing the concept of Net Neutrality for more than a decade; the 2006 Title I reclassification was the trigger that threw the concept into question. I remember debates on long-since-defunct websites (remember Digg?) about the importance of educating friends, family, and elected officials about the importance of protecting the concept in some way. (This I would later learn is called political organizing.)
There is legitimate debate to be had about how to best preserve NN, but framing it as a made up issue that corporations are inventing for political expediency is a serious mischaracterization.
This is HN after all, I'm sure many others can back me up here.
The different internet providers have peering agreements. If traffic isn't the same between the two peers, they pay the difference.
Simplified. If Netflix's service provider is Verizon and they have a peering agreement with Comcast and Netflix traffic is causing peering to become out of balance between Comcast and Verizon. Verizon pays Comcast and Verizon charges Netflix more. No one is getting a free ride.
Group A of companies wants B to pay a bill. Group B doesn't want to pay it. Corporate lobbying ensues, as each tries to make the other's position illegal. Who is "right" or whether or not Group B should pay Group A's bill is not relevant to the accuracy of my statement.
EDIT: Please keep this thread on the topic at hand: Why net neutrality is perceived as a liberal position. There are other subthreads where you can discuss your opinion on net neutrality itself.
Group A and Group B are already paying their own bills for internet traffic via peering agreements and cash when there is unequal traffic on one side.
It's not like there is competition for last mile internet service in most of the United States. If Comcast decided they wanted to charge netflix specifically more and not just charge the owner of the network they are peering with - what choice does Netflix or it's user have?
And if Comcast wanted to start Comflix and zero rate it and charge all other providers more, then what?
Before you bring up T-mobile's zero rating of video content, T-mobile zero rates any provider from Netflix to UGetP0rn.com (hopefully that's not a real website) as long as they meet the technical requirements and no money changes hands.
ISP should be able to charge a fair price for providing connectivity across their networks, but it's not at all obvious what a fair price is, because it's not clear how expensive each packet delivery is and whose packet it is. That's why capitalists/right-wingers say "free market sort it out" and socialists/left-wingers say "government should decide rules about what's fair".
The backbones charge the ISPs for traffic. That doesn't change what I said before. Instead of A and B
having a peering agreement, they both have peering agreements with C. (A<->C<->B).
ISP should be able to charge a fair price for providing connectivity across their networks, but it's not at all obvious what a fair price is, because it's not clear how expensive each packet delivery is and whose packet it is. That's why capitalists/right-wingers say "free market sort it out" and socialists/left-wingers say "government should decide rules about what's fair".
Net Neutrality doesn't have anything to do with the government deciding how much ISPs and backbone providers charge each other. Net Neutrality is about charging for each packet at the same price and with some exceptions not prioritizing one packet over the other based on origin.
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.
If someone's ISP starts blocking / heavily throttling Netflix or YouTube for them, I could see it becoming a voting issue. But otherwise? Meh.
And the only thing that matters in elections in the US is turnout and undecideds (of whom there are very few).
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.
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. 
> 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.”
> 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.
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.
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.
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 , so if he votes against it's clear he's voting against his constituents.
When I lived in Texas, the responses I got from my representatives were comically evil. Straight up bond villain.
This guy and my former Arizona senator must have gone to the same school. During the campaign, we listened to a PBS feature of this future senator and family from their kitchen, a happy working middle class setting, discussing their views. He was strongly against bailouts he said, and within 4 months after getting elected he voted just the opposite. The public seldom hears these in our media.
I'm not sure you've thought this through. Consider:
1. Representatives voting in complete ignorance would vote 50/50, on average. However, some representatives will actually have the technical knowledge needed to vote properly, so the majority would probably fall in NN's favour. What do you think the vote ratio would look like if they only received biased information from lobbyists with deep pockets? Suddenly voting in ignorance doesn't sound too bad (and this applies to any issue, not just NN).
2. To further the above point, the wisdom of the crowd is a robust phenomenon whereby a group of independent voters can make better aggregate decisions than any single voter, probably for exactly the reasons I explained above. However, this breaks down if the votes are no longer independent. Lobbying destroys this property. If you look up the "wisdom of the crowds", lobbying encourages homogeneity, centralization, imitation, and emotionality.
