10 ms·

This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. Congress ultimately directly serve at the pleasure of their constituents, unlike t

This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. Congress ultimately directly serve at the pleasure of their constituents, unlike the FCC commissioners. Point being, the time leading up to this vote is probably be the best time to let your congress members know your opinion on NN. Do not let the "failure"[1] of previous efforts to get congress to act in defense of NN dissuade you from future action, particularly now: It is far easier for a politician to take no action (as they could when the FCC was ones doing the voting) than to actively vote against the wishes of their constituents. --- [1] Failure in scare quotes since it seems likely part of the reason NN is still a topic being actively fought for in congress, in the courts, and at a state level is because there is a large amount of vocal support for it.

Kequc 9y ago
Why don't Democrats pass NN through congress and get it enshrined into law? Instead of trying to block that from happening, since it's Republicans who are trying to do that. Why was NN so easy to repeal in the first place? Why didn't Obama do a proper job if it's such an important issue? I still don't agree with the accepted wisdom about what NN is in the first place. Seems to me to suggest companies that are using up a lot of bandwidth are going to start paying more, competitors are going to start paying less. Which is why every single large company is opposed to the change.
- lukeschlather 9y ago
  No. Companies that are using lots of bandwidth will get bulk rates, or negotiate sweetheart zero-rating deals. Upstart companies with spikes in usage may be killed because they can't get the bandwidth they need at the same low rates the incumbent players get.
- landryraccoon 9y ago
  > Why didn't Obama do a proper job if it's such an important issue? To be clear, you're trying to blame Obama for something the Republican controlled Congress was responsible for? Obama wasn't a dictator; Congress decides what laws to pass and Congress wasn't exactly in favor of just about anything Obama wanted to do. Also I think you're misunderstanding what Net Neutrality is about. Net Neutrality doesn't say that everyone pays the same regardless of what bandwidth they use - ISPs are free to charge more for more bandwidth usage. Net Neutrality says that ISPs can't rate discriminate based on the type of data shared. NN means that Comcast can't charge more for packets coming from foxnews.com as opposed to msnbc.com, but it doesn't say that they can't charge an end user that uses 5 GB more than one that uses 1 GB.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    >To be clear, you're trying to blame Obama for something the Republican controlled Congress was responsible for? No, he's blaming Obama for something the Democrat controlled Congress was responsible for. It was an important enough issue for him to cosponsor a bill while a senator, but while in control they let a bill die without debate.
    - landryraccoon 9y ago
      So I assume you are in support of Net Neutrality? Wouldn’t the correct thing to do in that case be to support politicians that are in favor of it, and oppose politicians that are against it? Obama could have done better, but I am satisfied that he did more than any other president, before or since, to establish Net Neutrality. I don't think it's productive to assign blame in situations where a politician helped, but didn't help enough by some arbitrary standard, especially in an adversarial political system like ours where the alternative is politicians that actively are trying to cause harm.
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        The correct thing to do is to support politicians who work to ensure net neutrality. That does not describe the Democrats, at best they worked to ensure the courts would decide the fate of net neutrality.
        root_axis 9y ago
        > The correct thing to do is to support politicians who work to ensure net neutrality. I agree... we should support politicians based on their policies not based on their party, but it just so happens that the republican party is ideologically opposed to net-neutrality while the democratic party is, at a minimum, friendly towards the notion of net-neutrality, so democrats are really the only option if net-neutrality is your issue.
        boomboomsubban 9y ago
- awalton 9y ago
  > Why didn't Obama do a proper job if it's such an important issue? Obama was president while the Republicans held the legislature hostage. It was a miracle his administration was able to ask for and get any legislation passed at all; it was easily the most obstructionist congress ever. He couldn't even appoint a Supreme Court Justice because Mitch McConnell wouldn't allow congress to hold hearings - that's how impossible a situation he was in. Obama did exactly as much as he was able to do with the powers he had. He wasn't about to try the kinds of stunts our current president thinks he can. And speaking frankly, as a black person, I don't think he even could have tried to pull these kinds of stunts - he would have been impeached and booted, as any President pulling these kinds of fascist, dictatorial moves should be.
  - chrchang523 9y ago
    The Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in 2009-2010. Anything Obama and other Democrats thought was really important could have been forced through then. (Indeed, they did force a major health care reform bill through with zero Republican support, mirroring how a major tax reform bill was forced through with zero Democrat support a few weeks ago.)
    - ComradeTaco 9y ago
      The Democrats observed the regular order of the Senate, hosted 5 bipartisan meetings and finished the bill so it could actually be analyzed and read before being passed [1]. The republicans didn't bother with any bipartisan meetings and passed it within the same week of finishing writing it. And they broke the regular order of the senate to do it. In any case, the two year period between 2009 and 2010 was spent almost entirely on the economy. Which given how strong the Obama-era recovery was, seems to be have been time well spent. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/10/us/republican-health-care-process.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/10/us/republican...
