7 ms·

These sort of things always bother me when I am on the other side. They are just for galvanizing those who already agree. This is the biggest problem in our pol

These sort of things always bother me when I am on the other side. They are just for galvanizing those who already agree. This is the biggest problem in our political discourse, no one ever attempt to have a discussion that changes minds. In this case I am opposed to net neutrality and things like this, the fcc bot comments, and a "study" showing 75% of the electorate "doesn't understand" do nothing but make me want to entrench my beliefs further.

hellogoodbyeeee 9y ago
How are you opposed to net neutrality? All it does is aim to keep anyone from controlling the pipes that connect the internet. My favorite way of thinking about NN is to compare it to toll roads. Without NN, you could end up with a situation where Honda buys a toll road and then charges more for people to drive Toyotas on their road. Or they could reserve the left hand "passing" lane for only people in Hondas. In the same way, Comcast could slow down your connection speeds when you try to connect to Netflix or charge you additionally to connect to Netflix's domain.
- benlorenzetti 9y ago
  Good analogy; I think I can work within it. It is entirely appropriate to limit the speed and size of large trucks (high bandwidth users) on roadways or charge them more. The ISPs need to be able to do this sort of economizing to help maintain everybody's min service guarantees and to a apply market force to the bloating of popular websites. With regard to the censorship argument (only allowing Honda cars), I agree that a democratic government entity needs to have power here as roadways and the fiber under them are natural monopolies (why dig up a street twice?). But it seems fairly clear that the appropriate regulating body is at the size of the city which administers the land on which the distribution network is built--NOT the Feds. No city would allow something like that (only X brand cars allowed) to stand, the FCC is overkill. I think there is a real economic and business case for ISPs discriminating based on bandwidth requirements. You have to throttle streaming and prioritize phone packets because they need stronger latency guarantees. Basically its a market, which suggest the ISPs are going to be doing this, whether its against the rules or not. If you make something so logical against the rules, it basically becomes another "look the other way" law; providing the federal government with a legal club with which to beat companies it is not pleased with, perhaps when an ISP refuses to comply with an inappropriate information request. I am concerned about censorship mostly by the Feds, less so by private utilities, and less still by city halls.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > I am concerned about censorship mostly by the Feds, less so by private utilities, and less still by city halls. It sounds like what you object to is not network neutrality but rather having it imposed at the federal rather than the state level. But there are two major problems with that. The first is that interconnection is inherently interstate. Netflix might have no physical presence in Tennessee at all and reach all customers there through an interconnect in Atlanta. Is Tennessee supposed to regulate commerce in Georgia? If Tennessee and Georgia have conflicting rules, which ones control? This sort of thing is why the interstate commerce clause exists. It's not some fraud where the feds get to regulate intra-state non-commerce because reasons, it's actually black -letter interstate commerce. Which leads to the second problem, which is that there is a thing called preemption. What it means is that the states aren't allowed to regulate something once the feds have already put their bootprints on it. You can argue that the feds should stay out of it entirely -- repeal the Communications Act -- but that isn't what the Republicans are actually doing. > providing the federal government with a legal club with which to beat companies it is not pleased with, perhaps when an ISP refuses to comply with an inappropriate information request. This is not something major ISPs actually do regardless, because they know where their bread is buttered. See also Qwest Communications for what happens if they try to stand up. This is why everyone is focused on end-to-end encryption -- trusting your ISP is foolish. > I think there is a real economic and business case for ISPs discriminating based on bandwidth requirements. The problem with the free market argument is that it's not a free market. Comcast has millions of customers that cannot be reached without going through Comcast. You can't go to Verizon and negotiate better access to Comcast subscribers, and you can't pay for access to Verizon subscribers instead of Comcast subscribers because you need both. Consumer-level ISPs have market power. You either regulate them or they abuse their local monopolies. > I think there is a real economic and business case for ISPs discriminating based on bandwidth requirements. You have to throttle streaming and prioritize phone packets because they need stronger latency guarantees. Endpoints marking packets for QoS has nothing to do with network neutrality. Moreover, in practice most if not all residential ISPs ignore the QoS bits and everything still works anyway, because contention in the core of the network only happens in poorly designed networks that are too oversubscribed.
    - 9y ago
bo1024 9y ago
I see your point on the billboards, but I don't understand why you're lumping that in with the FCC bot comment issue (shouldn't we should call out government agencies when they lie or mislead us?) or the study you mentioned (should we not conduct any studies of people's knowledge/beliefs?).
- benlorenzetti 9y ago
  The majority of the bot posts were opposed to the change in rules. I posted my comments and it is not even possible to find them in the echo chamber without a priori knowing the number. If you actually scrolled through posts you would find my post surrounded on either side by 100+ verbatim copies of the same bot post. My comments: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10522187689085 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10522187689085 On the study, (1) I think the term "net neutrality" was very politically chosen and (2) I think people are more intelligent and act in their own interests more than studies like this give them credit for.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - blackguardx 9y ago
    >>The majority of the bot posts were opposed to the change in rules. I thought it was the opposite. People even traced down the anti-net neutrality bots to be from mostly one organization. Also, I read your comment. It was well constructed, but I would say that the FCC does not profit from wireless spectrum auctions. The auctions exist to ensure the spectrum owner has a vested interest in using the spectrum in a utility maximizing way.
    - benlorenzetti 9y ago
      Thanks for reading you might be the first! I condemn the bots on both sides. They are both trying to galvanize their base rather than facilitate a discussion. The FCC does profit. But its not like they are stealing that money, they literally create value out of thin air by being the authority that says you are not allowed to interfere with others' spectrum space. But the profit is undisputable, see https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-rakes-in-45-billion-from-wireless-spectrum-auction/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-rakes-in-45-billion-from-wirel... The Federal Reserve does the same thing.
rasz 9y ago
So you are willingly voting corrupt politicians, and pointing corruption only makes you prouder of your choices? mmkay.
- benlorenzetti 9y ago
  Even if one were to assume that most politicians were corrupt, then still you vote for those who corruptly favor the policies you prefer. While I wish there were less money in politics, I do not agree with the premise that a moneyed cause is necessarily a bad cause.
jackmott 9y ago
the politicians were paid to oppose net neutrality, there is no conversation to be had with them. All we can try to do is make it not worth the money they have been brided with to do this bad thing.
- benlorenzetti 9y ago
  I wish there were less money in politics and no one likes backdoor schmoozing. But I have more faith in our elected officials character, in general. I think most politicians aren't being bought, they are just accepting money from people they already agreed with.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    It's also hard to blame a politician in Tennessee for lobbying for policies favored by companies that have tens of thousands of unionized employees in her state, over opposition from California companies that employ almost nobody in her state.
    - benlorenzetti 9y ago
      This is a good point to. People may disagree and say that a representative should get elected on their beliefs and then follow them truly, unhypocritically. Or that elected representatives have a job description to maximize benefit to their constituents. Its both I suppose.
Balgair 9y ago
> no one ever attempt to have a discussion that changes minds. Ok, so, let's do it (maybe). Are you in Denver? Let's have a beer. More than likely, you aren't here. Still, try https://www.meetup.com/ https://www.meetup.com/ and try going to a meetup of a different echo-chamber-y-thingy. They only way through this mess of politics is words, a lot of them. Better than bullets, I figure. Also, anyone that wants to have a beer in Denver and talk (about anything, really, I'm not picky), lets try and set up a meet-up somewhere.
- benlorenzetti 9y ago
  Hi Balgair, sorry your comment got lost in my stream but this is a good suggestion. I am in the Cincinnati area.

