8 ms·

House Passes Bill to Sabotage Net Neutrality

313 points by finnn 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ageek123 11y ago
The headline is a huge overstatement relative to what the press release says, which itself is scaremongering relative to what the bill itself says.
- 542458 11y ago
  I don't know about that - The legal criticisms of it are pretty severe, and it's bad enough that the president has promised to veto it if it comes to his desk. EDIT: Engadget's review is much more damning. It would pretty much remove any enforcement power the FCC has re: net neutrality. It's a pretty big deal. http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/13/president-veto-hr-2666-bill/ http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/13/president-veto-hr-2666-bi...
  - themartorana 11y ago
    If the police are in your way, remove the police.
- criley2 11y ago
  >s, which itself is scaremongering relative to what the bill itself says I hate that valid criticism of a bills effects as described by lawyers and legal experts is trashed as "scaremongering". It's not scaremongering and just because the bill appears benign to your laymans eyes does not mean it is in fact benign in a court or regulators eyes.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Legal analysis can be in an academic context or an advocacy context. When a lawyer is advocating for a client, he's giving the most one-sided presentation that he can make in good faith. The EFF's analysis is generally of the advocacy sort. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's important to recognize that.
    - SEMW 11y ago
      > When a lawyer is advocating for a client, he's giving the most one-sided presentation that he can make in good faith. I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. While the context isn't academic legal analysis, the EFF has no reason to advocate against the bill unless they sincerely believe it to be bad, based on the legal advice they've been given.
      - tacos 11y ago
        Any activist organization that accepts donations has a motivation to keep their name in the news. And all of these types of organizations overstep on occasion. In this case I found the EFF to be on point whereas the Engadget article reads like a BoingBoing post on a bender.
        themartorana 11y ago
        Might be because the thought of a consumer ISP being paid from all sides and deciding for you what is important on the Internet is terrifying and really, really is the end of the Internet as we know and love it.
        tacos 11y ago
        When a "terrifying" bill that "really is the end of the Internet as we know and love it" generates a whopping total of 60 comments on HN, then you've made my point for me. I'm not blaming the EFF; I'm not saying Citizens shouldn't rise up. I'm stating that the EFF needs to find an alternate strategy because constantly crying wolf fatigues even their most hardcore audience.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        That's not the point. A lawyer advocating for a client will often genuinely believe in their cause. They're still advocating. Unlike an academic article, the lawyer's brief will be entirely one-sided; the lawyer will leave out valid, well-supported arguments that don't strengthen their case.
    - 11y ago
tacos 11y ago
The EFF really needs to spend their bullets more carefully. And instead of these panicked press releases in response to the normal machinations of government, perhaps find a way to get their opinions heard and words inked while the bills are being drafted. Their only tool has been a hammer for decades now. And it's wearing thin. You can't kill every bill just because something is poorly worded -- even if you scare smarty/lefty internet people into believing the whole point is the worst possible construction. Frankly, we don't have that much power. Time to build up the rest of the toolbox.
- readymade 11y ago
  If the President is vowing to veto it, you can probably rest assured it's more than just "normal machinations of the government", as long as that implies "nothing to be concerned about".
  - tacos 11y ago
    Pro tip: when someone makes a comment that's structured in the argument/persuasion form, you can look to the final sentence for something to riff on if you feel obliged to comment. Is there enough Senate support to override a veto? If not, then who gives a damn. This is already done. If yes, then why is Engadget asking me to contact my Representative instead of my Senator? This is clickbait-gone-amok with the usual I-didn't-pay-attention-in-high-school-civics class. The intent of the bill is clear. Frankly a Judge can rule either way if it were litigated anyway. Why don't we do the work toward cleaning this stuff up instead of just taking the most extreme negative position and killing things? Setting up a pressure cooker via gridlock is not going to produce a satisfactory outcome.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - lukeschlather 11y ago
      Contacting your representative might change their view. However, it will definitely make sure you are aware of their view, and remember it when they're up for reelection. The latter is valuable even when you can't affect the outcome.
jimrandomh 11y ago
Some clarity is badly needed here. If you don't know some fairly arcane details of what's going on in Internet regulation, this looks as though it just prevents the FCC from setting price floors and price ceilings, which would be fine. What's actually going on is fairly complicated, because there are five different parties involved: the consumer, a consumer ISP such as Verizon or Comcast, a backbone provider such as Cogent or Level 3, a business ISP such as Linode or AWS, and a business with a web site. The wires look like this: Consumer --- Consumer-ISP --- Backbone-provider --- Business-ISP --- Website And the flow of money looks like this: Consumer --> Consumer-ISP --> Backbone-provider <-- Business-ISP <-- Website For each connection, there is someone paying money who can take their money elsewhere if that connection is too slow. What's happening is that some consumer ISPs aren't happy with only being paid by consumers, and want websites to also pay them. That would make the flow of money look like this: Consumer --> Consumer-ISP --> Backbone-provider <-- Business-ISP <-- Website ^_____________________________________________________| The problem is that this arrangement would have businesses paying money to ISPs that they didn't choose, and can't walk away from. From a consumer's perspective, if a web site is slow, it looks like the website's fault rather than their ISP's fault, which distorts the incentives. This sort of arrangement isn't really compatible with free-market incentives, since the flow of money doesn't match who's providing services to who; it's less like normal business, and more like extortion. Unfortunately, I don't expect Congress to have access to clear explanations of all of this. But if you happen to have a congressperson's ear: rather than convince them of a position, please make sure they understand the full shape of what's happening. They're smart enough to draw the correct conclusion, but are constantly bombarded by misinformation.
- dv_dt 11y ago
  I think this is a very nice explanation that gets to the heart one of the key net neutrality issues. I would quibble with the statement "For each connection, there is someone paying money who can take their money elsewhere if that connection is too slow." There is one person in that lineup who often can't put their money elsewhere if the connection is slow, and that's the consumer. This is the main reason that the Consumer-ISP is in the economic position to demand payment for passage through the monopoly gateway to the consumer. If the consumer could chose other access options then Consumer-ISP isn't going to be able to demand extra payment for passage.
nxzero 11y ago
TLDR >> "a bill that would undermine the FCC’s ability to enforce key net neutrality protections." "Fortunately, President Obama has said that he will veto the bill if it reaches his desk."
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Fice 11y ago
Removing net neutrality is like allowing supermarkets to buy separate lanes on crowded city roads exclusively for use by their customers.
tzs 11y ago
Vote breakdown by party (D = Democrat, R = Republican): R D Yes 236 5 No 0 173 Not Voting 9 10 The 5 Democrats who voted yes were Kyrsten Sinema (AZ 9th), Jim Costa (CA 16th), Scott Peters (CA 52nd), Collin Peterson (MN 7th), and Albio Sires (NJ 8th).
cladari 11y ago
I'm old enough to remember land line phones in your house. The caller payed for the call not the person who received the call. With cell phones they managed to convince us both parties should pay money for the call and we are used to that, it's the new normal. ISPs now want the same double billing, they want both parties money and see no reason why they can't have it. They want me to pay to receive the data and the site to pay to send that same data.
cladari 11y ago
I'm old enough to remember land line phones in your house. The caller payed for the call not the person who received the call. With cell phones they managed to convince us both parties should pay money for the call and we are used to that, it's the new normal. ISPs now want the same double billing, they want both parties money and see no reason why they can't have it. They want me to pay to receive the data and the site to pay to send that same data.