  - bruno22237 9y ago
    (Another Black person here) I feel like he and Congress dems could have achieved far more, and shouldn't get this automatic excuse. I firmly believe that, if he and the Dems had cleanly articulated the things they would do were they not 'held hostage', they would have won far more elections!
- lurr 9y ago
  > Instead of trying to block that from happening, since it's Republicans who are trying to do that. They are? Which bills?
  - Kequc 9y ago
    The Open Internet Preservation Act (Dec 2017) https://freedomoutpost.com/open-internet-preservation-act-seeks-stop-internet-censorship-promote-free-flow-information/ https://freedomoutpost.com/open-internet-preservation-act-se... http://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NN_02_xml.pdf http://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NN_02_xml....
    - kadenshep 9y ago
      You do realize those bills are more bark than bite right? In typical fashion, the right+ in this country wants to act like it's doing something good while still being subservient to the worst parts of our society. Seriously just fucking read them. What a complete joke. >Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of broadband internet access service providers to offer specialized services. Oh okay. Let's read (2) >(2) PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PRACTICES.—Specialized services may not be offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service or that have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section. NEAT. What is meaningful availability? Oh and I like how the same party is seeking to greatly increase the scope of what defines "broadband" (i.e., they're lowering standards). The right+ in this country is literally our biggest threat to a prosperous and secure existence. Always dishonest, always disingenuous, always harmful, and always a complete waste of time. Healthcare, the economy, and general social policies. I'm so tired of dealing with this crap.
- kadenshep 9y ago
  > Instead of trying to block that from happening, since it's Republicans who are trying to do that. We call this a lie.
- mankash666 9y ago
  LOL - you're obviously joking right? You seem to be stating as fact a fictitious opinion perpetrated by the far right press. Oh, and Obama wasn't born in Kenya
  - sctb 9y ago
    No matter what you're replying to, comments like this just make it worse. Please post civilly and substantively. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Why don't Democrats pass NN through congress and get it enshrined into law? Because Republicans (and some Democrats, too) have consistently opposed that when it was a legislative issue, and Republicans currently have a majority, preventing Democrats from passing, well, anything without their support. > Instead of trying to block that from happening, since it's Republicans who are trying to do that. The Republican bill would explicitly allow paid prioritization and other practices that are contrary to net neutrality, and would prohibit stronger state protections of net neutrality. It is therefore a bill to prevent rather than protect neutrality. > Why was NN so easy to repeal in the first place? Because Republicans prevented a legislative solution, repeatedly. > Why didn't Obama do a proper job if it's such an important issue? Because the US President isn't a dictator that can impose laws or make “super regulations” that cannot be repealed under future administrations. > Which is why every single large company is opposed to the change. Huh? Large companies that are ISPs are against net neutrality. Large companies and small companies and medium companies that are edge providers tend to be for it. There is no side where all large companies fall.
awalton 9y ago
> This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. Shame, because this vote is incredibly predictable by anyone who has been paying any attention at all. Republicans are on the bullet train to dismantle and sell off the government to the highest bidders. This vote goes straight down party lines. But, it'll be an easy banner for Dems to hoist in November to rally voters, since it's categorical that Americans do not want this madness from the FCC to continue.
- matte_black 9y ago
  This is an easy opportunity for Republicans to show they can be bipartisan without actually risking much, given the widespread support there is for Net Neutrality. Later they can attack Democrats for not being more bipartisan on one of their issues.
  - JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
    >This is an easy opportunity for Republicans to show they can be bipartisan without actually risking much Except this matters to their donors, and falls in line with the political ideology of current republicans, so why would they go against it?
- renlo 9y ago
  I thought that was the point the article was positing; it's a symbolic vote to get Republicans on the record for their support of an unpopular position.
  - Steltek 9y ago
    I think what people fail to realize is that it's not unpopular enough and not with the right people. For the GOP base, they may disagree wholeheartedly but what are they going to do? Vote for a abortionist gun-grabbing Democrat? For Dems, the best use of these things is barrage the election cycle with negative news about the GOP. Failed policies, bad ideas, myopic leadership. Bad bad bad bad. Suck the energy right out the way the Clinton investigation did in 2016.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
>This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. Congress ultimately directly serve at the pleasure of their constituents, unlike the FCC commissioners. The best chance is actually passing a bill revising the Communications Act of 1934 to explicitly include internet access. Anything else will result in a return to court battles over whether the FCC has authority to control the medium.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. It's got near zero chance of succeeding, but that's not the only point; the point is to make NN a 2018 midterm election issue for Democrats if it fails. (Which, ideally, sets NN up, via regular legislation, for a vote with a more favorable Congress in 2019.)

