6 ms·

Good. It'll pass the House and then the Senate is forced to vote on it. It's necessary to get Republicans' positions on issues on the record so that voters can

Good. It'll pass the House and then the Senate is forced to vote on it. It's necessary to get Republicans' positions on issues on the record so that voters can see just how reprehensible they are.

Spivak 8y ago
I don't really see this affecting much in the way of reputation. NN stopped being about the actual policy once it went mainstream and is now entirely tribal signaling. Nobody outside of a tiny tiny group of policymakers and a few ISP level network engineers can claim to really actually understand RIFA. Anyone who is arguing that eliminating NN is reprehensible and not "I understand the positions of the stakeholders and the current FCC administration's policy goals but disagree that the bill will have the desired effect because..." isn't really helping anything. Please, we can do better than this. Read the actual text and disagree with it on its merit, not because the people involved are evil. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-347927A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-347927A1.pdf
- aaomidi 8y ago
  You understand that policymakers regularly consult professionals in respective fields before making a decision? Policymaker regularly delegate the understanding of specific pieces of technology/etc to professionals they trust and have worked with over their tenure.
- blotter_paper 8y ago
  >Anyone who is arguing that eliminating NN is reprehensible and not "I understand the positions of the stakeholders and the current FCC administration's policy goals but disagree that the bill will have the desired effect because..." isn't really helping anything. Strongly disagree; people can also disagree with the desirability of the effect, not just whether the bill will have the effect that the stakeholders and FCC administration desire. Note that I have not stated any opinion on NN in this comment, just the meta-discussion on what is an acceptable point of disagreement
  - ewzimm 8y ago
    I strongly agree that there's nothing essentially sacred about the concept of net neutrality. If it can be proven that certain aspects of net neutrality coded into law are a net benefit for society, I'm for it, but I don't think this has necessarily happened yet, and the justification for it gets lots in tribal signaling. For example, as much as I've read, I'm not sure exactly what part of net neutrality has overwhelming public support. Among people willing to comment on the matter, they seem to stand with the organizations that support it, but the public also doesn't seem to want their network to be neutral. Outside the specific laws implemented, the general principle of net neutrality is that all data should be treated equally in transit, but all data is not equally prioritized by people. T-Mobile's plan to throttle online video in exchange for unlimited streaming was so popular that everyone else copied it. People are excited for unlimited Netflix, and don't mind 480p on a tiny screen. If most people were given a choice, they would want their most used services to have a fast lane with unlimited data caps and wouldn't mind if the website they check once every few months was a little slower or their video was compressed to fit their device. Of course, people don't want the nightmare situation presented where they need to pay their ISP a subscription fee for access to each siloed section of the Internet, but so far nobody has proposed that outside of plans like Facebook had in India where base access was free. I would even guess that if people were offered a free unlimited data plan with access to services owned only by Facebook, Google, and Netflix and the option to buy unilmited web access, it would be extremely popular. So I think we have to acknowledge that many of the things that net neutrality is meant to prevent are actually very popular with many people, while also examining the negative consequences.
ModernMech 8y ago
> Good. It'll pass the House and then the Senate is forced to vote on it How is the Senate forced to vote on it? McConnell seems to be fond of blocking votes that go against the Republican agenda. See: the shutdown. Also the anti-corruption and voting rights bill that passed the House will not be brought up for a vote in the Senate. Is there something about this bill that forces the Senate to vote on it?
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  He's having them vote on the Green New Deal (sarcastic comment, but he really is).
- psychometry 8y ago
  Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that House Resolutions must be voted on in the Senate in some form.
  - anarazel 8y ago
    Nope. There's a lot of legislation passed in one chamber just to die in the other. I don't know how many times there have been bills to repeal the ACA in the house, for example, that never got voted upon in the Senate.
    - psychometry 8y ago
      Thanks, I forgot about that example.
vondur 8y ago
Really? If you asked the average person about how the repeal of NN has effected them, you'd probably just get a blank stare. For 99% of people, the repeal of NN has not affected them in any tangible way.
anarazel 8y ago
Passing a bill in the house doesn't have much of a forcing function on getting a bill voted upon in the Senate. I doubt McConnell will bring it up for a vote. It's perhaps possible to attach it to some must pass legislation, in committee, but I'm doubtful.
- chapium 8y ago
  Either way, both steps are required.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hanging 8y ago
The bill in the tweet in this article is a Senate bill.
hanging 8y ago
just how reprehensible they are Are you unaware that we had NN under Bush and then lost it by actions of the Obama administration? And that Pai was originally nominated by Obama?
- dagw 8y ago
  then lost it by actions of the Obama administration I thought that while the FCC under Obama did consider lifting NN, the Obama administration and the FCC under Obama ended up coming down strongly on the side of NN. Are you arguing that if the FCC hadn't looked into the possibility of dropping NN under Obama then the Trump administration never would have gotten the idea to follow through on it? But you are right that it was president Bush and a Republican FCC chair that first adopted the principle of NN.