> However, some representatives will actually have the technical knowledge needed to vote properly
By "properly", you mean "agreeing with me", right? This does not require any technical knowledge.
> so the majority would probably fall in NN's favour.
You implying everybody that has technical knowledge supports NN, and only reason to oppose it is ignorance. This is wrong and incredibly condescending.
> What do you think the vote ratio would look like if they only received biased information from lobbyists
Depends on how biased it is. If it's biased in favor of NN, the ratio would be something different than if it's biased against NN.
> Suddenly voting in ignorance doesn't sound too bad
Yes it does. Why would we need any Congress at all then? We could replace them with a cheap one cent coin and save a lot of money and drama. The point of representative government is that it is a focus point of an effort to figure out the right thing to do, and that all participants at least kinda trying to do it. If it's just random, there's no point of wasting effort on it, we can do much better random much cheaper.
> whereby a group of independent voters can make better aggregate decisions than any single voter,
I agree, having elections makes more sense than having a King.
> However, this breaks down if the votes are no longer independent.
Nobody is truly independent in a modern society. Not even a King - historically, there were lots of weak monarchs manipulated by their courts and seconds in command. Neither a person living in a modern society. Of course people influence other people. And this can produce negative effects like groupthink and mass panics. So what's your suggestion - ban talking about politics? Mind-wiping congressmen before voting?
I mean in the interests of their constituents.
> You implying everybody that has technical knowledge supports NN, and only reason to oppose it is ignorance. This is wrong and incredibly condescending.
I imply nothing of the sort, but the majority of people certainly favour NN.
> Yes it does. Why would we need any Congress at all then? We could replace them with a cheap one cent coin and save a lot of money and drama. [...] If it's just random, there's no point of wasting effort on it, we can do much better random much cheaper.
Except it's not random, as I explained.
Constituents have different interests. Sometimes diametrically different.
> but the majority of people certainly favour NN.
The majority of the people favor a vague description of NN in the form of "do you want to access sites for free". The majority of the people has no opinion about the specific NN regulations being discussed since they don't have a slightest idea what these regulations are and how they work and what exactly changed in 2015 and 2018. It's fine to favor this specific regulation, but claiming "the majority supports it" as an argument is bullshit, the majority has no idea what it is about. It's like asking people "would you like to be murdered?" and presenting the results as support for specific crime reform or gun control proposal. This can't be taken seriously.
> Except it's not random, as I explained.
You "explained" that everybody who has technical knowledge would support NN, if only those pesky lobbyists didn't meddle. It is an unsupported statement based on fallacious premises and so far the only factual support is the abovementioned unserious polls. Not enough by far.
Please point to all the polls or surveys that framed the question this way.
> The majority of the people has no opinion about the specific NN regulations being discussed since they don't have a slightest idea what these regulations are and how they work and what exactly changed in 2015 and 2018.
And the same can be said for our elected representatives who, on the whole, are just as technologically illiterate as these other citizens you seem to disdain so much.
> You "explained" that everybody who has technical knowledge would support NN
Really? Please quote the exact text where I made that claim.
Furthermore, that explanation is completely immaterial to the point I was responding to, which was about your claim of randomized bill voting. I suggest you reread this thread.
I suspect that there would be a strong status quo bias in ignorant votes, so 50/50 is not a realistic assumption in my opinion. Not that this is even a realistic starting point to begin with because interested parties will alway try to disseminate information to law makers (directly, or indirectly).
Not sure about that. If the status quo were satisfactory, it's less likely there would be a vote to change it. That's a counterbalancing impetus to vote away from the status quo. Hard to quantify which way that would fall.
Furthermore, outlawing lobbying would encourage the contrary behaviour for candidates to keep their seats: the representatives visiting their constituents to hear their views. Lobbyists can voice their opinion at these town hall meetings, and I think it's clear that this makes it much harder to game the votes away from constituent interests.
The significant expansion of meetings to cover to stack the deck makes lobbying considerably more expensive, and probably not worth it unless it's a seriously important issue that would make or break a market.
So the options are either
1. Get a biased source of information (along with donations $$$) from Comcast
2. Just throw your hands up in the air and declare that the problem is unknowable. Nope, Wikipedia doesn't exist. Neither does the library, your staff, or the actual bill itself. Comcast's lobbyist only. A person elected into one of the highest positions in the US is too incompetent to do their own research.
