19 ms·

Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

675 points by AhmadM91 8y ago

EpiphanyMachine 8y ago
The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that much backing it should be done through the legislative branch. I'm concerned about the growing use of courts to try to decide policies because our legislative bodies can't work together and instead just try to force one sided issues through or block each other. > Together, the AGs represent states totaling 165 million people — more than half of the U.S. population.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- javagram 8y ago
  The House of Representatives majority, which is held by the GOP and is anti - net neutrality, also represents more than 50% of the US population by this method of counting (which says the state AGs “represent” people who didn’t vote for them). Under the constitutional system of the US something like net neutrality could be passed as a law by the congress, but there hasn’t been a congress that chose to do so.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    It represents a gerrymandered "50%" of the population.
    - ilikehurdles 8y ago
      Not sure why you’re downvoted when you’re right. The senate is meant to be the equalizer, where all states are on equal footing. The House is intended to favor more populous regions. It’s not that the people of the US don’t have as much of a say as they should — it’s that they don’t have _any_ say, anywhere.
  - barneygumble742 8y ago
    The Senate actually came up with a resolution to reinstate NN but Paul Ryan refuses to bring it up for a vote in the House. So there is your legislative bottleneck. If it passes the house and the senate, of course trump will sign it and take credit for it. Not a difficult task there.
    - smsm42 8y ago
      > If it passes the house and the senate If. It is likely to pass the House? > of course trump will sign it If Trump supports it, why doesn't he instruct Ajit Pai to implement this policy, or if he doesn't want to do it, why doesn't he replace Ajit Pai with somebody whose views on the subject align with those of Trump? I think it might be because Trump doesn't actually support it.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        Trump doesn't actually care about it, and I would be surprised if he understood it. Right now he's against it because Obama did it.
        smsm42 8y ago
        I think you confuse the caricature of Trump that is pleasing to you to behold because you disagree with him with the actual Trump. While it is pleasing to think people you disagree with are blithering idiots, in case one of them is a President of the US the ignorance of the real state of affairs is not on your side and is not going to serve you well. It is always wrong to underestimate your opponent, it's particularly dangerous if the opponent has a lot of power.
        tzs 8y ago
        You raise some decent points in general, but it is hard to apply them to Trump in the case of net neutrality because he has actually spoken out on it [1]: > Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media [1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716...
  - EpiphanyMachine 8y ago
    Yes, and it's interesting some of those states have an AG sueing for a policy the House Representatives won't support.
    - rapnie 8y ago
      Also interesting is who the Representatives represent when supporting the abolishment of NN.
  - eksemplar 8y ago
    Maybe the way you calculate representation is wrong when 30% of the population gets 50% of the vote.
  - nulbyte 8y ago
    Like legislators, attorneys general represent "the people," not just those who voted for them, and that is the case even if no one voted for them. (As an interesting side-note, there are a few states whose attorneys general is governor-appointed and even one whose attorney general is appointed by the state's Supreme Court.) I believe the point being made was that it has been too difficult to get Congress to act on reinstating something that is overwhelmingly popular across the nation. The FCC won't do it. Congress won't do it. Yet, when we put some numbers behind it, WaPo reported in December of last year on a study concluding that 8 in 10 Americans disapproved of the FCC's handling of net neutrality.
    - jtuente 8y ago
      > study concluding that 8 in 10 Americans disapproved of the FCC's handling of net neutrality. Disapproved about which part of its handling on the issue though? Did they disapprove of it being instated or revoked? Or the timeline on which either occurred? Or did they disagree with FCC shoehorning it with regulations written for telephones?
      - jonafato 8y ago
        Not OP, but I think they're referring to this story [0] about a survey conducted by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland. The results showed 83% opposition to repealing the existing net neutrality regulations. A lot of the coverage around this topic makes it out to be a partisan issue, but all of the research shows strong support for net neutrality regulations across the board. [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/13/net-neutrality-keeps-the-web-from-running-like-an-airport-security-line-and-it-might-go-away/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bd59bcf90c8c https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/13...
- abraham_lincoln 8y ago
  It is a similar story with medical and recreational marijuana legalization.
- schnable 8y ago
  The executive branch being in control of this is how we ended up in this mess. It should be done through legislation so it won't change with the White House.
  - ataturk 8y ago
    I know the foregone conclusion is "net neutrality good, White House evil" but I'm unconvinced, honestly. I feel like if leftists/statists support something, it's probably generally bad for me, at least that's how it has always worked out for me. Also, I generally like the EFF, but I feel like EFF is controlled oppposition. Barlow was working with the CIA before he died. Which side is trying to eliminate free speech on the Internet circa 2018? The corporatists have this unholy alliance with the leftists is what I see going on there. Censorship on private services is at an all time high. I look across to Europe with their laws that criminalize speech and wonder if we really want that here in the states. I don't. I don't see how that is a defensible liberal position to even have. As a liberal, I welcome disagreement. Censorship is the health of the state, along with propaganda. But the only antidote for propaganda is more speech, not less.
  - EpiphanyMachine 8y ago
    You are totally right, updating my comment! It was removed by the FCC but should be added back by Congress.
  - kevin_b_er 8y ago
    The executive branch puts forth that they've banned net neutrality by virtue of not regulating it and are attempting to argue against state's rights at a convenient time when that party often argues for state's rights.
- strictnein 8y ago
  > Together, the AGs represent states totaling 165 million people — more than half of the U.S. population. By this logic, the executive branch represents 100% of the population.
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    They do. Donald Trump represents us all.
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  I came here to say the opposite. The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. This is the system working for the people. Without the ability or interest from the states to push back against the federal government's decrees, we would be stuck with an authoritarian nation. Currently, trying to pass meaningful legislation is like trying to squeeze a watermelon through a pinhole. That should certainly be addressed, but we can't ignore the current battle just to focus on the bigger war.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    > The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. Or rather, absence of action in this case. > This is the system working for the people. The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. > Currently, trying to pass meaningful legislation is like trying to squeeze a watermelon through a pinhole. Legislature is complex and hard. Not the reason to try and make courts into its replacement. That's not how the system is supposed to work, and doing that will result in a system even more broken than now.
    - twblalock 8y ago
      > The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. The tension between federal and state power is an intentionally designed feature of the system, and the fact that the states can push back is one of the several ways the system is supposed to work.
