4 ms·

This vote is an important device that serves to decouple net neutrality as a distinct political issue, rather than a footnote in a particular politician's large

This vote is an important device that serves to decouple net neutrality as a distinct political issue, rather than a footnote in a particular politician's larger platform which -- to many voters -- isn't as important as some other hot-button stances to merit single-issue voting. By triggering a senate vote, this gives an opportunity for each senator to make their stance on this a matter of official record, theoretically independent from any other affiliation they might hold. With the FCC's latest ruling opposed by a majority of liberal and conservatives alike, this is an opportunity to stand with their constituents. The other objective of those who brought the vote is to illustrate just how few, if any, of those on the other side will vote to oppose the FCC's new rules. This can be weaponized on the ground in later elections, especially competitive districts -- or in this case, states.

smsm42 9y ago
Where the idea that FCC latest ruling is opposed by majority of conservatives comes from? Moreover, if you think issue as obscure and technical as NN would be important enough for a senator to break with their own party, you are deluding yourself. The only way to make it so is to wage blatantly false campaign like "without NN you'd be paying 100x for Internet tomorrow and all your favorite sites would be blocked" - which is also kinda too late anyway, because we already know it's not true. Hoping that the average voter can appreciate the fine points of the tug of war between backbone providers and content generators is, as I said, delusional.
- lukeschlather 9y ago
  We have a monopoly problem with Comcast, etc. so this isn't that complicated. It's an oversimplification to say that net neutrality is going to solve that problem, but I don't think it's an oversimplification to say that people against NN are against solving the problem, and I think most people get that intuitively, even if they don't get the details.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > but I don't think it's an oversimplification to say that people against NN are against solving the problem You think wrong. Actually, there's three levels of wrong here. 1. Not everybody thinks that government regulations are the best way to solve the problems, especially ones largely created by government regulations. 2. Not everybody thinks that this particular way of regulations that Obama's FCC took is the best way to solve the problem. 3. If people disagree with you about particular way of solving the problem, it doesn't mean they are for not solving the problem. And, of course, most of the population wouldn't change their vote for Senator because of such niche issue, especially if the best argument here is "Comcast is the monopoly, NN wouldn't solve it but if you don't vote for NN it would be bad".
- temp-dude-87844 9y ago
  My assertion as stated in the parent post is based on the University of Maryland Program for Public Consultation's December 2017 poll, which asked respondents to weigh how convincing they found a pro-repeal and a con-repeal argument, and then asked their final stance. The results show [1] that 75% of Republican voters, over 88% of Democrat voters, and almost 86% of independents oppose changes are consistent with the result the FCC's undoing of the Obama-era NN rules. This survey at the time was widely covered in media, e.g. [2][3]. [1] http://www.publicconsultation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Net_Neutrality_Quaire_121217.pdf http://www.publicconsultation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12... [2] http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent-of-voters-support-keeping-fccs-net-neutrality-rules http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent-... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...
  - smsm42 9y ago
    They didn't ask however whether people oppose specific changes to FCC regulations, but whether people oppose the consequences that those regulations' supporters claim that will result from removing those regulations. This is somewhat different. In any case, thanks for the links.
  - openasocket 9y ago
    But, they didn't ask how much voters cared, like whether a congressman's stance on the issue would change their vote.

smsm42 9y ago

Where the idea that FCC latest ruling is opposed by majority of conservatives comes from? Moreover, if you think issue as obscure and technical as NN would be important enough for a senator to break with their own party, you are deluding yourself. The only way to make it so is to wage blatantly false campaign like "without NN you'd be paying 100x for Internet tomorrow and all your favorite sites would be blocked" - which is also kinda too late anyway, because we already know it's not true. Hoping that the average voter can appreciate the fine points of the tug of war between backbone providers and content generators is, as I said, delusional.

lukeschlather 9y ago
We have a monopoly problem with Comcast, etc. so this isn't that complicated. It's an oversimplification to say that net neutrality is going to solve that problem, but I don't think it's an oversimplification to say that people against NN are against solving the problem, and I think most people get that intuitively, even if they don't get the details.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > but I don't think it's an oversimplification to say that people against NN are against solving the problem You think wrong. Actually, there's three levels of wrong here. 1. Not everybody thinks that government regulations are the best way to solve the problems, especially ones largely created by government regulations. 2. Not everybody thinks that this particular way of regulations that Obama's FCC took is the best way to solve the problem. 3. If people disagree with you about particular way of solving the problem, it doesn't mean they are for not solving the problem. And, of course, most of the population wouldn't change their vote for Senator because of such niche issue, especially if the best argument here is "Comcast is the monopoly, NN wouldn't solve it but if you don't vote for NN it would be bad".
temp-dude-87844 9y ago
My assertion as stated in the parent post is based on the University of Maryland Program for Public Consultation's December 2017 poll, which asked respondents to weigh how convincing they found a pro-repeal and a con-repeal argument, and then asked their final stance. The results show [1] that 75% of Republican voters, over 88% of Democrat voters, and almost 86% of independents oppose changes are consistent with the result the FCC's undoing of the Obama-era NN rules. This survey at the time was widely covered in media, e.g. [2][3]. [1] http://www.publicconsultation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Net_Neutrality_Quaire_121217.pdf http://www.publicconsultation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12... [2] http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent-of-voters-support-keeping-fccs-net-neutrality-rules http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent-... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...
- smsm42 9y ago
  They didn't ask however whether people oppose specific changes to FCC regulations, but whether people oppose the consequences that those regulations' supporters claim that will result from removing those regulations. This is somewhat different. In any case, thanks for the links.
- openasocket 9y ago
  But, they didn't ask how much voters cared, like whether a congressman's stance on the issue would change their vote.