5 ms·

I still can't believe that the movement to kill net neutrality was (is?) called "restoring internet freedom". I guess it's a shortening of "restoring internet s

I still can't believe that the movement to kill net neutrality was (is?) called "restoring internet freedom". I guess it's a shortening of "restoring internet service providers' freedom"? But the longer form isn't as catchy.

StaticRedux 8y ago
Branding makes the world go round. Whether it's forward, or in this case, backward.
mirimir 8y ago
Well, it is about "restoring internet freedom". It's just that, except in a few large cities, Americans have very little choice about ISP. So there's no way for ISPs to compete for users who care about net neutrality. Edit: Actually, we'd have even more freedom with an Internet version of the FERC rule for open access to electrical transmission lines.[0] > The legal and policy cornerstone of these rules is to remedy undue discrimination in access to the monopoly owned transmission wires that control whether and to whom electricity can be transported in interstate commerce. 0) https://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/land-docs/rm95-8-00w.txt https://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/land-docs/rm95-8-00w....
- mch82 8y ago
  What's your definition of freedom?
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Being unconstrained.
    - lawnchair_larry 8y ago
      So you’d obviously want to ensure net neutrality then?
      - donatj 8y ago
        Net neutrality is literally constraint on how data passing through networks can be routed and shaped. It’s exactly “constraining the Internet”. It’s not “freedom” in any shape or matter. Freedom is never constraint on others. It’s a popular constraint, and people just happen to confuse and conflate “things I like/feel positivity about” and “freedom”. It’s controversial to say here but I don’t think it gets discussed enough: Net neutrality only really helps established players. That is not to say it hurts others, but it certainly helps established players. That’s why they all love it. Facebook, Hulu, Netflix, GitHub, Tumblr, Microsoft. Unestablished unpopular players are not the ones getting throttled. It’s the ones already using tons of bandwidth getting throttled and odds are good most new players bandwidth usage is hardly even noticeable to the ISP. They wouldn’t be touting the joys of something that had the potential to displace them. The one who would be getting throttled is primarily Netflix, who literally uses over half of the bandwidth of the Internet. Literally slows everything else on the Internet down. Netflix doesn’t want to be throttled, so of course they love net neutrality. I’m not saying net neutrality is inherently bad, I just don’t think it’s as innately good as a lot of the cheerleaders attest.
        pfisch 8y ago
        When att makes it free to use their video service and not free to use everything else, that hurts unestablished players. Net neutrality also helps users. Do I really need to explain how?
        donatj 8y ago
        It’s not as clear cut as “it helps users”. There are positives and negatives for users as there are in all things in life; nothing is black and white. Firstly I would hardly call demanding the end of free services on moral grounds “helping users”. As far as the end user cares, forcing them to pay for all services equally when they could previously get one for free is a net harm. The bigger problem however is that internet has been running largely at full bandwidth capacity since mid 2015, particularly the backbone. Bandwidth is being devoured faster than it is being added. Not being able to limit major hogs, namely streaming services, in favor of other smaller and potentially more important connections actually harms users with slower overall response time for the internet at large. I personally think things like medical/government services and online banking traffic getting priority over entertainment is not that controversial - but not allowed under net neutrality. It’s not as clear cut as people think.
  - nl 8y ago
    This goes to the heart of the matter. Is freedom to build whatever you want without having to pay gatekeepers important or is freedom from rules important?
duxup 8y ago
It's freedom... just not for a lot of people.
- rectang 8y ago
  Freedom of the powerful to abuse the powerless endlessly and without consequence.
  - duxup 8y ago
    Libertarianism in a nutshell ;)
JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
It’s a very 1984 way of doing things where the ones in power blatantly say the opposite of what their intent is, to twist the truth and the meaning of the words entirely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
jampekka 8y ago
It's nowadays quite a good heuristic that purpose and effects of a bill is opposite to what the bill's name says.

StaticRedux 8y ago

Branding makes the world go round. Whether it's forward, or in this case, backward.

mirimir 8y ago

Well, it is about "restoring internet freedom". It's just that, except in a few large cities, Americans have very little choice about ISP. So there's no way for ISPs to compete for users who care about net neutrality. Edit: Actually, we'd have even more freedom with an Internet version of the FERC rule for open access to electrical transmission lines.[0] > The legal and policy cornerstone of these rules is to remedy undue discrimination in access to the monopoly owned transmission wires that control whether and to whom electricity can be transported in interstate commerce. 0) https://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/land-docs/rm95-8-00w.txt https://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/land-docs/rm95-8-00w....

mch82 8y ago
What's your definition of freedom?
- mirimir 8y ago
  Being unconstrained.
  - lawnchair_larry 8y ago
    So you’d obviously want to ensure net neutrality then?
    - donatj 8y ago
      Net neutrality is literally constraint on how data passing through networks can be routed and shaped. It’s exactly “constraining the Internet”. It’s not “freedom” in any shape or matter. Freedom is never constraint on others. It’s a popular constraint, and people just happen to confuse and conflate “things I like/feel positivity about” and “freedom”. It’s controversial to say here but I don’t think it gets discussed enough: Net neutrality only really helps established players. That is not to say it hurts others, but it certainly helps established players. That’s why they all love it. Facebook, Hulu, Netflix, GitHub, Tumblr, Microsoft. Unestablished unpopular players are not the ones getting throttled. It’s the ones already using tons of bandwidth getting throttled and odds are good most new players bandwidth usage is hardly even noticeable to the ISP. They wouldn’t be touting the joys of something that had the potential to displace them. The one who would be getting throttled is primarily Netflix, who literally uses over half of the bandwidth of the Internet. Literally slows everything else on the Internet down. Netflix doesn’t want to be throttled, so of course they love net neutrality. I’m not saying net neutrality is inherently bad, I just don’t think it’s as innately good as a lot of the cheerleaders attest.
      - pfisch 8y ago
        When att makes it free to use their video service and not free to use everything else, that hurts unestablished players. Net neutrality also helps users. Do I really need to explain how?
        donatj 8y ago
        It’s not as clear cut as “it helps users”. There are positives and negatives for users as there are in all things in life; nothing is black and white. Firstly I would hardly call demanding the end of free services on moral grounds “helping users”. As far as the end user cares, forcing them to pay for all services equally when they could previously get one for free is a net harm. The bigger problem however is that internet has been running largely at full bandwidth capacity since mid 2015, particularly the backbone. Bandwidth is being devoured faster than it is being added. Not being able to limit major hogs, namely streaming services, in favor of other smaller and potentially more important connections actually harms users with slower overall response time for the internet at large. I personally think things like medical/government services and online banking traffic getting priority over entertainment is not that controversial - but not allowed under net neutrality. It’s not as clear cut as people think.
- nl 8y ago
  This goes to the heart of the matter. Is freedom to build whatever you want without having to pay gatekeepers important or is freedom from rules important?

duxup 8y ago

It's freedom... just not for a lot of people.

rectang 8y ago
Freedom of the powerful to abuse the powerless endlessly and without consequence.
- duxup 8y ago
  Libertarianism in a nutshell ;)

JohnJamesRambo 8y ago

It’s a very 1984 way of doing things where the ones in power blatantly say the opposite of what their intent is, to twist the truth and the meaning of the words entirely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

jampekka 8y ago

It's nowadays quite a good heuristic that purpose and effects of a bill is opposite to what the bill's name says.