313 points by finnn 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

The headline is a huge overstatement relative to what the press release says, which itself is scaremongering relative to what the bill itself says.

542458 11y ago
I don't know about that - The legal criticisms of it are pretty severe, and it's bad enough that the president has promised to veto it if it comes to his desk. EDIT: Engadget's review is much more damning. It would pretty much remove any enforcement power the FCC has re: net neutrality. It's a pretty big deal. http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/13/president-veto-hr-2666-bill/ http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/13/president-veto-hr-2666-bi...
- themartorana 11y ago
  If the police are in your way, remove the police.
criley2 11y ago
>s, which itself is scaremongering relative to what the bill itself says I hate that valid criticism of a bills effects as described by lawyers and legal experts is trashed as "scaremongering". It's not scaremongering and just because the bill appears benign to your laymans eyes does not mean it is in fact benign in a court or regulators eyes.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Legal analysis can be in an academic context or an advocacy context. When a lawyer is advocating for a client, he's giving the most one-sided presentation that he can make in good faith. The EFF's analysis is generally of the advocacy sort. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's important to recognize that.
  - SEMW 11y ago
    > When a lawyer is advocating for a client, he's giving the most one-sided presentation that he can make in good faith. I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. While the context isn't academic legal analysis, the EFF has no reason to advocate against the bill unless they sincerely believe it to be bad, based on the legal advice they've been given.
    - tacos 11y ago
      Any activist organization that accepts donations has a motivation to keep their name in the news. And all of these types of organizations overstep on occasion. In this case I found the EFF to be on point whereas the Engadget article reads like a BoingBoing post on a bender.
      - themartorana 11y ago
        Might be because the thought of a consumer ISP being paid from all sides and deciding for you what is important on the Internet is terrifying and really, really is the end of the Internet as we know and love it.
        tacos 11y ago
        When a "terrifying" bill that "really is the end of the Internet as we know and love it" generates a whopping total of 60 comments on HN, then you've made my point for me. I'm not blaming the EFF; I'm not saying Citizens shouldn't rise up. I'm stating that the EFF needs to find an alternate strategy because constantly crying wolf fatigues even their most hardcore audience.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      That's not the point. A lawyer advocating for a client will often genuinely believe in their cause. They're still advocating. Unlike an academic article, the lawyer's brief will be entirely one-sided; the lawyer will leave out valid, well-supported arguments that don't strengthen their case.
  - 11y ago

tacos 11y ago

The EFF really needs to spend their bullets more carefully. And instead of these panicked press releases in response to the normal machinations of government, perhaps find a way to get their opinions heard and words inked while the bills are being drafted. Their only tool has been a hammer for decades now. And it's wearing thin. You can't kill every bill just because something is poorly worded -- even if you scare smarty/lefty internet people into believing the whole point is the worst possible construction. Frankly, we don't have that much power. Time to build up the rest of the toolbox.

