10 ms·

Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

74 points by lotusleaf1987 16y ago

gammarator 16y ago
Notably, Boehner's top campaign contributer in the last election cycle was AT&T: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=N00003675&newMem=N&cycle=2010 http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&#3...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- pohl 16y ago
  My reading of the article uncovered the following from John Boehner's speech: "As far as I'm concerned, there is no compromise or middle ground when it comes to protecting our most basic freedoms." I reckon this is the genesis of the headline.
mcantor 16y ago
I'm not sure how to post this without seeming like a troll, but... is this guy campaigning for or against net neutrality? I can't tell from the article. He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? So... he wants net neutrality? But then he says "no taxpayer dollars [should be] used to fund these net neutrality rules." I'm sure I'm being either naive, stupid or both right now, but I'm honestly confused.
- moskie 16y ago
  He thinks (or claims) that we have network neutrality right now, and doesn't want that to change. He thinks (or claims) that since we got to this point without any rules or laws in place, we shouldn't eff that up putting any in place. (Just to be clear, I do not agree with his perspective, just explaining what I think it is.)
  - isleyaardvark 16y ago
    Not quite. Seriously. The current conservative argument against net neutrality is to paint net neutrality as "regulation" and "regulation" is bad. Instead of looking at the specifics of net neutrality regulation, they just say "regulation" and hope that people's imaginations run wild. (If they went into specifics, conservatives likely would support NN, it's essentially how Reagan-era Republicans created the Internet: http://www.archive.org/details/igovernance_rawfootage_l2a http://www.archive.org/details/igovernance_rawfootage_l2a) Boehner doesn't understand it nor will attempt to understand it. His paycheck depends on him not understanding it.
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  People who oppose net neutrality don't trust the FCC to be a benevolent regulator of the internet. For example, this blog post has links to a number of longer form pieces that make the case against it: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-fcc-should-not-regulate-the-internet/ http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-fcc-should-not-regulate-t... And here's a post refuting the "money" argument: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/siding-with-the-geeks-on-network-neutrality/ http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/siding-with-the-geeks-on-netw...
  - Bud 16y ago
    Of course, once the right-wing gets its way on net neutrality, insuring that corporations can do whatever they want, they will then ALSO argue, as soon as Republicans hold the White House again, that the government has to be able to regulate the Internet as well, in order to make the world safe for Jesus and protect us from the terrorists. This BS about opposing government control really just means they oppose government control that comes from Democrats.
    - mbateman 16y ago
      I upvoted you because I agree that this true of many/most conservatives, especially those with an actual political career. But it's sad that this is the case. And it's certainly not by itself a very good argument for net neutrality or government control.
      - Bud 16y ago
        I agree that corporate rapaciousness and Republicans' pattern of serial lying is not a reason to support net neutrality. Net neutrality must stand on its own merits. I feel it does; others obviously will disagree. :) My only point was, it's laughable to think that Republicans are telling the truth about this, or to believe they will keep their hands off the Internet once they have enough power to mess with it again. I believe the recent historical record provides incontrovertible proof of this.
    - Judson 16y ago
      >as soon as Republicans hold the White House again, that the government has to be able to regulate the Internet as well, in order to make the world safe for Jesus and protect us from the terrorists. I don't agree with the political "back and forth" that is prevalent on both sides of the spectrum, but certainly this could have been rephrased to be a bit more objective.
- jlv 16y ago
  He's considering the basic freedoms of service providers to restrict access as they see fit - not the right of the consumers.
  - jacoblyles 16y ago
    That's seldom an argument that I've never seen featured prominently on blogs that oppose network neutrality legislation, but on this little slice of reddit inside HN I suppose painting the worst possible picture of people you disagree with is all that matters. Most people who oppose regulation of the internet use utilitarian arguments, claiming that the quality and neutrality of the internet will be biased by government regulation. Believe it or not, there is not a cabal of people getting together on wednesday nights to sacrifice children to corporate logos. Rather, there are many people who in good-faith believe that heavy-handed regulation is bad for the consumer. Myself, I haven't made up my mind on the issue yet, but hivemind behavior just rubs me the wrong way.