Kequc 9y ago

Why don't Democrats pass NN through congress and get it enshrined into law? Instead of trying to block that from happening, since it's Republicans who are trying to do that. Why was NN so easy to repeal in the first place? Why didn't Obama do a proper job if it's such an important issue? I still don't agree with the accepted wisdom about what NN is in the first place. Seems to me to suggest companies that are using up a lot of bandwidth are going to start paying more, competitors are going to start paying less. Which is why every single large company is opposed to the change.

lukeschlather 9y ago
No. Companies that are using lots of bandwidth will get bulk rates, or negotiate sweetheart zero-rating deals. Upstart companies with spikes in usage may be killed because they can't get the bandwidth they need at the same low rates the incumbent players get.
landryraccoon 9y ago
> Why didn't Obama do a proper job if it's such an important issue? To be clear, you're trying to blame Obama for something the Republican controlled Congress was responsible for? Obama wasn't a dictator; Congress decides what laws to pass and Congress wasn't exactly in favor of just about anything Obama wanted to do. Also I think you're misunderstanding what Net Neutrality is about. Net Neutrality doesn't say that everyone pays the same regardless of what bandwidth they use - ISPs are free to charge more for more bandwidth usage. Net Neutrality says that ISPs can't rate discriminate based on the type of data shared. NN means that Comcast can't charge more for packets coming from foxnews.com as opposed to msnbc.com, but it doesn't say that they can't charge an end user that uses 5 GB more than one that uses 1 GB.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  >To be clear, you're trying to blame Obama for something the Republican controlled Congress was responsible for? No, he's blaming Obama for something the Democrat controlled Congress was responsible for. It was an important enough issue for him to cosponsor a bill while a senator, but while in control they let a bill die without debate.
  - landryraccoon 9y ago
    So I assume you are in support of Net Neutrality? Wouldn’t the correct thing to do in that case be to support politicians that are in favor of it, and oppose politicians that are against it? Obama could have done better, but I am satisfied that he did more than any other president, before or since, to establish Net Neutrality. I don't think it's productive to assign blame in situations where a politician helped, but didn't help enough by some arbitrary standard, especially in an adversarial political system like ours where the alternative is politicians that actively are trying to cause harm.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      The correct thing to do is to support politicians who work to ensure net neutrality. That does not describe the Democrats, at best they worked to ensure the courts would decide the fate of net neutrality.
      - root_axis 9y ago
        > The correct thing to do is to support politicians who work to ensure net neutrality. I agree... we should support politicians based on their policies not based on their party, but it just so happens that the republican party is ideologically opposed to net-neutrality while the democratic party is, at a minimum, friendly towards the notion of net-neutrality, so democrats are really the only option if net-neutrality is your issue.
        boomboomsubban 9y ago
awalton 9y ago
> Why didn't Obama do a proper job if it's such an important issue? Obama was president while the Republicans held the legislature hostage. It was a miracle his administration was able to ask for and get any legislation passed at all; it was easily the most obstructionist congress ever. He couldn't even appoint a Supreme Court Justice because Mitch McConnell wouldn't allow congress to hold hearings - that's how impossible a situation he was in. Obama did exactly as much as he was able to do with the powers he had. He wasn't about to try the kinds of stunts our current president thinks he can. And speaking frankly, as a black person, I don't think he even could have tried to pull these kinds of stunts - he would have been impeached and booted, as any President pulling these kinds of fascist, dictatorial moves should be.
- chrchang523 9y ago
  The Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in 2009-2010. Anything Obama and other Democrats thought was really important could have been forced through then. (Indeed, they did force a major health care reform bill through with zero Republican support, mirroring how a major tax reform bill was forced through with zero Democrat support a few weeks ago.)
  - ComradeTaco 9y ago
    The Democrats observed the regular order of the Senate, hosted 5 bipartisan meetings and finished the bill so it could actually be analyzed and read before being passed [1]. The republicans didn't bother with any bipartisan meetings and passed it within the same week of finishing writing it. And they broke the regular order of the senate to do it. In any case, the two year period between 2009 and 2010 was spent almost entirely on the economy. Which given how strong the Obama-era recovery was, seems to be have been time well spent. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/10/us/republican-health-care-process.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/10/us/republican...
- bruno22237 9y ago
  (Another Black person here) I feel like he and Congress dems could have achieved far more, and shouldn't get this automatic excuse. I firmly believe that, if he and the Dems had cleanly articulated the things they would do were they not 'held hostage', they would have won far more elections!
lurr 9y ago
> Instead of trying to block that from happening, since it's Republicans who are trying to do that. They are? Which bills?
- Kequc 9y ago
  The Open Internet Preservation Act (Dec 2017) https://freedomoutpost.com/open-internet-preservation-act-seeks-stop-internet-censorship-promote-free-flow-information/ https://freedomoutpost.com/open-internet-preservation-act-se... http://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NN_02_xml.pdf http://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NN_02_xml....
  - kadenshep 9y ago
    You do realize those bills are more bark than bite right? In typical fashion, the right+ in this country wants to act like it's doing something good while still being subservient to the worst parts of our society. Seriously just fucking read them. What a complete joke. >Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of broadband internet access service providers to offer specialized services. Oh okay. Let's read (2) >(2) PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PRACTICES.—Specialized services may not be offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service or that have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section. NEAT. What is meaningful availability? Oh and I like how the same party is seeking to greatly increase the scope of what defines "broadband" (i.e., they're lowering standards). The right+ in this country is literally our biggest threat to a prosperous and secure existence. Always dishonest, always disingenuous, always harmful, and always a complete waste of time. Healthcare, the economy, and general social policies. I'm so tired of dealing with this crap.
kadenshep 9y ago
> Instead of trying to block that from happening, since it's Republicans who are trying to do that. We call this a lie.
mankash666 9y ago
LOL - you're obviously joking right? You seem to be stating as fact a fictitious opinion perpetrated by the far right press. Oh, and Obama wasn't born in Kenya
- sctb 9y ago
  No matter what you're replying to, comments like this just make it worse. Please post civilly and substantively. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Why don't Democrats pass NN through congress and get it enshrined into law? Because Republicans (and some Democrats, too) have consistently opposed that when it was a legislative issue, and Republicans currently have a majority, preventing Democrats from passing, well, anything without their support. > Instead of trying to block that from happening, since it's Republicans who are trying to do that. The Republican bill would explicitly allow paid prioritization and other practices that are contrary to net neutrality, and would prohibit stronger state protections of net neutrality. It is therefore a bill to prevent rather than protect neutrality. > Why was NN so easy to repeal in the first place? Because Republicans prevented a legislative solution, repeatedly. > Why didn't Obama do a proper job if it's such an important issue? Because the US President isn't a dictator that can impose laws or make “super regulations” that cannot be repealed under future administrations. > Which is why every single large company is opposed to the change. Huh? Large companies that are ISPs are against net neutrality. Large companies and small companies and medium companies that are edge providers tend to be for it. There is no side where all large companies fall.