There will certainly be attempts to end-run the disclosure, but in principle it's a regulated industry.
Edit: also we could call in votes like it's American Idol. I think we should try it, it couldn't be worse than what we have now
Every democracies problems. The problem with lobbies is that they allow "deeper pockets" to have "more influence", which is exactly what democracies should prevent. Thus big lobbies (especially the corporate funded ones, which ar by far teh larger part) are undermining the democratic process.
We see the results of this all over the world.
[Regarding Obama Administration]
"Then there was the 'fairness doctrine,' designed to limit opposing voices in radio and on television; 'net neutrality,' which promised to regulate the Internet so as to prevent, ultimately, individuals from frequenting Web sites that might disagree with an administration;"
- Larry Schweikart (What Would the Founders Say?)
[Endorsed by Glenn Beck and read by Tea Party supporters all over.]
I think if you just give them the correct definition of Net Neutrality and explain how it works and why they would be for it. But people frequently leave out the "how it works and why" part of an argument so it just defaults to polarized scream matches. If people took the time to explain things to people, IE: "speak truth to stupid", we would be much better off.
To be fair, Larry Schweikart is incredibly intelligent and well read on history.
"Mr 'Buckley' - well-spoken, intelligent, curious - had heard virtually nothing of modern science. He had a natural appetite for the wonders of the Universe. He wanted to know about science. It’s just that all the science had gotten filtered out before it reached him. Our cultural motifs, our educational system, our communications media had failed this man. What society permitted to trickle through was mainly pretence and confusion. It had never taught him how to distinguish real science from the cheap imitation. He knew nothing about how science works."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
But at some point they'll spend an hour or so voting, and at that point your "priorities" doesn't factor in anymore, as you should just represent your constituents. Unless you have an incredibly good reason not to. "Different priorities" isn't one, it's straight up misdirection.
Who said they don't? We just heard from one person so far, which disagreed with the elected representative's priorities. Since they are still elected, clearly many people do agree with their priorities. Presenting this - completely routine and normal - policy disagreement as "straight up bond villain" implies that there is only one constituent that matters and only one order of priorities that is legitimate, and any disagreement is not just difference in opinion, but supreme villainy. By a weird coincidence it turns out the only legitimate priorities are exactly the ones of the author of the comment, what are the chances!
Polling says they don't. 
> Since they are still elected, clearly many people do agree with their priorities.
That's not accurate. Since they are still elected, clearly enough people agree with enough of their priorities (or perceived priorities). That's not to say that they couldn't better represent their voters, when that representation is clear.
Thank you for contacting me regarding net neutrality.
As you know, in 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established rules to regulate the Internet. The FCC claimed it could regulate the Internet under the authority of its traditional telephone regulations developed during the monopoly-era. A DC Circuit Court recently struck down certain parts of these rules and decided the FCC does not have jurisdiction over broadband providers to implement regulations in this manner.
The Internet should certainly be free and open to those who legally provide content to consumers. This principle does not necessitate additional government regulation, particularly given the innovative and highly competitive broadband marketplace. Attempts to preemptively implement industry-wide regulations may inadvertently harm consumers by stifling competition and innovation. As a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, I intend to remain fully engaged on this issue to ensure the rules governing broadband service providers maintain the flexibility needed to evolve as rapidly as the technology they provide.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country. I also encourage you to visit my website (blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter.
United States Senator
Lucky you. Here we don't have elections that matter because thanks to redistricting and gerrymandering, the outcome (along party lines) is well established.
All that means is that the general election doesn't matter, and so you need to move your vote to whatever comes before the general election in your district to make it matter.
1. Register for the party that the redistricting and gerrymandering favors.
2. Vote in that party's primaries or participate in their caucuses to support candidates who are closer to center.
Some will object that step #1 is dishonest. I might agree in districts where the district boundaries are actually sensible based on economics and other demographics factors other than party. In districts where one party has redrawn the boundaries to give itself a major structural advantage, they have stolen your vote. Joining their party is simply taking it back. If they do not like that, then they can fix the district boundaries.
That is to say, game the system by looking at the rules and vote for someone you don't actually believe in. (In the primary.) Whether or not that rises to the level of being dishonest is up to you to decide.