hellogoodbyeeee 9y ago

How are you opposed to net neutrality? All it does is aim to keep anyone from controlling the pipes that connect the internet. My favorite way of thinking about NN is to compare it to toll roads. Without NN, you could end up with a situation where Honda buys a toll road and then charges more for people to drive Toyotas on their road. Or they could reserve the left hand "passing" lane for only people in Hondas. In the same way, Comcast could slow down your connection speeds when you try to connect to Netflix or charge you additionally to connect to Netflix's domain.

benlorenzetti 9y ago
Good analogy; I think I can work within it. It is entirely appropriate to limit the speed and size of large trucks (high bandwidth users) on roadways or charge them more. The ISPs need to be able to do this sort of economizing to help maintain everybody's min service guarantees and to a apply market force to the bloating of popular websites. With regard to the censorship argument (only allowing Honda cars), I agree that a democratic government entity needs to have power here as roadways and the fiber under them are natural monopolies (why dig up a street twice?). But it seems fairly clear that the appropriate regulating body is at the size of the city which administers the land on which the distribution network is built--NOT the Feds. No city would allow something like that (only X brand cars allowed) to stand, the FCC is overkill. I think there is a real economic and business case for ISPs discriminating based on bandwidth requirements. You have to throttle streaming and prioritize phone packets because they need stronger latency guarantees. Basically its a market, which suggest the ISPs are going to be doing this, whether its against the rules or not. If you make something so logical against the rules, it basically becomes another "look the other way" law; providing the federal government with a legal club with which to beat companies it is not pleased with, perhaps when an ISP refuses to comply with an inappropriate information request. I am concerned about censorship mostly by the Feds, less so by private utilities, and less still by city halls.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > I am concerned about censorship mostly by the Feds, less so by private utilities, and less still by city halls. It sounds like what you object to is not network neutrality but rather having it imposed at the federal rather than the state level. But there are two major problems with that. The first is that interconnection is inherently interstate. Netflix might have no physical presence in Tennessee at all and reach all customers there through an interconnect in Atlanta. Is Tennessee supposed to regulate commerce in Georgia? If Tennessee and Georgia have conflicting rules, which ones control? This sort of thing is why the interstate commerce clause exists. It's not some fraud where the feds get to regulate intra-state non-commerce because reasons, it's actually black -letter interstate commerce. Which leads to the second problem, which is that there is a thing called preemption. What it means is that the states aren't allowed to regulate something once the feds have already put their bootprints on it. You can argue that the feds should stay out of it entirely -- repeal the Communications Act -- but that isn't what the Republicans are actually doing. > providing the federal government with a legal club with which to beat companies it is not pleased with, perhaps when an ISP refuses to comply with an inappropriate information request. This is not something major ISPs actually do regardless, because they know where their bread is buttered. See also Qwest Communications for what happens if they try to stand up. This is why everyone is focused on end-to-end encryption -- trusting your ISP is foolish. > I think there is a real economic and business case for ISPs discriminating based on bandwidth requirements. The problem with the free market argument is that it's not a free market. Comcast has millions of customers that cannot be reached without going through Comcast. You can't go to Verizon and negotiate better access to Comcast subscribers, and you can't pay for access to Verizon subscribers instead of Comcast subscribers because you need both. Consumer-level ISPs have market power. You either regulate them or they abuse their local monopolies. > I think there is a real economic and business case for ISPs discriminating based on bandwidth requirements. You have to throttle streaming and prioritize phone packets because they need stronger latency guarantees. Endpoints marking packets for QoS has nothing to do with network neutrality. Moreover, in practice most if not all residential ISPs ignore the QoS bits and everything still works anyway, because contention in the core of the network only happens in poorly designed networks that are too oversubscribed.
  - 9y ago