    - bane 16y ago
      I'm not really sure how net-neutrality (status quo) is supposed to be a "heavy-handed regulation". While a bunch of new regulation that ensures a heavily controlled and regulated and multi-tiered internet is not.
    - blueben 16y ago
      You're right. The blogs that oppose network neutrality are far less coherent than that.
    - jlv 16y ago
      I'm not trying to paint a prejudiced picture though. Hell - I'm not even trying to twist words. The core of the cognitive dissonance can be explained away by understanding for whom Boehner is speaking out for - the providers and their 'basic freedom' to regulate a service as they see fit. Obviously, net neutrality proponents understand the issue differently.
    - jokermatt999 16y ago
      That's true, and a good point in regards to legislation. Not everyone who oppose Net Neutrality is dong so because of the corporations. There are legitimate concerns about how the FCC would regulate the internet. However, when speaking of freedom being restricted in opposition to Net Neutrality, it seems like the only possible freedoms being restricted are those of corporations who would wish to do things that would be restricted by Net Neutrality, not those of their customers. However, when this is mentioned, it's painted as "our" freedoms, making it look like it's everyone's freedom, when realistically it's only the freedom of those corporations, and not the citizens, as is implied.
- reedlaw 16y ago
  As a libertarian, I would interpret protecting "our most basic freedoms" meaning the right to freely enter into agreements with whichever service providers we choose. If a service provider chooses to limit bandwidth to certain sites I would be free to buy Internet service elsewhere. But, as a libertarian, I also recognize the fact that this will never work as long as government continues to regulate these services in any way. If government gives special favours to big providers there will never be an opportunity for small ISPs to compete.
  - maxxxxx 16y ago
    That would be OK if there was a functioning market for ISPs. But there clearly isn't. Most people don't have a choice of service provider and the cost of entry is too high for new competitors to come in.
    - warrenwilkinson 16y ago
      Technological barriers mean high profits for existing players. This in turn brings more and more entrepreneurs looking to bypass the barrier (either through new technology, capital intensive partnerships, or other avenues) and reach the gold.
      - leot 16y ago
        The fallacy here is the engagement of "long-run" reasoning, which assumes that market inefficiencies are static long enough for entrepreneurs to overcome the various barriers to entry (the long-run requires an assumption of stationarity). It's an empirical question whether entrepreneurs can reach the gold when it's constantly moving, and whether the economic cost of doing so is less than the cost of some smart regulation.
        warrenwilkinson 16y ago
        If the incumbents close the opportunity by offering better service -- than the original parents problem no longer exists. Businesses compete with potential competitors and potential technologies too. The higher the price, the more incentive for your users to look at alternative solutions (which includes starting a competing service). Greater demand for alternatives will be answered.
- sp332 16y ago
  He thinks (mainly because of ignorance, I guess) that ISPs are competing in a decent approximation of a free market, and that consumers have a choice of providers offering various services at various competitive price points. That's how markets in the USA are intended to work, so I guess it's a reasonable assumption, if you're completely ignorant of the state of telecom in the USA. Just as an example, Verizon decided that my home state of New Hampshire wasn't a desirable market any more for terrestrial broadband. So they sold their franchise (basically a state-granted monopoly over the region) to FairPoint. The state only agreed to give the franchise to FairPoint after FP promised to extend fiber deployment throughout the state, and meet certain access requirements to poor and hard-to-reach areas. (This is why the monopoly is considered a fair tradeoff: the company makes their money on a captive audience in the higher-margin cities, and the state gets guaranteed service to negative-margin rural areas.) Well, it turns out FP were lying through their teeth, have no fiber capability whatsoever, and don't have enough money to improve the infrastructure at all. Verizon shareholders lost over 1 billion dollars, but the trouble is that there is no competition for residential broadband left in the state. In some places, you can get 1.5 Mb/s DSL (which the FCC admits doesn't count as "broadband"), a few places you can get Comcast cable, but there are a lot of places where there's just nothing available. And since we're not a desirable market, there's no chance of getting any other companies to deploy to those areas. NH is screwed for the foreseeable future. tl;dr No one on any side who's been paying attention would make those claims. Status quo is state-granted monopolies, so it's up to the state to enforce reasonable rules on the ISPs.