      - smsm42 8y ago
        > The tension between federal and state power is an intentionally designed feature of the system True, but "AGs of states finding friendly judge to force federal legislature to do their bidding" is not part of that design. If they just passed state-wide regulations and federal AG would sue them for it, then it'd be a different case, where one could justifiably invoke state rights. But in this case it's just plain lawfare.
- mtgx 8y ago
  > because our legislative bodies can't work together This is not (just) a people failure, it's a system failure. More precisely, it's the highly polarizing FPTP voting system that allows one party to dominate almost completely every election cycle instead of having to cooperate with others to government, regardless of how bad their behavior was the last time they run the government. With FPTP, it's just a matter of time before each of the two parties regains power, regardless of the policies they may promote. With FPTP the whole "red team vs blue team" game is inevitable, because FPTP promotes the existence of only two (very) long-term parties. The second issue is of course the issue of companies and wealthy people buying politicians' votes through lobbying. I mean, who can deny it at this point? It's very clear that this is what lobbying actually does. It's not used just to "try and convince politicians" of something at this point - it's almost literally used to buy the votes. A solution for each of these problems would be these: http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation#what_is_fair_voting http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation#what_is_fair_vot... https://anticorruptionact.org/ https://anticorruptionact.org/ https://www.wolf-pac.com/the_solution https://www.wolf-pac.com/the_solution
  - lozenge 8y ago
    FPTP is bad but it's compounded by the presidential system. For example the UK's Prime Minister is elected by MPs, so it's not possible for them to be of a party that doesn't have enough voting power to actually pass laws, whereas in the US this is a common occurrence (as well as the President vetoing laws that the assembly has passed).
- jwineinger 8y ago
  I feel like they're trying to get people to conflate representation of >50% of people with support from >50% of people. The attorneys general of 22 states is 22 people. The percentage support in the general population is high (~80% last year) but they aren't the same thing. Marketing is everything. I completely agree that it should be decided in the legislature. I hate the idea of legislating from the bench. It was administrative policy when enacted in the Obama administration. Why should that enshrine it?
- sbjs 8y ago
  [Comment redacted for being not well thought out and more cynical and less positive than I'd like to be]
  - Retric 8y ago
    Either you are not keeping up or have a lot of bias because the government makes a lot of changes every year and you will presumably agree with many of them. EX: While many people hate it, Obama Care got rid of the preexisting condition exception on health insurance. Which was a major issue for many people. Now you personally might not like that change, but that suggests you should like it when it's removed.
- xenophonf 8y ago
  The system's not broken. If that many people in that many states really want net neutrality legislation, then they should advocate for that within the House of Representatives, who are our direct representatives at the federal level. The Presidency is designed to have broad national appeal---across rural and urban states, large and small states---so it's not enough that a minority of attorneys-general want regulatory change.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    Except that, due to gerrymandering, the ratios of our federal representatives don't match the ratios of the population.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      And even if you were to argue that gerrymandering didn't swing overall election results (it does), gerrymandering also makes certain seats more secure than they normally would be -- causing certain politicians to become incumbents. What reason does an incumbent have to listen to their local community's grievances? Their job isn't at risk if they don't please the public (which is the opposite of how it should be). So, even if the House of Representatives was a direct representation of the US population, they would still not have the incentive to listen to their populace.
    - travmatt 8y ago
      Even more egregious is the proportioned delegates within the electoral college.
      - zaphar 8y ago
        While it is possible that the electoral college needs improvement or replacement, any proposals along those lines should be sure to address the dangers of pure majority rule. While imperfect the electoral college is meant to be a way to mitigate that failures mode of democracy.
        8y ago
- gxs 8y ago
  It's the flip side to preventing what they called "Tyranny of the Majority", if my freshman polisci memory from many moons ago is accurate. Imagine a scenario where the states wanted to make abortion illegal. We would want that decision scrutinized vs making a change to the law simply because a majority wanted it.
- danjoc 8y ago
  >The system seems broken when When it does stuff you disagree with personally. That's a pretty universal feeling. While you may get plenty of internet points from your friends that agree with you, you have to realize, you are the one with the unpopular opinion this time. >50% of the population Counting illegals. 22 states isn't 50% either. This is the "not my president" argument all over again. The people won. ISPs won. FAANG lost. It's time FAANG pays their share for video streaming bandwidth. It's not like they don't have plenty of money parked in offshore banks to cover the gap. This is just a tactic for them to sow more division and hope for a favorable future election outcome. Pretty disturbing to watch actually if you agree with Ajit Pai and internet freedom.
  - raverbashing 8y ago
    Thanks for the comedy relief. Putting Ajit Pai and internet freedom in the same phrase can only exist on a crass comedy or a complete malicious misunderstanding of the cause. The people won nothing, who won are entrenched monopolistic companies that don't step on their customer's neck just because it's illegal. Fb and Google are not yet that evil, though Fb is definitely making an effort.
  - ivl 8y ago
    A minority of the people won. Let's be clear there. Due to the House being capped, the GOP can hold 55.2% of the seats with 49.9% of the votes. Talking purely votes, not population. And that's even ignoring the snarky comment about the people that voted the current majority in being from the less economically useful areas.
  - tzs 8y ago
    > It's time FAANG pays their share for video streaming bandwidth They do pay their share. In general, when party X and party Y communicate on the internet, they both pay a service provide (their ISP) for a connection to the internet backbone. That payment to their ISP fully pays for the costs of the data X and Y send to or receive from the internet (or their ISP won't stay in business for long). What you are calling "internet freedom" is party X's ISP saying it won't allow X to communicate with Y unless Y also pays X's ISP, even though X is already paying X's ISP for the bandwidth X is using with Y.
- smsm42 8y ago
  I think it's a very common pattern now - to use courts as substitute for policymaking, since finding one judge that would issue necessary injunction, whatever it is, is easier than assembling a broad coalition to pass the decision through legislative/executive branches. It is also very wrong and very corrosive to the respect to the rule of law - if judges turn from independent arbiters watching for rules of the game into partisan players that use their power to bend the game to their side, eventually they'd have as much respect as other rank-and-file politicians, and that's not a very good place for the country to be in.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- briandear 8y ago
  Federalism is about the states, not the population within those sovereign states. The US government is a federal system, population of specific states has little relevance. It seems like a nit-pick, but a misunderstanding federalism leads to assertions that the population actually matters when it comes to federal rules. The EU works similarly — otherwise why have a “rotating” presidency rather than simply having France and Germany pick the president by virtue of larger populations? Would Poland Lithuania find a population-based Presidency fair? Of course not, but Lithuania has an equal right to representation as a nation as would France — to think otherwise would be to destroy the EU (or the United States.)