(The "new" rules are that the "less likely to win" candidate may be harder to determine in the current political climate.)
If you’re in a caucus state, that process might be different; I’m not sure.
Of course, nothing prevents you from being a member of whatever party you want, though there are sometimes laws prohibiting when you can change your registration. Oftentimes, you're prohibited from changing your registered party affiliation within a month or so of the primaries.
What it affects is which parties' primaries you can vote in.
You can vote however you want in official elections.
We really need Ranked Choice Voting, I really think these polls affect the actual vote tallies at the end of the day.
If there is a wave election in November, gerrymandering backfires and ends up losing you more seats than you hope to gain through it. You pack the districts so that you win with 55% to 45%, except for a district here or there which will go 10% to 90%.
In a wave election, it only takes a shift of 5-6% in those gerrymandered districts for them to be lost.
In practice, heavily-gerrymandered districts rarely swing parties, and when they do, they almost always swing back.
Imo one of the biggest problems with our current system (single winner FPTP) is it results in two parties, with various side effects such as extremist candidates in primaries, complete lack of representation for minority voters, and gerrymandered districts. Moving towards better systems would help a great deal.
If things go well, that can be an example for the rest of the country. More states should follow the Maine example!
However, I'm still not all too sure whether Net Neutrality is worth promising support to existing Republicans. There are so many other issues on the table this election cycle and they next Congress is likely to be as, or more, supportive on this.
Putting it on paper is valuable. It clarifies your thoughts. And it makes it clear how draconian these red lines are. (I constantly re-evaluate them, with the goal of talking myself out of them.)
Enough people make such a list, change happens.
And yes, voters cold-calling senators is an incredibly unreliable way to know who cares about what. I am astounded that it is still that efficient. I guess many candidates haven't figured yet that a lot of people can lie.
Personally I wouldn't say "I will vote for you if you do X or Y". Given the current political climate, I would present myself as a republican voter who has doubts "and really, this net neutrality things really makes it hard for me. I don't really see why I should go vote for either side now."
They wont believe someone who pretends they can switch on a single issue but their current fear is that their base won't come on election day.
It's not a one way street, and never has been. Of course, neither is the disregard of what people say that isn't the supported by concrete, substantive action that it engenders.
Off the top of my head I can’t name another issue that has support by majorties of both parties. This is an issue that is most likely to gain sympathy of Republican senators and most likely to result in an instance of the peoples' interest outwaying corporate interests.
Instead of encouragement we have jaquesm here to let us know that you follow American politics pretty closely and we should all concentrate on something else. I do not subscribe to your patronizing attitude.
Are we just supposed to pretend that all issues are equal? People aren't going to die because the nets aren't neutral. People are going to die based on our health care policy, whether we go to war, whether we can prevent nuclear proliferation.
The author of the comment you call patronizing made no statement on whether or not he's happy that people are involved in the political process. I know I'm happy about it, but I also think single issue voting on net neutrality is stupid. These views are not linked.
In summary, net neutrality is important but there are more important issues in America at the moment. It's not patronizing to point that out.
It’s not a big issue for me but I can see why it is for others. People need to get involved and active. I’m not going to discourage anyone from doing this.
There is always a more important issue on the horizon. There’s always some cause that is more important. We don’t all get up in arms over the same things. To me climate change is the most important issue facing humans. I’ll advocate this position but my arrogance is not so great as to belittle someone else's pet cause.
So I’m not going to tell you that health care policy is a stupid issue to get energized about when the climate is changing.
If someone was going to vote on the single issue of whether or not we should make it illegal to have more than 17,000,000 butterflies in a room smaller than 100'x100' I would have no problem telling them that their pet issue is stupid and there are other things they should care about more.
I don't see why that principle shouldn't hold for other issues. Obviously net neutrality is something we should be concerned about but a single issue voter says it's the only thing we should be concerned about. That's just not true.
If we elect a government who reinstates net neutrality and proceeds to immediately launch a nuclear missile at Moscow, will the 20 minutes that half of the US population got to enjoy net neutrality matter?
Thank you for definitively letting me know that
Obviously net neutrality is something we should be concerned about but a single issue voter says it's the only thing we should be concerned about. That's just not true.