  - clistctrl 16y ago
    Perhaps 4G wireless is the answer?
    - jonknee 16y ago
      Ironically that's the mode of access most likely to be affected by not having net neutrality laws passed. Google was even willing to give wireless a pass in their pact with Verizon.
      - 16y ago
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- warrenwilkinson 16y ago
  'Net neutrality' is a plan for government to regulate ISPs. Ostensibly, the government will only regulate in the consumers interest --- but the egyptian gov showed the other side of regulation (censorship). He says he is against net neutrality; he is against government regulation of ISPs. More interesting than anything he said, is the quote "No man can serve two masters". Currently ISPs serve you, but after net neutrality passes they will serve the government.
  - khafra 16y ago
    > Currently ISPs serve you I'm not a board member of Comcast. I don't even hold any voting shares in CMCSA.
    - warrenwilkinson 16y ago
      Comcast is everybodys whipping boy since the bittorrent blocking fiasco. They acted against their customer base and have been paying for it since. Why regulate beyond what Comcast's customers thought appropriate?
  - Bud 16y ago
    Currently, ISPs serve their shareholders. If net neutrality or anything similar to it ever does pass, ISPs will still largely serve their shareholders, but will have slightly less freedom to gouge consumers, and to censor content they don't like.
    - warrenwilkinson 16y ago
      All businesses ultimately serve their shareholders. That is not grounds for regulation. After net neutrality does pass, how will the legislation (and associated regulatory body) actually decrease prices? Will starting an ISP be easier once they require a regulatory stamp-of-approval? Will censorship be rarer when all ISPs are subject to a single, central regulatory body?
- davidmathers 16y ago
  He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? Matt Yglesias explains: Freedom’s Just Another Word for "I’m An Orthodox Conservative With Orthodox Conservative Views": http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/?p=41091 http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/?p=41091 He also provides an example in: The Freedom to Build: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/the-freedom-to-build/ http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/the-freedom-to-bui... Where freedom means the freedom to prevent a real estate developer from building what they want, on property they own, because you don't like it. Also somewhat apropos: Freedom-Talk in Colonial Georgia: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/freedom-talk-in-colonial-georgia/ http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/freedom-talk-in-co... The Georgia dissidents rallied behind the revealing slogan “Liberty and Property without restrictions”—which explicitly linked the liberty of white men to their right to hold blacks as property. Until they could own slaves, the white Georgians considered themselves unfree.
  - jokermatt999 16y ago
    George Orwell's Politics and the English Language (which should be required reading for everyone) has a section titled "Meaningless words" which contains this wonderful sentence: "The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another." I try to keep it in mind whenever I see someone mentioning freedom, openness, rights, etc. Generally it seems like these are used for emotional appeal rather an actual clear definition. Edit: Link to the essay. It's short, and very well worth the read. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
    - davidmathers 16y ago
      There is of course some truth to that, but in this case I think it's a bit unfair to conservatives. The words "freedom" and "liberty" do have reasonably consistent and coherent conservative meanings. They're just different than what libertarians, classical liberals, etc. mean when they use those words (negative liberty) and what liberals, social democrats, etc mean (positive liberty). But I do agree that Politics and the English Language should be read by everyone, so I'm always glad to see it linked to.
- jcromartie 16y ago
  > "our most basic freedoms" "Our" here means media/telecom corporations.
beatpanda 16y ago
All of these stories point to one solution- re-decentralize the Internet. Depending on either corporations or the government for a functioning Internet is a recipe for disaster.