bo1024 9y ago

I see your point on the billboards, but I don't understand why you're lumping that in with the FCC bot comment issue (shouldn't we should call out government agencies when they lie or mislead us?) or the study you mentioned (should we not conduct any studies of people's knowledge/beliefs?).

benlorenzetti 9y ago
The majority of the bot posts were opposed to the change in rules. I posted my comments and it is not even possible to find them in the echo chamber without a priori knowing the number. If you actually scrolled through posts you would find my post surrounded on either side by 100+ verbatim copies of the same bot post. My comments: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10522187689085 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10522187689085 On the study, (1) I think the term "net neutrality" was very politically chosen and (2) I think people are more intelligent and act in their own interests more than studies like this give them credit for.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- blackguardx 9y ago
  >>The majority of the bot posts were opposed to the change in rules. I thought it was the opposite. People even traced down the anti-net neutrality bots to be from mostly one organization. Also, I read your comment. It was well constructed, but I would say that the FCC does not profit from wireless spectrum auctions. The auctions exist to ensure the spectrum owner has a vested interest in using the spectrum in a utility maximizing way.
  - benlorenzetti 9y ago
    Thanks for reading you might be the first! I condemn the bots on both sides. They are both trying to galvanize their base rather than facilitate a discussion. The FCC does profit. But its not like they are stealing that money, they literally create value out of thin air by being the authority that says you are not allowed to interfere with others' spectrum space. But the profit is undisputable, see https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-rakes-in-45-billion-from-wireless-spectrum-auction/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-rakes-in-45-billion-from-wirel... The Federal Reserve does the same thing.

rasz 9y ago

So you are willingly voting corrupt politicians, and pointing corruption only makes you prouder of your choices? mmkay.

benlorenzetti 9y ago
Even if one were to assume that most politicians were corrupt, then still you vote for those who corruptly favor the policies you prefer. While I wish there were less money in politics, I do not agree with the premise that a moneyed cause is necessarily a bad cause.

jackmott 9y ago

the politicians were paid to oppose net neutrality, there is no conversation to be had with them. All we can try to do is make it not worth the money they have been brided with to do this bad thing.

benlorenzetti 9y ago
I wish there were less money in politics and no one likes backdoor schmoozing. But I have more faith in our elected officials character, in general. I think most politicians aren't being bought, they are just accepting money from people they already agreed with.
- rayiner 9y ago
  It's also hard to blame a politician in Tennessee for lobbying for policies favored by companies that have tens of thousands of unionized employees in her state, over opposition from California companies that employ almost nobody in her state.
  - benlorenzetti 9y ago
    This is a good point to. People may disagree and say that a representative should get elected on their beliefs and then follow them truly, unhypocritically. Or that elected representatives have a job description to maximize benefit to their constituents. Its both I suppose.

Balgair 9y ago

> no one ever attempt to have a discussion that changes minds. Ok, so, let's do it (maybe). Are you in Denver? Let's have a beer. More than likely, you aren't here. Still, try https://www.meetup.com/ https://www.meetup.com/ and try going to a meetup of a different echo-chamber-y-thingy. They only way through this mess of politics is words, a lot of them. Better than bullets, I figure. Also, anyone that wants to have a beer in Denver and talk (about anything, really, I'm not picky), lets try and set up a meet-up somewhere.

benlorenzetti 9y ago
Hi Balgair, sorry your comment got lost in my stream but this is a good suggestion. I am in the Cincinnati area.