- toast_coder 8y ago
  Did that premise matter to you when a majority of californians voted to ban gay marriage? Did you jump up and say 'the system is broken'. I really doubt it.
mberning 8y ago
One thing I don’t understand is why states do not enact their own net neutrality legislation. As far as I know every state has a public utilities commission of some sort that regulates power, water, etc. Why could this not work for ISPs?
- EpiphanyMachine 8y ago
  I think the FCC is trying to remove that ability from States now because federal law overrules state law. > The Attorneys General are hardly alone on this one. As Reuters notes, Mozilla, Vimeo and Etsy also joined forces today to file a legal challenge, while governors in six states have signed executive orders and three states have passed their own net neutrality laws.
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > I think the FCC is trying to remove that ability from States now because federal law overrules state law. Sort of. The relationship between federal and state law is complex, and it's actually disputed whether the attempts to prevent states from enacting their own net neutrality laws are themselves constitutional.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    > because federal law overrules state law The FCC does not (and cannot) pass laws.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      The FCC gains it's authority to create regulation from federal law though.
      - Calib3r 8y ago
        Which many argue as unconstitutional. We've essentially given an unelected group of people a blank check.
  - 8y ago
Proven 8y ago
To hell with it. I want to know what SLAs I can get and the price for each. One size fits all = crappy service for all (or higher prices for non-power users) Delusional middle class busybodies are still trying to make the poor subsidize their Netflix and other high bandwidth habits.
corerius 8y ago
I'm still trying to grok why ISPs are supposed to treat all customers equally while PayPal, eBay, youtube, GoDaddy, Twitter, etc. are allowed to pick and choose. I'd be more comfortable with the arguments if people were consistent in them.
- fivre 8y ago
  For consumer-facing eyeball ISPs, in almost all US markets, consumers have an extremely limited set of ISPs to choose from, typically a traditional telephone provider like AT&T or Verizon and a traditional cable provider like Comcast or Cox (if they're lucky enough to have both). As such, those eyeball providers have an effective monopoly, and if I don't like the network policies of my ISP, I have almost no recourse to change them. Those monopoly providers have also consistently lobbied against any challenges to their position: attempts to start a municipal ISP offering services to residents will be strongly challenged by incumbent providers, often to the point of outlawing municipal ISPs entirely at the state level. In contrast, I can very much choose alternate providers for everything else you've listed--I don't like GoDaddy and don't use them for domain registration or hosting, and I had thousands of options to choose from. Twitter is by no means the only social network in town, and has challengers within its specific microblogging niche.
  - drdaeman 8y ago
    So, you don't really need a law for AT&T to not policy your traffic, but that you need competitors to be able to enter the market and provide services. Something even Facebook and Google has (although they're quite close to a monopoly) but US ISPs don't. If a service provider starts to do some silly stuff no one wants, there's no reason not to start a competing business, offer service without that silliness and win over the market. Except if entry barriers are too high.
- jamescostian 8y ago
  If you get blocked on Twitter, you go to $OTHER_PLATFORM on the internet. If you don't have NN and you get blocked from Twitter, your ISP can also make it so that you can't go to $OTHER_PLATFORM.
_bxg1 8y ago
Once more unto the breach.
randyrand 8y ago
this is one of the main reasons why states rights is important. Here are the big ones: 1. each state can be tailored to its population 2. each state acts an an incubator for new ideas and other states can follow 3. usa citizens have more choice in who governs then and can easily move between them
- xena 8y ago
  The problem is that people poor enough they can't choose to move states get kinda screwed over.
  - komali2 8y ago
    Well, yes, but that's also currently an issue for say your average rural Indian farmer. Or north Korean. I get that we're talking about Americans here, and can't be expected to solve every problem across the world, but I'm having a hard time drawing some arbitrary line in the sand here.
  - randyrand 8y ago
    getting rid of states rights doesn’t give them any more options either. this is tangential.
- asdkhadsj 8y ago
  I mean, the same could be said for countries relative to the world, towns relative to counties, cities relative to states, etc. I mean, I agree with you - I'm just pointing out that while I do agree with the idea, I've never understood if there needs to be a line or where that line of "new ideas" is actually implemented. Some states are so big these days that they're basically the federal government by themselves. Ie, California. California hardly feels like an incubator for new ideas, as being wrong on such a massive scale could lead to very big problems. Furthermore, rural and city life in California differs greatly, and I imagine there are often times where one group or another feels dismayed over a ruling that primarily focuses on the other group. Ie, the broad stroke of the state is so broad it may as well have been the fed. Anyway, none of these are counter points. It's just discussion points that I've often thought about before. Ones that I have little answers to.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
Be careful what you wish for. A significant portion of the general population see Twitter, Google, and Facebook as infrastructure companies. If a large enough portion of the population is convinced that net neutrality is important and legislation must be written to accomplish it, the three companies and likely CloudFlare will likely fall under its umbrella. If you ask people to recall an incident of Internet censorship, if they recall anything, it will most likely be something done by one of those 3 and not by an ISP.
- landryraccoon 8y ago
  How would this not be a good thing? Facebook and Google probably should face more public scrutiny, not less.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  At this point, the public is probably sick of the tech giants enough to want to nationalize them, or to at least break them up.
IronWolve 8y ago
>US Internet Speed Has Gone From 12th To 6th Fastest Since End Of Net Neutrality I see this being tossed around as a counter to the main point of NN being slow down of speed. Also, why do the state dem AG's always suing to enforce new laws instead of the legislation process, it seems like the new way to pass laws is to get a judge to give it to you. We have legal weed from legislation now.
- EpiphanyMachine 8y ago
  > Also, why do the state dem AG's always suing to enforce new laws instead of the legislation process, it seems like the new way to pass laws is to get a judge to give it to you. We have legal weed from legislation now. I agree with your position, but it's not just Dems. This is the main point of my comment also, this should be done with legislation.
- lostcolony 8y ago
  Looking at Q1 2017, and comparing against Q3 2015, we saw the average speed of the US, as measured by Akamai (i.e., someone actually delivering content, not just a 'speed test', which we know is gamed, and largely only hit by people with quick speeds anyway; I've never checked my speed except when I got a new ISP that said it was faster than my old one, i.e., when I first got 100mbps, and when I first got fiber) increase from 12.6mbps to 18.8 mbps. A year and a half under net neutrality and actual, real world average speeds increased 50%. So that was the pre-existing trajectory. It's not like "we're going to repeal net neutrality" is going to cause ISPs to pull their investments instantly, not when they've already been investing. If it's even related.