- webXL 16y ago
  Decentralization depends on standards, infrastructure and property rights. That's all. Bureaucrats and corporations not required. If you want to hook up your network to mine, so your users can share data with mine and vice versa, all we need is power, hardware, ethernet and good 'ol TCP/IP. Net "Neutrality" advocates would make better use of their time starting their own networks, where anything neutral goes, including equal prioritization of XXX porn and 911 VOIP packets. On my network, if you freely agree to the terms, your porn packets would not be neutral. If you don't like that, you don't have to use my network. Don't like it? Tough. It's called freedom.
runjake 16y ago
Summary: Do you want corporations to act as unregulated "traffic controllers"? Then you're against net neutrality. Do you want an accountable government agency with a lackluster track record for citizens' digital rights to act as a "traffic controller"? Then you're for net neutrality. * Before voting me down, look at the actions the federal government has already taken in regards to traffic control (ala exempting wireless carriers, and kill switch legislation). This smells like traffic control to me.
- blueben 16y ago
  Then you aren't familiar with network neutrality, which has nothing to do with the FCC dictating what kind of traffic is and is not allowed or controlling traffic.
  - jimmyk 16y ago
    No it certainly doesn't have anything to do with that. However it does set the precedent that the FCC can set rules for how businesses operate their networks, and once that precedent is set it will become much easier to extend it to regulation of traffic. Keep in mind that governments rarely give up a power once it's become accepted, but that they are quick to extend any powers they do have. This isn't necessarily the first or last link in that chain, but it is a link in the chain.
    - runjake 16y ago
      Well put, thanks.
    - wmf 16y ago
      Isn't the FCC already regulating the Internet through CALEA? I don't quite understand the idea that NN is the FCC's "foot in the door".
      - jimmyk 16y ago
        Yes that's a good point. I edited my comment before I saw your reply and once after I saw your reply. I'm not too familiar with CALEA but it seems to be an example of the phenomenon I was describing. It began as a way for law enforcement to monitor VOIP but expanded in 10 years to cover all internet traffic.
blueben 16y ago
There are a number of disturbing aspects of this news, but I find the new "no discussion, no consideration, no compromise" attitude of the Republican party to be extremely frightening.
- maxxxxx 16y ago
  It works pretty well though. Every issue is framed as a decision whether the country as we know it will be destroyed. Seems a lot of voters like this style.
  - gnosis 16y ago
    Just a few years ago all the news was about how the American public was sick of this sort of "polarizing" style of politics, and wanted a kinder, gentler style epitomized by "compromise". Of course, that was when the Democrats were coming in to power. Now that the Republicans seem to be coming back in to power, it seems that "compromise" is off the table. Not that it ever was on the table for Republicans.
- ars 16y ago
  Until the mid term elections that's exactly what President Obama did. (He would claim he wants ideas from Republicans, but mention a few things that were no compromise, and it was exactly those things that the Republicans actually wanted a compromise on.) Basically whoever has a majority talks that way - both parties. I wish we could have at least 3 (very different) parties so that no one party could ever get an automatic majority. Failing that I like the current situation where each house has a different party in the majority. It's just not good for politicians to have too much power, forcing them to compromise and negotiate is very good for them.
Dornkirk 16y ago
Can someone tell me if net neutrality was to fail and big service providers did restrict access as they saw fit - what ways would there be around it without paying extra $ to line their pockets? VPN? Something else? (I don't know much about this stuff so sorry if this is a dumb question)
DanI-S 16y ago
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing America that freedom for corporations equates to freedom for individuals.
- ars 16y ago
  Corporation are MADE of individuals. A corporation is not a person and does not think. There is an actual human on the other end, and it is that human to whom you are giving that freedom. People have a tendency to anthropomorphize corporations. A corporation did this, wants that, etc.
  - DanI-S 16y ago
    Collections of individuals don't act with the same motivations and ethics as individuals, so they shouldn't have the same rights.
  - bootload 16y ago
    "... Corporation are MADE of individuals. ^A corporation is not a person^ and does not think. ..." Yes they are. "... In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. ..." ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation#United_States A dubious outcome in what was meant in spirit to uphold a person's (black or white) civil and political rights being interfered by any state. cf: 14th amendment ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Citizenship_and_civil_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni...