Your argument has been convincing. Convincing enough that I'll be sure to consult you on other issues in the penumbra of the hierarchy of human concerns to see if they merit being single voter issue. Perhaps you can make a flier for those of us not in the know.
> Since you think net neutrality is a stupid single voter issue then I suggest it not be one for you.
This argument seems to have finished on the wrong point.
It isn't that net neutrality or any other issues have more or less value (although they intrinsically do -- that's for the individual to decide). Instead it's that single issue voting is severely short-sighted since the very same politician may support several other policies contradicting your own well-being.
Yes the example above is extreme but this is what it attempts to convey.
Yes, it's not true because what you said is wrong. All a single issue voter has said is that single issue determines their vote. They doesn't say that's the only thing "we" should be concerned about. They don't even say that's the only thing they're concerned about.
Voting is not some kind of distilled expression of pure belief or priorities, it's a practical action subject to tactics, strategy, and trade-offs.
Yes, and people are going to die based on our self-driving car policies, our affordable housing policies, our food subsidy policies, our energy policies, our alcohol policies, our gambling policies, our foreign aid policies, etc.
The crippling of the Internet via poor net policies could hamper technologies that ultimately would have saved billions.
You are presumptuous to claim your issues are more important than any of these others.
We know that some people without access to medical care will die. You're saying it's okay to gamble those people's lives on the chance that future lives might be saved. Obviously a balance between spending on research and health care must be struck so this isn't a black and white issue but you would need to put forth a pretty convincing argument that a lack of net neutrality would prevent us from saving billions for me to buy that.
For the record, I do not support single issue voting at all. There is no issue that outweighs the others.
I also think the idea that someone who was going to vote based on a single issue would choose something as trivial as net neutrality is particularly ridiculous when there are so many other issues where life hangs in the balance.
This happens every time a double-blind medical trial takes place.
> as trivial as net neutrality is particularly ridiculous when there are so many other issues where life hangs in the balance.
Trivial to you.
>is particularly ridiculous when there are so many other issues where life hangs in the balance.
If immediacy of life is the sole thing driving your decision behavior, you should quit your job and go help people in developing nations. Some people need to do this. But others also need to focus on longer-term things that promote a better economy that leads to new technologies and surpluses to advance the quality of human life.
That actually sounds like an argument for allowing patients the option of a "fast lane" to their hospital for telemedicine and monitoring with higher priority than Netflix and YouTube.
Probably not very many as a first-order effect, no.
> People are going to die based on our health care policy, whether we go to war, whether we can prevent nuclear proliferation.
And a narrow range of corporations with a fairly tight alignment on policy preferences controlling media access affects long term ability of the public to understand thode issues, organize efforts around them, and achieve positive results.
Which is why a lot wide-view activist organizations that aren't particularly focussed on tech issues have made it a priority, when they do normally focus on the issues you have concerns about make it a priority.
Every issue in the US is one of tremendous privilege. Recognizing that doesn't change anything.
Single issue voters make policy, and this is a case where the small weight of my vote could tip a scale and actually accomplish something.
Plus, I hate our current state of extreme polarization, and I value politicians who have the independence to go against their party. If he'll do that, it's another aspect I'd like to reward.
IMO absolutist stances like this miss the entire point of politics which is to strike compromise in the face of disperate ideologies. Sure the two party system is broken, but the way to make progress is to focus on relevant issues one at a time instead of the entire platform.
The OP is suggesting that he wants to use his vote to encourage a Republican to do the right thing on a very narrow issue. The parent is effectively saying this focuses on a single tree instead of the entire forest. In a two-party system you are effectively voting for the entire platform and not for a single issue, so I have no idea why you consider his critique absolutist.
No, the implication was that you should maximize your agreement with one of the platforms available (two here). One issue voting most likely doesn't do that.
You then treated "reprehensible" as meaning the same thing as "not perfectly aligned".
Your followup treated "reprehensible" as meaning the same thing as "don't agree with everything".
We might agree on some things, but we clearly do not agree about what jacquesm was saying, because I think the original comment was fine.
I understand that some people will choose to minimize negatives while some will choose to advocate for positives when stepping up to the poll. We all agree on this idea and this has nothing to do with whether one person diesagrees with or isn't fully aligned with a platform. (This is where I'm losing your argument which seems to be harping on this idea.)