- shkkmo 8y ago
  I believe all the states that currently have recreation cannabis have it because of referendums and ballot initiatives. The legalization process has shown exactly how our legislatures have failed to address this issue. Canada did legalize recreational use with legislation, but they are the only ones so far. I personally blame gerrymandering.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
justinzollars 8y ago
I would like to see Twitter, Google, CloudFlare and Facebook classified as public utilities. While Alex Jones is a nut case (And shouldn't be defended), other less publicized incidents of censorship by Social Media companies has occurred (related to picking winners between Israel and Palestine) [1]. While I am a Democrat who has been elected in the past, I agree with the conservative argument that: Corporate censorship dampens the spirit of free speech. [1] Facebook Says It Is Deleting Accounts at the Direction of the U.S. and Israeli Governments https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/ https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-dele...
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > I would like to see Twitter, Google, CloudFlare and Facebook classified as public utilities This would be destructive to our venture ecosystem with dubious benefits to consumers. Few Americans love their public utilities–they're often mismanaged and at least somewhat corrupt. Better to set up a system of rules and corresponding liabilities and--if necessary--regulators. (Given how profitable these companies are, though, litigation would probably cover all bases except those hurting the poor.)
- narrator 8y ago
  The argument against net neutrality that I like the best is that net neutrality takes power away from the regulated telecom monopolies, which are more firmly under government control and scrutiny, and gives it to the tech multinationals who are much more loosely regulated. The tech multinationals are more and more acting a lot like governments with their coordinated content policies, so it's more about giving power back to the government regulatory agencies vs embracing the brave new world of banning unpopular speech on all the major platforms.
  - justinzollars 8y ago
    Thanks for posting this perspective. That is an interesting point.
  - 8y ago
trumped 8y ago
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/twenty-two-states-ask-u-s-appeals-court-to-reinstate-net-neutrality-rules-idUSKCN1L605W https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/twenty-two-s...
dpflan 8y ago
The Entities involved: The coalition of 23 Attorneys General collectively represents over 165 million people – approximately 50 percent of the U.S. population – and includes the Attorneys General of: 1. New York 2. California 3. Connecticut 4. Delaware 5. Hawaii 6. Illinois 7. Iowa 8. Kentucky 9. Maine 10. Maryland 11. Massachusetts 12. Minnesota 13. Mississippi 14. New Mexico 15. New Jersey 16. North Carolina 17. Oregon 18. Pennsylvania 19. Rhode Island 20. Vermont 21. Virginia 22. Washington 23. District of Columbia
User23 8y ago
I haven’t noticed any change in my Internet connectivity since so-called net neutrality regulations were rolled back. That said, the fears of a single party dictating what you can and can’t see on the Internet are not just clear, they’re present. How many net neutrality supporters stood up for Alex Jones? Or say anything about shadow bans on Twitter, Facebook, and Google search results based on organizational capriciousness? Net neutrality is just another example of a regulatory capture competition between the old telcos and the new masters of the Internet. The massive PR spending alone is proof. See Paul Graham’s article[1] for a better explanation than I can give here. Interestingly the authentic left has the answer: Publicly owned corporations, universities, and perhaps other mainly local institutions providing network connectivity are the real antifragile solution to the problem net neutrality regulations claim to address. [1]http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- monocasa 8y ago
  > I haven’t noticed any change in my Internet connectivity since so-called net neutrality regulations were rolled back. That's just because of how slow ISPs are at reacting to anything. I know product owners at a couple cable companies and they are actively modifying their systems to take advantage of the new lack of net neutrality. > That said, the fears of a single party dictating what you can and can’t see on the Internet are not just clear, they’re present. How many net neutrality supporters stood up for Alex Jones? Or say anything about shadow bans on Twitter, Facebook, and Google search results based on organizational capriciousness? Net Neutrality regulates the ISPs. If he were banned from Comcast or something so that he couldn't have internet connectivity, then that would be applicable.
- jrockway 8y ago
  > How many net neutrality supporters stood up for Alex Jones? Are ISPs refusing to peer with Alex Jones? If not, this has nothing to do with net neutrality.
  - User23 8y ago
    If net neutrality is exclusively a regulatory power grab by Google and the like at the expense of traditional ISPs, then it's true Alex Jones has nothing to do with it. However, if one acknowledges some kind of moral principle that content shouldn't be discriminated against based on the source, then one has to show why that should apply to traditional ISPs and not to the newer Internet companies that run all the same infrastructure the traditional ISPs do.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dmritard96 8y ago
For anyone in a place with options, My suggestion is simply switching to a Net Neutrality proponent. Ditching my comcast today in favor of Sonic fiber. Cheaper, supports net neutrality, and waaayyy faster :)
- _bxg1 8y ago
  A big part of the point is that almost nobody has any options. If there were room for real competition in the space, regulation might not be necessary. Part of the barrier of entry is inherent: building infrastructure is hard. But part of it has been artificially constructed by the existing players through lobbying: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/utility-poles-important-future-internet/ https://www.wired.com/2016/09/utility-poles-important-future...
  - dmritard96 8y ago
    yeap. I'm lucky enough to have options in Berkeley, but where I lived in the past, there was only ATT and Comcast...
onemoresoop 8y ago
I was wondering whether post the net neutrality repeal any IP has actually started tiered internet packages based on what content is being accessed, whether they stared throttling as many were fearing. If they hadn't it doesn't mean that they won't, was just curious if it's happened yet
- andymal 8y ago
  In the ARS article about Verizon throttling the CA fire dept's service they said the throttling policy was changed from "throttling during high congestion" to "throttling when they use their alloted amount of 'unlimited' data". This change was made basically immediately after the repeal went into effect.
uses 8y ago
Where did this new anti-NN talking point come from about how, if we're going to have net neutrality then we also need to allow people to be terrible on social media without taking responsibility for it? I swear I've seen this so many times in the past few months, including multiple comments in this thread. If moderation of corporate software platforms is an important issue for you, great, but surely you can see the difference between that and NN? Attempting to conflate the two looks pretty disingenuous and I'm pretty inclined to think it's some kind of culture war talking point.
- cududa 8y ago
  It’s being heavily pushed by conservative talking heads. Basically just limping everything into “net neutrality” because everyone knows the phrase
- rule_follower 8y ago
  >allow people to be terrible on social media without taking responsibility for it? This is a euphemism for banning users and a misrepresentation of the the points I have seen, which is that it is hypocritical to seek government safeguards against ISPs favoring/disfavoring traffic/content depending on the source while clamoring for just that from giant internet media corporations
delbel 8y ago
the system is broken when people care more about internet speed than voter fraud. This title should be twenty two states ask court to bring back paper voting ballot
imleft 8y ago
States have the power to enact laws they like.
imleft 8y ago
States have power to enact laws they like.