CulturalNgineer 16y ago
Check the following totally misleading article put out by the Corporate front "Ameripac": FCC: Information Superhighway Traffic Cops http://conservativeactionalerts.com/blog_post/show/2120 http://conservativeactionalerts.com/blog_post/show/2120 This looks to be a campaign intentionally designed to confuse with the goal of restricting a truly free Internet in order to benefit big money interests. Frankly I've had more than enough of mega-corporations corrupting good governance.
protomyth 16y ago
I still want a technical definition of what Net Neutrality is. No using words like "freedom", given me something that is not open to interpretation.
- sorbus 16y ago
  As I define it: No packet shaping based on what service users are accessing; all packets are created equal. Wikipedia also has a quite good definition. A key line from it: "The principle advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication." Sadly, it's a term which is used to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. Political language does horrible things to words.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    Actually, I want packet shaping as long as its under my control (my netflix is more important than the download of software updates). "Sadly, it's a term which is used to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. Political language does horrible things to words." You nailed the words to my biggest problem. I see how bills are named, and really won't say I support something unless I have a real definition.
russell 16y ago
The idea of net neutrality comes from the concept of Common Carrier in the Communications Act of 1934: carriers cannot block communications between any two parties (such as favoring their subscribers over those of another carrier). In exchange the carriers are not liable for the content of the communications. Another thing that seems to totally ignored by Boehner et. al. is that you sometimes need regulation to protect basic rights, the Civil Rights Act for example. Net neutrality (hacker view) is the right to communicate whatever with whomever. The FCC has actually been protecting the Internet, bu ever since Powell the child's term as FCC chairman, the waters have been considerably muddied. (In order to give my rant some measure of verisimilitude, I attempted to vet it against Common Carrier and Communications Act of 1934 over at Wikipedia. I found two of the worst and most incomplete articles that I have ever encountered. The Act itself is a 333 page PDF. tl;dnr So please be kind. :-)
l0c0b0x 16y ago
I'm sorry, but I've heard a lot of topics from Boehner that include: "protecting our most basic freedoms". Of course, by "our", he mostly means "Corporations" (IMHO, viewed as first-class citizen groups). Just my opinion.
webXL 16y ago
Oh, Republicans are against net neutrality, so we should be for it, right? If there's one dominant theme I've seen over the years when politics rears its ugly head in an online discussion, it's that Republicans = Corporations (Evil) Democrats = Workers (Wholesome goodness) Now, it's entirely possible that those statements are true 100% of the time, but isn't it much more likely that there are exceptions to them, and if you're intellectually honest, you can acknowledge them? I'm not sure if Google results are a trustworthy source, but look up "corporate donations by party" and you'll see countless examples of corporations taking advantage of whatever party is in power. So you must acknowledge that neither party is completely beholden to "wholesome goodness". Whichever side wins in the net neutrality debate, some corporations will lose, and others will win. If net neutrality needs to be enforced, it means that politicians will hold more power. Do we really want to keep giving those people more power, especially over something that's pretty free at the moment? Give more power to the same people who just renewed the Patriot Act?!

74 points by lotusleaf1987 16y ago

Notably, Boehner's top campaign contributer in the last election cycle was AT&T: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=N00003675&newMem=N&cycle=2010 http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&#3...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
pohl 16y ago
My reading of the article uncovered the following from John Boehner's speech: "As far as I'm concerned, there is no compromise or middle ground when it comes to protecting our most basic freedoms." I reckon this is the genesis of the headline.

mcantor 16y ago

I'm not sure how to post this without seeming like a troll, but... is this guy campaigning for or against net neutrality? I can't tell from the article. He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? So... he wants net neutrality? But then he says "no taxpayer dollars [should be] used to fund these net neutrality rules." I'm sure I'm being either naive, stupid or both right now, but I'm honestly confused.