awalton 9y ago

> This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. Shame, because this vote is incredibly predictable by anyone who has been paying any attention at all. Republicans are on the bullet train to dismantle and sell off the government to the highest bidders. This vote goes straight down party lines. But, it'll be an easy banner for Dems to hoist in November to rally voters, since it's categorical that Americans do not want this madness from the FCC to continue.

matte_black 9y ago
This is an easy opportunity for Republicans to show they can be bipartisan without actually risking much, given the widespread support there is for Net Neutrality. Later they can attack Democrats for not being more bipartisan on one of their issues.
- JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
  >This is an easy opportunity for Republicans to show they can be bipartisan without actually risking much Except this matters to their donors, and falls in line with the political ideology of current republicans, so why would they go against it?
renlo 9y ago
I thought that was the point the article was positing; it's a symbolic vote to get Republicans on the record for their support of an unpopular position.
- Steltek 9y ago
  I think what people fail to realize is that it's not unpopular enough and not with the right people. For the GOP base, they may disagree wholeheartedly but what are they going to do? Vote for a abortionist gun-grabbing Democrat? For Dems, the best use of these things is barrage the election cycle with negative news about the GOP. Failed policies, bad ideas, myopic leadership. Bad bad bad bad. Suck the energy right out the way the Clinton investigation did in 2016.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

>This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. Congress ultimately directly serve at the pleasure of their constituents, unlike the FCC commissioners. The best chance is actually passing a bill revising the Communications Act of 1934 to explicitly include internet access. Anything else will result in a return to court battles over whether the FCC has authority to control the medium.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. It's got near zero chance of succeeding, but that's not the only point; the point is to make NN a 2018 midterm election issue for Democrats if it fails. (Which, ideally, sets NN up, via regular legislation, for a vote with a more favorable Congress in 2019.)