675 points by AhmadM91 8y ago

The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that much backing it should be done through the legislative branch. I'm concerned about the growing use of courts to try to decide policies because our legislative bodies can't work together and instead just try to force one sided issues through or block each other. > Together, the AGs represent states totaling 165 million people — more than half of the U.S. population.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
javagram 8y ago
The House of Representatives majority, which is held by the GOP and is anti - net neutrality, also represents more than 50% of the US population by this method of counting (which says the state AGs “represent” people who didn’t vote for them). Under the constitutional system of the US something like net neutrality could be passed as a law by the congress, but there hasn’t been a congress that chose to do so.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  It represents a gerrymandered "50%" of the population.
  - ilikehurdles 8y ago
    Not sure why you’re downvoted when you’re right. The senate is meant to be the equalizer, where all states are on equal footing. The House is intended to favor more populous regions. It’s not that the people of the US don’t have as much of a say as they should — it’s that they don’t have _any_ say, anywhere.
- barneygumble742 8y ago
  The Senate actually came up with a resolution to reinstate NN but Paul Ryan refuses to bring it up for a vote in the House. So there is your legislative bottleneck. If it passes the house and the senate, of course trump will sign it and take credit for it. Not a difficult task there.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    > If it passes the house and the senate If. It is likely to pass the House? > of course trump will sign it If Trump supports it, why doesn't he instruct Ajit Pai to implement this policy, or if he doesn't want to do it, why doesn't he replace Ajit Pai with somebody whose views on the subject align with those of Trump? I think it might be because Trump doesn't actually support it.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Trump doesn't actually care about it, and I would be surprised if he understood it. Right now he's against it because Obama did it.
      - smsm42 8y ago
        I think you confuse the caricature of Trump that is pleasing to you to behold because you disagree with him with the actual Trump. While it is pleasing to think people you disagree with are blithering idiots, in case one of them is a President of the US the ignorance of the real state of affairs is not on your side and is not going to serve you well. It is always wrong to underestimate your opponent, it's particularly dangerous if the opponent has a lot of power.
        tzs 8y ago
        You raise some decent points in general, but it is hard to apply them to Trump in the case of net neutrality because he has actually spoken out on it [1]: > Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media [1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716...
- EpiphanyMachine 8y ago
  Yes, and it's interesting some of those states have an AG sueing for a policy the House Representatives won't support.
  - rapnie 8y ago
    Also interesting is who the Representatives represent when supporting the abolishment of NN.
- eksemplar 8y ago
  Maybe the way you calculate representation is wrong when 30% of the population gets 50% of the vote.
- nulbyte 8y ago
  Like legislators, attorneys general represent "the people," not just those who voted for them, and that is the case even if no one voted for them. (As an interesting side-note, there are a few states whose attorneys general is governor-appointed and even one whose attorney general is appointed by the state's Supreme Court.) I believe the point being made was that it has been too difficult to get Congress to act on reinstating something that is overwhelmingly popular across the nation. The FCC won't do it. Congress won't do it. Yet, when we put some numbers behind it, WaPo reported in December of last year on a study concluding that 8 in 10 Americans disapproved of the FCC's handling of net neutrality.
  - jtuente 8y ago
    > study concluding that 8 in 10 Americans disapproved of the FCC's handling of net neutrality. Disapproved about which part of its handling on the issue though? Did they disapprove of it being instated or revoked? Or the timeline on which either occurred? Or did they disagree with FCC shoehorning it with regulations written for telephones?
    - jonafato 8y ago
      Not OP, but I think they're referring to this story [0] about a survey conducted by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland. The results showed 83% opposition to repealing the existing net neutrality regulations. A lot of the coverage around this topic makes it out to be a partisan issue, but all of the research shows strong support for net neutrality regulations across the board. [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/13/net-neutrality-keeps-the-web-from-running-like-an-airport-security-line-and-it-might-go-away/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bd59bcf90c8c https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/13...
abraham_lincoln 8y ago
It is a similar story with medical and recreational marijuana legalization.
schnable 8y ago
The executive branch being in control of this is how we ended up in this mess. It should be done through legislation so it won't change with the White House.
- ataturk 8y ago
  I know the foregone conclusion is "net neutrality good, White House evil" but I'm unconvinced, honestly. I feel like if leftists/statists support something, it's probably generally bad for me, at least that's how it has always worked out for me. Also, I generally like the EFF, but I feel like EFF is controlled oppposition. Barlow was working with the CIA before he died. Which side is trying to eliminate free speech on the Internet circa 2018? The corporatists have this unholy alliance with the leftists is what I see going on there. Censorship on private services is at an all time high. I look across to Europe with their laws that criminalize speech and wonder if we really want that here in the states. I don't. I don't see how that is a defensible liberal position to even have. As a liberal, I welcome disagreement. Censorship is the health of the state, along with propaganda. But the only antidote for propaganda is more speech, not less.
- EpiphanyMachine 8y ago
  You are totally right, updating my comment! It was removed by the FCC but should be added back by Congress.
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  The executive branch puts forth that they've banned net neutrality by virtue of not regulating it and are attempting to argue against state's rights at a convenient time when that party often argues for state's rights.
strictnein 8y ago
> Together, the AGs represent states totaling 165 million people — more than half of the U.S. population. By this logic, the executive branch represents 100% of the population.
- shkkmo 8y ago
  They do. Donald Trump represents us all.
peterwwillis 8y ago
I came here to say the opposite. The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. This is the system working for the people. Without the ability or interest from the states to push back against the federal government's decrees, we would be stuck with an authoritarian nation. Currently, trying to pass meaningful legislation is like trying to squeeze a watermelon through a pinhole. That should certainly be addressed, but we can't ignore the current battle just to focus on the bigger war.
- smsm42 8y ago
  > The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. Or rather, absence of action in this case. > This is the system working for the people. The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. > Currently, trying to pass meaningful legislation is like trying to squeeze a watermelon through a pinhole. Legislature is complex and hard. Not the reason to try and make courts into its replacement. That's not how the system is supposed to work, and doing that will result in a system even more broken than now.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    > The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. The tension between federal and state power is an intentionally designed feature of the system, and the fact that the states can push back is one of the several ways the system is supposed to work.
    - smsm42 8y ago
      > The tension between federal and state power is an intentionally designed feature of the system True, but "AGs of states finding friendly judge to force federal legislature to do their bidding" is not part of that design. If they just passed state-wide regulations and federal AG would sue them for it, then it'd be a different case, where one could justifiably invoke state rights. But in this case it's just plain lawfare.