Good. It'll pass the House and then the Senate is forced to vote on it. It's necessary to get Republicans' positions on issues on the record so that voters can see just how reprehensible they are.

Spivak 8y ago

I don't really see this affecting much in the way of reputation. NN stopped being about the actual policy once it went mainstream and is now entirely tribal signaling. Nobody outside of a tiny tiny group of policymakers and a few ISP level network engineers can claim to really actually understand RIFA. Anyone who is arguing that eliminating NN is reprehensible and not "I understand the positions of the stakeholders and the current FCC administration's policy goals but disagree that the bill will have the desired effect because..." isn't really helping anything. Please, we can do better than this. Read the actual text and disagree with it on its merit, not because the people involved are evil. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-347927A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-347927A1.pdf

aaomidi 8y ago
You understand that policymakers regularly consult professionals in respective fields before making a decision? Policymaker regularly delegate the understanding of specific pieces of technology/etc to professionals they trust and have worked with over their tenure.
blotter_paper 8y ago
>Anyone who is arguing that eliminating NN is reprehensible and not "I understand the positions of the stakeholders and the current FCC administration's policy goals but disagree that the bill will have the desired effect because..." isn't really helping anything. Strongly disagree; people can also disagree with the desirability of the effect, not just whether the bill will have the effect that the stakeholders and FCC administration desire. Note that I have not stated any opinion on NN in this comment, just the meta-discussion on what is an acceptable point of disagreement
- ewzimm 8y ago
  I strongly agree that there's nothing essentially sacred about the concept of net neutrality. If it can be proven that certain aspects of net neutrality coded into law are a net benefit for society, I'm for it, but I don't think this has necessarily happened yet, and the justification for it gets lots in tribal signaling. For example, as much as I've read, I'm not sure exactly what part of net neutrality has overwhelming public support. Among people willing to comment on the matter, they seem to stand with the organizations that support it, but the public also doesn't seem to want their network to be neutral. Outside the specific laws implemented, the general principle of net neutrality is that all data should be treated equally in transit, but all data is not equally prioritized by people. T-Mobile's plan to throttle online video in exchange for unlimited streaming was so popular that everyone else copied it. People are excited for unlimited Netflix, and don't mind 480p on a tiny screen. If most people were given a choice, they would want their most used services to have a fast lane with unlimited data caps and wouldn't mind if the website they check once every few months was a little slower or their video was compressed to fit their device. Of course, people don't want the nightmare situation presented where they need to pay their ISP a subscription fee for access to each siloed section of the Internet, but so far nobody has proposed that outside of plans like Facebook had in India where base access was free. I would even guess that if people were offered a free unlimited data plan with access to services owned only by Facebook, Google, and Netflix and the option to buy unilmited web access, it would be extremely popular. So I think we have to acknowledge that many of the things that net neutrality is meant to prevent are actually very popular with many people, while also examining the negative consequences.

ModernMech 8y ago

> Good. It'll pass the House and then the Senate is forced to vote on it How is the Senate forced to vote on it? McConnell seems to be fond of blocking votes that go against the Republican agenda. See: the shutdown. Also the anti-corruption and voting rights bill that passed the House will not be brought up for a vote in the Senate. Is there something about this bill that forces the Senate to vote on it?

creaghpatr 8y ago
He's having them vote on the Green New Deal (sarcastic comment, but he really is).
psychometry 8y ago
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that House Resolutions must be voted on in the Senate in some form.
- anarazel 8y ago
  Nope. There's a lot of legislation passed in one chamber just to die in the other. I don't know how many times there have been bills to repeal the ACA in the house, for example, that never got voted upon in the Senate.
  - psychometry 8y ago
    Thanks, I forgot about that example.

vondur 8y ago

Really? If you asked the average person about how the repeal of NN has effected them, you'd probably just get a blank stare. For 99% of people, the repeal of NN has not affected them in any tangible way.

anarazel 8y ago

Passing a bill in the house doesn't have much of a forcing function on getting a bill voted upon in the Senate. I doubt McConnell will bring it up for a vote. It's perhaps possible to attach it to some must pass legislation, in committee, but I'm doubtful.

chapium 8y ago
Either way, both steps are required.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

hanging 8y ago

The bill in the tweet in this article is a Senate bill.

hanging 8y ago

just how reprehensible they are Are you unaware that we had NN under Bush and then lost it by actions of the Obama administration? And that Pai was originally nominated by Obama?

dagw 8y ago
then lost it by actions of the Obama administration I thought that while the FCC under Obama did consider lifting NN, the Obama administration and the FCC under Obama ended up coming down strongly on the side of NN. Are you arguing that if the FCC hadn't looked into the possibility of dropping NN under Obama then the Trump administration never would have gotten the idea to follow through on it? But you are right that it was president Bush and a Republican FCC chair that first adopted the principle of NN.