3 ms·

Doesn't surprise me at all - the level of energy in the most recent protests around the repeal was optically quite a bit lower than previous efforts. We were b

Doesn't surprise me at all - the level of energy in the most recent protests around the repeal was optically quite a bit lower than previous efforts. We were basically warned this would happen too, that Net Neutrality opponents just keep beating the drum until the general population got tired of resisting.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
I'd argue that at this point, the protests are arguably irrelevant. Ajit Pai has made his position clear, he has no intention of changing it. With a Republican Presidency, the FCC has a Republican majority, and votes on party lines. The only alternate path to this issue is Congress, which is also Republican. No Congressmen cares strongly enough about net neutrality (it's not an issue that's going to lose them reelection) to risk breaking the party line over. In short, submitting comments to the FCC or protesting is nearly completely irrelevant because Ajit Pai is gonna be Ajit Pai. I think there's a less than 1% chance that the Open Internet Order is not revoked.
- SkyMarshal 9y ago
  Everything you say is true, but the protests and public comments need to happen anyway, for the record, since the current regime won't be in power forever.
austincheney 9y ago
It is a balance of ignorance. I really do believe most people don't know and don't care about net neutrality no matter how beneficial it may be to them in the most immediate sense. At its core the net neutrality debate is a fight between media providers and transmission. It is clear to most tech literate people that net neutrality is a very good thing. Less clear is that media (including privacy) regulation is also a good thing. The transmission side of the argument is clearly in the camp of the Republicans (as noted by campaign contributions) while the media companies (think social media and online advertising) is clearly in the camp of the Democrats (as noted by campaign contributions). The primary weapon in matters of media versus transmission is ignorance of the issue at hand. The media side has very powerful weapons in that they control the content. If they fear regulation coming they can provide content to bolster their users. Think back to the SOPA legislation. These companies are largely unregulated and nothing scares them more than regulation. The transmission side just has to be persistent to win their argument and hope they can hang on long enough to out last the patience and technical understanding of the public. This strategy has won wars and can easily win political arguments. The transmission side of the argument is also fearful of regulation, but these guys have to walk a fine line. If they can dodge regulation because regulators are more interested in limiting online media then so be it, but this isn't the ideal outcome for these guys. Ideally the transmission companies would like a slice of that unregulated online media revenue, but it only makes sense if both media AND transmission remains loosely (at best) regulated. This requires a lot of careful political maneuvering and not upsetting political constituents.
- mobilefriendly 9y ago
  Fact is, Democrats get majority of telecom dollars https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B09 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B09
  - austincheney 9y ago
    I wonder how that differs with this more recent data: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp...
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    I tend to not worry too much about situations where politicians take people's money and then say "FU" when those people ask for favors. (Which isn't always that case with democrats and NN, of course, just saying...)
twblalock 9y ago
> We were basically warned this would happen too, that Net Neutrality opponents just keep beating the drum until the general population got tired of resisting. The general population never resisted, because they were never really participants in the conversation. Most of the net neutrality activism happened within the bubble of people who work in or care deeply about tech. I don't know very many people in the general public who had heard the term "net neutrality" before I mentioned it to them, and I live in Silicon Valley, so I would expect the general public here to be a bit more technology-inclined than in the rest of the country. This should be a wake up call to proponents of net neutrality -- better marketing and communication with the general public is going to be needed.
- seanp2k2 9y ago
  It's hard to fight with lawyers who have the full-time job of doing things like repealing net neutrality. This is even more true when they don't care about public opinion, have strong industry ties, and literally run the FCC.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

I'd argue that at this point, the protests are arguably irrelevant. Ajit Pai has made his position clear, he has no intention of changing it. With a Republican Presidency, the FCC has a Republican majority, and votes on party lines. The only alternate path to this issue is Congress, which is also Republican. No Congressmen cares strongly enough about net neutrality (it's not an issue that's going to lose them reelection) to risk breaking the party line over. In short, submitting comments to the FCC or protesting is nearly completely irrelevant because Ajit Pai is gonna be Ajit Pai. I think there's a less than 1% chance that the Open Internet Order is not revoked.

SkyMarshal 9y ago
Everything you say is true, but the protests and public comments need to happen anyway, for the record, since the current regime won't be in power forever.

austincheney 9y ago

It is a balance of ignorance. I really do believe most people don't know and don't care about net neutrality no matter how beneficial it may be to them in the most immediate sense. At its core the net neutrality debate is a fight between media providers and transmission. It is clear to most tech literate people that net neutrality is a very good thing. Less clear is that media (including privacy) regulation is also a good thing. The transmission side of the argument is clearly in the camp of the Republicans (as noted by campaign contributions) while the media companies (think social media and online advertising) is clearly in the camp of the Democrats (as noted by campaign contributions). The primary weapon in matters of media versus transmission is ignorance of the issue at hand. The media side has very powerful weapons in that they control the content. If they fear regulation coming they can provide content to bolster their users. Think back to the SOPA legislation. These companies are largely unregulated and nothing scares them more than regulation. The transmission side just has to be persistent to win their argument and hope they can hang on long enough to out last the patience and technical understanding of the public. This strategy has won wars and can easily win political arguments. The transmission side of the argument is also fearful of regulation, but these guys have to walk a fine line. If they can dodge regulation because regulators are more interested in limiting online media then so be it, but this isn't the ideal outcome for these guys. Ideally the transmission companies would like a slice of that unregulated online media revenue, but it only makes sense if both media AND transmission remains loosely (at best) regulated. This requires a lot of careful political maneuvering and not upsetting political constituents.

mobilefriendly 9y ago
Fact is, Democrats get majority of telecom dollars https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B09 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B09
- austincheney 9y ago
  I wonder how that differs with this more recent data: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp...
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  I tend to not worry too much about situations where politicians take people's money and then say "FU" when those people ask for favors. (Which isn't always that case with democrats and NN, of course, just saying...)

twblalock 9y ago

> We were basically warned this would happen too, that Net Neutrality opponents just keep beating the drum until the general population got tired of resisting. The general population never resisted, because they were never really participants in the conversation. Most of the net neutrality activism happened within the bubble of people who work in or care deeply about tech. I don't know very many people in the general public who had heard the term "net neutrality" before I mentioned it to them, and I live in Silicon Valley, so I would expect the general public here to be a bit more technology-inclined than in the rest of the country. This should be a wake up call to proponents of net neutrality -- better marketing and communication with the general public is going to be needed.

seanp2k2 9y ago
It's hard to fight with lawyers who have the full-time job of doing things like repealing net neutrality. This is even more true when they don't care about public opinion, have strong industry ties, and literally run the FCC.