mtgx 8y ago
> because our legislative bodies can't work together This is not (just) a people failure, it's a system failure. More precisely, it's the highly polarizing FPTP voting system that allows one party to dominate almost completely every election cycle instead of having to cooperate with others to government, regardless of how bad their behavior was the last time they run the government. With FPTP, it's just a matter of time before each of the two parties regains power, regardless of the policies they may promote. With FPTP the whole "red team vs blue team" game is inevitable, because FPTP promotes the existence of only two (very) long-term parties. The second issue is of course the issue of companies and wealthy people buying politicians' votes through lobbying. I mean, who can deny it at this point? It's very clear that this is what lobbying actually does. It's not used just to "try and convince politicians" of something at this point - it's almost literally used to buy the votes. A solution for each of these problems would be these: http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation#what_is_fair_voting http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation#what_is_fair_vot... https://anticorruptionact.org/ https://anticorruptionact.org/ https://www.wolf-pac.com/the_solution https://www.wolf-pac.com/the_solution
- lozenge 8y ago
  FPTP is bad but it's compounded by the presidential system. For example the UK's Prime Minister is elected by MPs, so it's not possible for them to be of a party that doesn't have enough voting power to actually pass laws, whereas in the US this is a common occurrence (as well as the President vetoing laws that the assembly has passed).
jwineinger 8y ago
I feel like they're trying to get people to conflate representation of >50% of people with support from >50% of people. The attorneys general of 22 states is 22 people. The percentage support in the general population is high (~80% last year) but they aren't the same thing. Marketing is everything. I completely agree that it should be decided in the legislature. I hate the idea of legislating from the bench. It was administrative policy when enacted in the Obama administration. Why should that enshrine it?
sbjs 8y ago
[Comment redacted for being not well thought out and more cynical and less positive than I'd like to be]
- Retric 8y ago
  Either you are not keeping up or have a lot of bias because the government makes a lot of changes every year and you will presumably agree with many of them. EX: While many people hate it, Obama Care got rid of the preexisting condition exception on health insurance. Which was a major issue for many people. Now you personally might not like that change, but that suggests you should like it when it's removed.
xenophonf 8y ago
The system's not broken. If that many people in that many states really want net neutrality legislation, then they should advocate for that within the House of Representatives, who are our direct representatives at the federal level. The Presidency is designed to have broad national appeal---across rural and urban states, large and small states---so it's not enough that a minority of attorneys-general want regulatory change.
- monocasa 8y ago
  Except that, due to gerrymandering, the ratios of our federal representatives don't match the ratios of the population.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    And even if you were to argue that gerrymandering didn't swing overall election results (it does), gerrymandering also makes certain seats more secure than they normally would be -- causing certain politicians to become incumbents. What reason does an incumbent have to listen to their local community's grievances? Their job isn't at risk if they don't please the public (which is the opposite of how it should be). So, even if the House of Representatives was a direct representation of the US population, they would still not have the incentive to listen to their populace.
  - travmatt 8y ago
    Even more egregious is the proportioned delegates within the electoral college.
    - zaphar 8y ago
      While it is possible that the electoral college needs improvement or replacement, any proposals along those lines should be sure to address the dangers of pure majority rule. While imperfect the electoral college is meant to be a way to mitigate that failures mode of democracy.
      - 8y ago
gxs 8y ago
It's the flip side to preventing what they called "Tyranny of the Majority", if my freshman polisci memory from many moons ago is accurate. Imagine a scenario where the states wanted to make abortion illegal. We would want that decision scrutinized vs making a change to the law simply because a majority wanted it.
danjoc 8y ago
>The system seems broken when When it does stuff you disagree with personally. That's a pretty universal feeling. While you may get plenty of internet points from your friends that agree with you, you have to realize, you are the one with the unpopular opinion this time. >50% of the population Counting illegals. 22 states isn't 50% either. This is the "not my president" argument all over again. The people won. ISPs won. FAANG lost. It's time FAANG pays their share for video streaming bandwidth. It's not like they don't have plenty of money parked in offshore banks to cover the gap. This is just a tactic for them to sow more division and hope for a favorable future election outcome. Pretty disturbing to watch actually if you agree with Ajit Pai and internet freedom.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  Thanks for the comedy relief. Putting Ajit Pai and internet freedom in the same phrase can only exist on a crass comedy or a complete malicious misunderstanding of the cause. The people won nothing, who won are entrenched monopolistic companies that don't step on their customer's neck just because it's illegal. Fb and Google are not yet that evil, though Fb is definitely making an effort.
- ivl 8y ago
  A minority of the people won. Let's be clear there. Due to the House being capped, the GOP can hold 55.2% of the seats with 49.9% of the votes. Talking purely votes, not population. And that's even ignoring the snarky comment about the people that voted the current majority in being from the less economically useful areas.
- tzs 8y ago
  > It's time FAANG pays their share for video streaming bandwidth They do pay their share. In general, when party X and party Y communicate on the internet, they both pay a service provide (their ISP) for a connection to the internet backbone. That payment to their ISP fully pays for the costs of the data X and Y send to or receive from the internet (or their ISP won't stay in business for long). What you are calling "internet freedom" is party X's ISP saying it won't allow X to communicate with Y unless Y also pays X's ISP, even though X is already paying X's ISP for the bandwidth X is using with Y.
smsm42 8y ago
I think it's a very common pattern now - to use courts as substitute for policymaking, since finding one judge that would issue necessary injunction, whatever it is, is easier than assembling a broad coalition to pass the decision through legislative/executive branches. It is also very wrong and very corrosive to the respect to the rule of law - if judges turn from independent arbiters watching for rules of the game into partisan players that use their power to bend the game to their side, eventually they'd have as much respect as other rank-and-file politicians, and that's not a very good place for the country to be in.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
briandear 8y ago
Federalism is about the states, not the population within those sovereign states. The US government is a federal system, population of specific states has little relevance. It seems like a nit-pick, but a misunderstanding federalism leads to assertions that the population actually matters when it comes to federal rules. The EU works similarly — otherwise why have a “rotating” presidency rather than simply having France and Germany pick the president by virtue of larger populations? Would Poland Lithuania find a population-based Presidency fair? Of course not, but Lithuania has an equal right to representation as a nation as would France — to think otherwise would be to destroy the EU (or the United States.)
toast_coder 8y ago
Did that premise matter to you when a majority of californians voted to ban gay marriage? Did you jump up and say 'the system is broken'. I really doubt it.

mberning 8y ago

One thing I don’t understand is why states do not enact their own net neutrality legislation. As far as I know every state has a public utilities commission of some sort that regulates power, water, etc. Why could this not work for ISPs?