moskie 16y ago
He thinks (or claims) that we have network neutrality right now, and doesn't want that to change. He thinks (or claims) that since we got to this point without any rules or laws in place, we shouldn't eff that up putting any in place. (Just to be clear, I do not agree with his perspective, just explaining what I think it is.)
- isleyaardvark 16y ago
  Not quite. Seriously. The current conservative argument against net neutrality is to paint net neutrality as "regulation" and "regulation" is bad. Instead of looking at the specifics of net neutrality regulation, they just say "regulation" and hope that people's imaginations run wild. (If they went into specifics, conservatives likely would support NN, it's essentially how Reagan-era Republicans created the Internet: http://www.archive.org/details/igovernance_rawfootage_l2a http://www.archive.org/details/igovernance_rawfootage_l2a) Boehner doesn't understand it nor will attempt to understand it. His paycheck depends on him not understanding it.
jacoblyles 16y ago
People who oppose net neutrality don't trust the FCC to be a benevolent regulator of the internet. For example, this blog post has links to a number of longer form pieces that make the case against it: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-fcc-should-not-regulate-the-internet/ http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-fcc-should-not-regulate-t... And here's a post refuting the "money" argument: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/siding-with-the-geeks-on-network-neutrality/ http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/siding-with-the-geeks-on-netw...
- Bud 16y ago
  Of course, once the right-wing gets its way on net neutrality, insuring that corporations can do whatever they want, they will then ALSO argue, as soon as Republicans hold the White House again, that the government has to be able to regulate the Internet as well, in order to make the world safe for Jesus and protect us from the terrorists. This BS about opposing government control really just means they oppose government control that comes from Democrats.
  - mbateman 16y ago
    I upvoted you because I agree that this true of many/most conservatives, especially those with an actual political career. But it's sad that this is the case. And it's certainly not by itself a very good argument for net neutrality or government control.
    - Bud 16y ago
      I agree that corporate rapaciousness and Republicans' pattern of serial lying is not a reason to support net neutrality. Net neutrality must stand on its own merits. I feel it does; others obviously will disagree. :) My only point was, it's laughable to think that Republicans are telling the truth about this, or to believe they will keep their hands off the Internet once they have enough power to mess with it again. I believe the recent historical record provides incontrovertible proof of this.
  - Judson 16y ago
    >as soon as Republicans hold the White House again, that the government has to be able to regulate the Internet as well, in order to make the world safe for Jesus and protect us from the terrorists. I don't agree with the political "back and forth" that is prevalent on both sides of the spectrum, but certainly this could have been rephrased to be a bit more objective.
jlv 16y ago
He's considering the basic freedoms of service providers to restrict access as they see fit - not the right of the consumers.
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  That's seldom an argument that I've never seen featured prominently on blogs that oppose network neutrality legislation, but on this little slice of reddit inside HN I suppose painting the worst possible picture of people you disagree with is all that matters. Most people who oppose regulation of the internet use utilitarian arguments, claiming that the quality and neutrality of the internet will be biased by government regulation. Believe it or not, there is not a cabal of people getting together on wednesday nights to sacrifice children to corporate logos. Rather, there are many people who in good-faith believe that heavy-handed regulation is bad for the consumer. Myself, I haven't made up my mind on the issue yet, but hivemind behavior just rubs me the wrong way.
  - bane 16y ago
    I'm not really sure how net-neutrality (status quo) is supposed to be a "heavy-handed regulation". While a bunch of new regulation that ensures a heavily controlled and regulated and multi-tiered internet is not.
  - blueben 16y ago
    You're right. The blogs that oppose network neutrality are far less coherent than that.
  - jlv 16y ago
    I'm not trying to paint a prejudiced picture though. Hell - I'm not even trying to twist words. The core of the cognitive dissonance can be explained away by understanding for whom Boehner is speaking out for - the providers and their 'basic freedom' to regulate a service as they see fit. Obviously, net neutrality proponents understand the issue differently.