readymade 11y ago
If the President is vowing to veto it, you can probably rest assured it's more than just "normal machinations of the government", as long as that implies "nothing to be concerned about".
- tacos 11y ago
  Pro tip: when someone makes a comment that's structured in the argument/persuasion form, you can look to the final sentence for something to riff on if you feel obliged to comment. Is there enough Senate support to override a veto? If not, then who gives a damn. This is already done. If yes, then why is Engadget asking me to contact my Representative instead of my Senator? This is clickbait-gone-amok with the usual I-didn't-pay-attention-in-high-school-civics class. The intent of the bill is clear. Frankly a Judge can rule either way if it were litigated anyway. Why don't we do the work toward cleaning this stuff up instead of just taking the most extreme negative position and killing things? Setting up a pressure cooker via gridlock is not going to produce a satisfactory outcome.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - lukeschlather 11y ago
    Contacting your representative might change their view. However, it will definitely make sure you are aware of their view, and remember it when they're up for reelection. The latter is valuable even when you can't affect the outcome.

jimrandomh 11y ago

Some clarity is badly needed here. If you don't know some fairly arcane details of what's going on in Internet regulation, this looks as though it just prevents the FCC from setting price floors and price ceilings, which would be fine. What's actually going on is fairly complicated, because there are five different parties involved: the consumer, a consumer ISP such as Verizon or Comcast, a backbone provider such as Cogent or Level 3, a business ISP such as Linode or AWS, and a business with a web site. The wires look like this: Consumer --- Consumer-ISP --- Backbone-provider --- Business-ISP --- Website And the flow of money looks like this: Consumer --> Consumer-ISP --> Backbone-provider <-- Business-ISP <-- Website For each connection, there is someone paying money who can take their money elsewhere if that connection is too slow. What's happening is that some consumer ISPs aren't happy with only being paid by consumers, and want websites to also pay them. That would make the flow of money look like this: Consumer --> Consumer-ISP --> Backbone-provider <-- Business-ISP <-- Website ^_____________________________________________________| The problem is that this arrangement would have businesses paying money to ISPs that they didn't choose, and can't walk away from. From a consumer's perspective, if a web site is slow, it looks like the website's fault rather than their ISP's fault, which distorts the incentives. This sort of arrangement isn't really compatible with free-market incentives, since the flow of money doesn't match who's providing services to who; it's less like normal business, and more like extortion. Unfortunately, I don't expect Congress to have access to clear explanations of all of this. But if you happen to have a congressperson's ear: rather than convince them of a position, please make sure they understand the full shape of what's happening. They're smart enough to draw the correct conclusion, but are constantly bombarded by misinformation.

dv_dt 11y ago
I think this is a very nice explanation that gets to the heart one of the key net neutrality issues. I would quibble with the statement "For each connection, there is someone paying money who can take their money elsewhere if that connection is too slow." There is one person in that lineup who often can't put their money elsewhere if the connection is slow, and that's the consumer. This is the main reason that the Consumer-ISP is in the economic position to demand payment for passage through the monopoly gateway to the consumer. If the consumer could chose other access options then Consumer-ISP isn't going to be able to demand extra payment for passage.

nxzero 11y ago

TLDR >> "a bill that would undermine the FCC’s ability to enforce key net neutrality protections." "Fortunately, President Obama has said that he will veto the bill if it reaches his desk."

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Fice 11y ago

Removing net neutrality is like allowing supermarkets to buy separate lanes on crowded city roads exclusively for use by their customers.

tzs 11y ago

Vote breakdown by party (D = Democrat, R = Republican): R D Yes 236 5 No 0 173 Not Voting 9 10 The 5 Democrats who voted yes were Kyrsten Sinema (AZ 9th), Jim Costa (CA 16th), Scott Peters (CA 52nd), Collin Peterson (MN 7th), and Albio Sires (NJ 8th).

cladari 11y ago

I'm old enough to remember land line phones in your house. The caller payed for the call not the person who received the call. With cell phones they managed to convince us both parties should pay money for the call and we are used to that, it's the new normal. ISPs now want the same double billing, they want both parties money and see no reason why they can't have it. They want me to pay to receive the data and the site to pay to send that same data.

cladari 11y ago