EpiphanyMachine 8y ago
I think the FCC is trying to remove that ability from States now because federal law overrules state law. > The Attorneys General are hardly alone on this one. As Reuters notes, Mozilla, Vimeo and Etsy also joined forces today to file a legal challenge, while governors in six states have signed executive orders and three states have passed their own net neutrality laws.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > I think the FCC is trying to remove that ability from States now because federal law overrules state law. Sort of. The relationship between federal and state law is complex, and it's actually disputed whether the attempts to prevent states from enacting their own net neutrality laws are themselves constitutional.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > because federal law overrules state law The FCC does not (and cannot) pass laws.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    The FCC gains it's authority to create regulation from federal law though.
    - Calib3r 8y ago
      Which many argue as unconstitutional. We've essentially given an unelected group of people a blank check.
- 8y ago

Proven 8y ago

To hell with it. I want to know what SLAs I can get and the price for each. One size fits all = crappy service for all (or higher prices for non-power users) Delusional middle class busybodies are still trying to make the poor subsidize their Netflix and other high bandwidth habits.

corerius 8y ago

I'm still trying to grok why ISPs are supposed to treat all customers equally while PayPal, eBay, youtube, GoDaddy, Twitter, etc. are allowed to pick and choose. I'd be more comfortable with the arguments if people were consistent in them.

fivre 8y ago
For consumer-facing eyeball ISPs, in almost all US markets, consumers have an extremely limited set of ISPs to choose from, typically a traditional telephone provider like AT&T or Verizon and a traditional cable provider like Comcast or Cox (if they're lucky enough to have both). As such, those eyeball providers have an effective monopoly, and if I don't like the network policies of my ISP, I have almost no recourse to change them. Those monopoly providers have also consistently lobbied against any challenges to their position: attempts to start a municipal ISP offering services to residents will be strongly challenged by incumbent providers, often to the point of outlawing municipal ISPs entirely at the state level. In contrast, I can very much choose alternate providers for everything else you've listed--I don't like GoDaddy and don't use them for domain registration or hosting, and I had thousands of options to choose from. Twitter is by no means the only social network in town, and has challengers within its specific microblogging niche.
- drdaeman 8y ago
  So, you don't really need a law for AT&T to not policy your traffic, but that you need competitors to be able to enter the market and provide services. Something even Facebook and Google has (although they're quite close to a monopoly) but US ISPs don't. If a service provider starts to do some silly stuff no one wants, there's no reason not to start a competing business, offer service without that silliness and win over the market. Except if entry barriers are too high.
jamescostian 8y ago
If you get blocked on Twitter, you go to $OTHER_PLATFORM on the internet. If you don't have NN and you get blocked from Twitter, your ISP can also make it so that you can't go to $OTHER_PLATFORM.

_bxg1 8y ago

Once more unto the breach.

randyrand 8y ago

this is one of the main reasons why states rights is important. Here are the big ones: 1. each state can be tailored to its population 2. each state acts an an incubator for new ideas and other states can follow 3. usa citizens have more choice in who governs then and can easily move between them

xena 8y ago
The problem is that people poor enough they can't choose to move states get kinda screwed over.
- komali2 8y ago
  Well, yes, but that's also currently an issue for say your average rural Indian farmer. Or north Korean. I get that we're talking about Americans here, and can't be expected to solve every problem across the world, but I'm having a hard time drawing some arbitrary line in the sand here.
- randyrand 8y ago
  getting rid of states rights doesn’t give them any more options either. this is tangential.
asdkhadsj 8y ago
I mean, the same could be said for countries relative to the world, towns relative to counties, cities relative to states, etc. I mean, I agree with you - I'm just pointing out that while I do agree with the idea, I've never understood if there needs to be a line or where that line of "new ideas" is actually implemented. Some states are so big these days that they're basically the federal government by themselves. Ie, California. California hardly feels like an incubator for new ideas, as being wrong on such a massive scale could lead to very big problems. Furthermore, rural and city life in California differs greatly, and I imagine there are often times where one group or another feels dismayed over a ruling that primarily focuses on the other group. Ie, the broad stroke of the state is so broad it may as well have been the fed. Anyway, none of these are counter points. It's just discussion points that I've often thought about before. Ones that I have little answers to.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago

Be careful what you wish for. A significant portion of the general population see Twitter, Google, and Facebook as infrastructure companies. If a large enough portion of the population is convinced that net neutrality is important and legislation must be written to accomplish it, the three companies and likely CloudFlare will likely fall under its umbrella. If you ask people to recall an incident of Internet censorship, if they recall anything, it will most likely be something done by one of those 3 and not by an ISP.

landryraccoon 8y ago
How would this not be a good thing? Facebook and Google probably should face more public scrutiny, not less.
Apocryphon 8y ago
At this point, the public is probably sick of the tech giants enough to want to nationalize them, or to at least break them up.

IronWolve 8y ago

>US Internet Speed Has Gone From 12th To 6th Fastest Since End Of Net Neutrality I see this being tossed around as a counter to the main point of NN being slow down of speed. Also, why do the state dem AG's always suing to enforce new laws instead of the legislation process, it seems like the new way to pass laws is to get a judge to give it to you. We have legal weed from legislation now.

EpiphanyMachine 8y ago
> Also, why do the state dem AG's always suing to enforce new laws instead of the legislation process, it seems like the new way to pass laws is to get a judge to give it to you. We have legal weed from legislation now. I agree with your position, but it's not just Dems. This is the main point of my comment also, this should be done with legislation.
lostcolony 8y ago
Looking at Q1 2017, and comparing against Q3 2015, we saw the average speed of the US, as measured by Akamai (i.e., someone actually delivering content, not just a 'speed test', which we know is gamed, and largely only hit by people with quick speeds anyway; I've never checked my speed except when I got a new ISP that said it was faster than my old one, i.e., when I first got 100mbps, and when I first got fiber) increase from 12.6mbps to 18.8 mbps. A year and a half under net neutrality and actual, real world average speeds increased 50%. So that was the pre-existing trajectory. It's not like "we're going to repeal net neutrality" is going to cause ISPs to pull their investments instantly, not when they've already been investing. If it's even related.
shkkmo 8y ago
I believe all the states that currently have recreation cannabis have it because of referendums and ballot initiatives. The legalization process has shown exactly how our legislatures have failed to address this issue. Canada did legalize recreational use with legislation, but they are the only ones so far. I personally blame gerrymandering.
- craftyguy 8y ago

justinzollars 8y ago

I would like to see Twitter, Google, CloudFlare and Facebook classified as public utilities. While Alex Jones is a nut case (And shouldn't be defended), other less publicized incidents of censorship by Social Media companies has occurred (related to picking winners between Israel and Palestine) [1]. While I am a Democrat who has been elected in the past, I agree with the conservative argument that: Corporate censorship dampens the spirit of free speech. [1] Facebook Says It Is Deleting Accounts at the Direction of the U.S. and Israeli Governments https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/ https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-dele...