  - jokermatt999 16y ago
    That's true, and a good point in regards to legislation. Not everyone who oppose Net Neutrality is dong so because of the corporations. There are legitimate concerns about how the FCC would regulate the internet. However, when speaking of freedom being restricted in opposition to Net Neutrality, it seems like the only possible freedoms being restricted are those of corporations who would wish to do things that would be restricted by Net Neutrality, not those of their customers. However, when this is mentioned, it's painted as "our" freedoms, making it look like it's everyone's freedom, when realistically it's only the freedom of those corporations, and not the citizens, as is implied.
reedlaw 16y ago
As a libertarian, I would interpret protecting "our most basic freedoms" meaning the right to freely enter into agreements with whichever service providers we choose. If a service provider chooses to limit bandwidth to certain sites I would be free to buy Internet service elsewhere. But, as a libertarian, I also recognize the fact that this will never work as long as government continues to regulate these services in any way. If government gives special favours to big providers there will never be an opportunity for small ISPs to compete.
- maxxxxx 16y ago
  That would be OK if there was a functioning market for ISPs. But there clearly isn't. Most people don't have a choice of service provider and the cost of entry is too high for new competitors to come in.
  - warrenwilkinson 16y ago
    Technological barriers mean high profits for existing players. This in turn brings more and more entrepreneurs looking to bypass the barrier (either through new technology, capital intensive partnerships, or other avenues) and reach the gold.
    - leot 16y ago
      The fallacy here is the engagement of "long-run" reasoning, which assumes that market inefficiencies are static long enough for entrepreneurs to overcome the various barriers to entry (the long-run requires an assumption of stationarity). It's an empirical question whether entrepreneurs can reach the gold when it's constantly moving, and whether the economic cost of doing so is less than the cost of some smart regulation.
      - warrenwilkinson 16y ago
        If the incumbents close the opportunity by offering better service -- than the original parents problem no longer exists. Businesses compete with potential competitors and potential technologies too. The higher the price, the more incentive for your users to look at alternative solutions (which includes starting a competing service). Greater demand for alternatives will be answered.
sp332 16y ago
He thinks (mainly because of ignorance, I guess) that ISPs are competing in a decent approximation of a free market, and that consumers have a choice of providers offering various services at various competitive price points. That's how markets in the USA are intended to work, so I guess it's a reasonable assumption, if you're completely ignorant of the state of telecom in the USA. Just as an example, Verizon decided that my home state of New Hampshire wasn't a desirable market any more for terrestrial broadband. So they sold their franchise (basically a state-granted monopoly over the region) to FairPoint. The state only agreed to give the franchise to FairPoint after FP promised to extend fiber deployment throughout the state, and meet certain access requirements to poor and hard-to-reach areas. (This is why the monopoly is considered a fair tradeoff: the company makes their money on a captive audience in the higher-margin cities, and the state gets guaranteed service to negative-margin rural areas.) Well, it turns out FP were lying through their teeth, have no fiber capability whatsoever, and don't have enough money to improve the infrastructure at all. Verizon shareholders lost over 1 billion dollars, but the trouble is that there is no competition for residential broadband left in the state. In some places, you can get 1.5 Mb/s DSL (which the FCC admits doesn't count as "broadband"), a few places you can get Comcast cable, but there are a lot of places where there's just nothing available. And since we're not a desirable market, there's no chance of getting any other companies to deploy to those areas. NH is screwed for the foreseeable future. tl;dr No one on any side who's been paying attention would make those claims. Status quo is state-granted monopolies, so it's up to the state to enforce reasonable rules on the ISPs.
- clistctrl 16y ago
  Perhaps 4G wireless is the answer?
  - jonknee 16y ago
    Ironically that's the mode of access most likely to be affected by not having net neutrality laws passed. Google was even willing to give wireless a pass in their pact with Verizon.
    - 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
warrenwilkinson 16y ago
'Net neutrality' is a plan for government to regulate ISPs. Ostensibly, the government will only regulate in the consumers interest --- but the egyptian gov showed the other side of regulation (censorship). He says he is against net neutrality; he is against government regulation of ISPs. More interesting than anything he said, is the quote "No man can serve two masters". Currently ISPs serve you, but after net neutrality passes they will serve the government.