My meta commentary is that viewing the other side's policies (_some_) as reprehensible distracts from the politics and pushes people towards the minimizing negatives game because it inflates the impact of negatives because of the association of blame that comes with a term like reprehensible. "If you are republican and vote for their reprehensible platform then you are to blame." Now it's not just about disagreement, it's about social justice. And for that reason I prefer, of late, when people focus on advocating for positive change rather than voting against negative change. That is where the semantics do come in.
A response to this point would involve asserting that their policies are indeed reprehensible and we should treat the entire platform in such a way.
I'm not sure what other conclusion someone is supposed to draw. That's how the stereotype you used works. I'm not republican, I don't care. But I do know republicans and I know that calling the platform reprehensible isn't helping anything or changing any minds.
I can excuse it if you were only intending to present an academic example supporting your general point about single issue voting in a two party system. I often do the same and have fallen into the same trap before. But if that was your intention it was lost one me. Maybe work on slightly more finessed phasing to avoid the downvotes in the future?
Everyone in America faces this dilemma, it's the problem with our two party system.
* Two parties
* Candidates to choose from in those parties with slightly different platforms trying to capture appeal based on big-ticket trending issues
* No one person you could possibly agree with on all things unless you are voting for a hardliner and blindly drink the party koolaid
So I mean really, if your vote is all you can offer and you have no hope of getting someone from your preferred party elected, the next best thing is to try to support your preferred candidate.
I mean, so there are two games going on here. The biggest lie is that politicians have convinced the public that they are in the same fight to get their party in control. Except really you have:
* Politicians trying to get their party in control and stay elected
* Citizens trying to get things they care about addressed, improved, whatev
It's the whole "We won't vote for Hillary 'cause Democrats even though we don't like Trump" problem, but it goes both ways..
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.
So when I say they will hear about this, I mean, they actually will. Though I'll write it in a fashion that is more appealing/compelling to them.
And regarding some of the history that may not seem to pertain directly to net neutrality? Look, these companies are saying a lot of things as part of their campaign to kill it. And the historical record demonstrates that, with respect to such statements, they are consistently full of shit -- in a self-serving way.
They are not to be believed. Neither the people shilling the talking points they've been handed by the companies and their lobbyists.
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.
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.
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.
Only 35 Senators are up for reelection this year, I assume you meant the House, not "all of Congress". (Note that all of the House is up for reelection every election term, and it doesn't change very quickly anyways.)
Most sane people will not hinge their vote on Internet politics. Things like healthcare, their views on whether or not killing babies is okay, if it's totally cool to be racist in 2018 or not, etc. will tend to take precedence. As those things should, because those things affect people's lives, not Google and Netflix's bandwidth bills.
Fortunately I can vote for all that by simply not supporting a single party in the US and voting for the other one. As far as I know there is no major party in the US that supports killing babies.
That is the kind of thinking that entrenches the status quo.
Close political fights are worth fighting because there's nothing to be gained by preemptively surrendering.
> Only 35 Senators are up for reelection this year, I assume you meant the House, not "all of Congress". (Note that all of the House is up for reelection every election term, and it doesn't change very quickly anyways.)
Yes, I meant the House. Noted and corrected. The Senate already passed the needed bill, so we're past that hurdle. The Republican caucus is vulnerable next election, many of the gerrymanders probably won't hold and they know it.
> Most sane people will not hinge their vote on Internet politics.
Single issue voters make policy.
Most often, and most significantly, unintentionally, on all the issues they aren't considering when voting.
Because, actually, the policy makers they elect make policy, and and that's true whether or not the one election a single issue voter tips is enough to shift the national balance on the issue of concern.
Or whether the candidate elected on your one issue even bothers voting the way you expect on it, rather than abandoning it.
Single issue voters often don't stick with it long enough for policy makers to worry about betraying them after an election where they issue moves a small but (for reasons particular to the context of that election) decisive segment of the electorate, or if they are sticky then representatives have a strong incentive to keep them onboard with an image that victory is just over the horizon, to hold on to their vote without resolving their issue so as to enable all the other policies the representative is concerned about.
Yes, they won't have as much sway on the issues they aren't campaigning for, but that's a necessary consequence of voting on a single issue.