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> I would like to see Twitter, Google, CloudFlare and Facebook classified as public utilities This would be destructive to our venture ecosystem with dubious benefits to consumers. Few Americans love their public utilities–they're often mismanaged and at least somewhat corrupt. Better to set up a system of rules and corresponding liabilities and--if necessary--regulators. (Given how profitable these companies are, though, litigation would probably cover all bases except those hurting the poor.)
narrator 8y ago
The argument against net neutrality that I like the best is that net neutrality takes power away from the regulated telecom monopolies, which are more firmly under government control and scrutiny, and gives it to the tech multinationals who are much more loosely regulated. The tech multinationals are more and more acting a lot like governments with their coordinated content policies, so it's more about giving power back to the government regulatory agencies vs embracing the brave new world of banning unpopular speech on all the major platforms.
- justinzollars 8y ago
  Thanks for posting this perspective. That is an interesting point.
- 8y ago

trumped 8y ago

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/twenty-two-states-ask-u-s-appeals-court-to-reinstate-net-neutrality-rules-idUSKCN1L605W https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/twenty-two-s...

dpflan 8y ago

The Entities involved: The coalition of 23 Attorneys General collectively represents over 165 million people – approximately 50 percent of the U.S. population – and includes the Attorneys General of: 1. New York 2. California 3. Connecticut 4. Delaware 5. Hawaii 6. Illinois 7. Iowa 8. Kentucky 9. Maine 10. Maryland 11. Massachusetts 12. Minnesota 13. Mississippi 14. New Mexico 15. New Jersey 16. North Carolina 17. Oregon 18. Pennsylvania 19. Rhode Island 20. Vermont 21. Virginia 22. Washington 23. District of Columbia

User23 8y ago

I haven’t noticed any change in my Internet connectivity since so-called net neutrality regulations were rolled back. That said, the fears of a single party dictating what you can and can’t see on the Internet are not just clear, they’re present. How many net neutrality supporters stood up for Alex Jones? Or say anything about shadow bans on Twitter, Facebook, and Google search results based on organizational capriciousness? Net neutrality is just another example of a regulatory capture competition between the old telcos and the new masters of the Internet. The massive PR spending alone is proof. See Paul Graham’s article[1] for a better explanation than I can give here. Interestingly the authentic left has the answer: Publicly owned corporations, universities, and perhaps other mainly local institutions providing network connectivity are the real antifragile solution to the problem net neutrality regulations claim to address. [1]http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

monocasa 8y ago
> I haven’t noticed any change in my Internet connectivity since so-called net neutrality regulations were rolled back. That's just because of how slow ISPs are at reacting to anything. I know product owners at a couple cable companies and they are actively modifying their systems to take advantage of the new lack of net neutrality. > That said, the fears of a single party dictating what you can and can’t see on the Internet are not just clear, they’re present. How many net neutrality supporters stood up for Alex Jones? Or say anything about shadow bans on Twitter, Facebook, and Google search results based on organizational capriciousness? Net Neutrality regulates the ISPs. If he were banned from Comcast or something so that he couldn't have internet connectivity, then that would be applicable.
jrockway 8y ago
> How many net neutrality supporters stood up for Alex Jones? Are ISPs refusing to peer with Alex Jones? If not, this has nothing to do with net neutrality.
- User23 8y ago
  If net neutrality is exclusively a regulatory power grab by Google and the like at the expense of traditional ISPs, then it's true Alex Jones has nothing to do with it. However, if one acknowledges some kind of moral principle that content shouldn't be discriminated against based on the source, then one has to show why that should apply to traditional ISPs and not to the newer Internet companies that run all the same infrastructure the traditional ISPs do.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dmritard96 8y ago

For anyone in a place with options, My suggestion is simply switching to a Net Neutrality proponent. Ditching my comcast today in favor of Sonic fiber. Cheaper, supports net neutrality, and waaayyy faster :)

_bxg1 8y ago
A big part of the point is that almost nobody has any options. If there were room for real competition in the space, regulation might not be necessary. Part of the barrier of entry is inherent: building infrastructure is hard. But part of it has been artificially constructed by the existing players through lobbying: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/utility-poles-important-future-internet/ https://www.wired.com/2016/09/utility-poles-important-future...
- dmritard96 8y ago
  yeap. I'm lucky enough to have options in Berkeley, but where I lived in the past, there was only ATT and Comcast...

onemoresoop 8y ago

I was wondering whether post the net neutrality repeal any IP has actually started tiered internet packages based on what content is being accessed, whether they stared throttling as many were fearing. If they hadn't it doesn't mean that they won't, was just curious if it's happened yet

andymal 8y ago
In the ARS article about Verizon throttling the CA fire dept's service they said the throttling policy was changed from "throttling during high congestion" to "throttling when they use their alloted amount of 'unlimited' data". This change was made basically immediately after the repeal went into effect.

uses 8y ago

Where did this new anti-NN talking point come from about how, if we're going to have net neutrality then we also need to allow people to be terrible on social media without taking responsibility for it? I swear I've seen this so many times in the past few months, including multiple comments in this thread. If moderation of corporate software platforms is an important issue for you, great, but surely you can see the difference between that and NN? Attempting to conflate the two looks pretty disingenuous and I'm pretty inclined to think it's some kind of culture war talking point.

cududa 8y ago
It’s being heavily pushed by conservative talking heads. Basically just limping everything into “net neutrality” because everyone knows the phrase
rule_follower 8y ago
>allow people to be terrible on social media without taking responsibility for it? This is a euphemism for banning users and a misrepresentation of the the points I have seen, which is that it is hypocritical to seek government safeguards against ISPs favoring/disfavoring traffic/content depending on the source while clamoring for just that from giant internet media corporations

delbel 8y ago

the system is broken when people care more about internet speed than voter fraud. This title should be twenty two states ask court to bring back paper voting ballot

imleft 8y ago

States have the power to enact laws they like.

imleft 8y ago

States have power to enact laws they like.