- khafra 16y ago
  > Currently ISPs serve you I'm not a board member of Comcast. I don't even hold any voting shares in CMCSA.
  - warrenwilkinson 16y ago
    Comcast is everybodys whipping boy since the bittorrent blocking fiasco. They acted against their customer base and have been paying for it since. Why regulate beyond what Comcast's customers thought appropriate?
- Bud 16y ago
  Currently, ISPs serve their shareholders. If net neutrality or anything similar to it ever does pass, ISPs will still largely serve their shareholders, but will have slightly less freedom to gouge consumers, and to censor content they don't like.
  - warrenwilkinson 16y ago
    All businesses ultimately serve their shareholders. That is not grounds for regulation. After net neutrality does pass, how will the legislation (and associated regulatory body) actually decrease prices? Will starting an ISP be easier once they require a regulatory stamp-of-approval? Will censorship be rarer when all ISPs are subject to a single, central regulatory body?
davidmathers 16y ago
He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? Matt Yglesias explains: Freedom’s Just Another Word for "I’m An Orthodox Conservative With Orthodox Conservative Views": http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/?p=41091 http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/?p=41091 He also provides an example in: The Freedom to Build: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/the-freedom-to-build/ http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/the-freedom-to-bui... Where freedom means the freedom to prevent a real estate developer from building what they want, on property they own, because you don't like it. Also somewhat apropos: Freedom-Talk in Colonial Georgia: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/freedom-talk-in-colonial-georgia/ http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/freedom-talk-in-co... The Georgia dissidents rallied behind the revealing slogan “Liberty and Property without restrictions”—which explicitly linked the liberty of white men to their right to hold blacks as property. Until they could own slaves, the white Georgians considered themselves unfree.
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  George Orwell's Politics and the English Language (which should be required reading for everyone) has a section titled "Meaningless words" which contains this wonderful sentence: "The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another." I try to keep it in mind whenever I see someone mentioning freedom, openness, rights, etc. Generally it seems like these are used for emotional appeal rather an actual clear definition. Edit: Link to the essay. It's short, and very well worth the read. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
  - davidmathers 16y ago
    There is of course some truth to that, but in this case I think it's a bit unfair to conservatives. The words "freedom" and "liberty" do have reasonably consistent and coherent conservative meanings. They're just different than what libertarians, classical liberals, etc. mean when they use those words (negative liberty) and what liberals, social democrats, etc mean (positive liberty). But I do agree that Politics and the English Language should be read by everyone, so I'm always glad to see it linked to.
jcromartie 16y ago
> "our most basic freedoms" "Our" here means media/telecom corporations.

beatpanda 16y ago

All of these stories point to one solution- re-decentralize the Internet. Depending on either corporations or the government for a functioning Internet is a recipe for disaster.

webXL 16y ago
Decentralization depends on standards, infrastructure and property rights. That's all. Bureaucrats and corporations not required. If you want to hook up your network to mine, so your users can share data with mine and vice versa, all we need is power, hardware, ethernet and good 'ol TCP/IP. Net "Neutrality" advocates would make better use of their time starting their own networks, where anything neutral goes, including equal prioritization of XXX porn and 911 VOIP packets. On my network, if you freely agree to the terms, your porn packets would not be neutral. If you don't like that, you don't have to use my network. Don't like it? Tough. It's called freedom.

runjake 16y ago

Summary: Do you want corporations to act as unregulated "traffic controllers"? Then you're against net neutrality. Do you want an accountable government agency with a lackluster track record for citizens' digital rights to act as a "traffic controller"? Then you're for net neutrality. * Before voting me down, look at the actions the federal government has already taken in regards to traffic control (ala exempting wireless carriers, and kill switch legislation). This smells like traffic control to me.

blueben 16y ago
Then you aren't familiar with network neutrality, which has nothing to do with the FCC dictating what kind of traffic is and is not allowed or controlling traffic.
- jimmyk 16y ago
  No it certainly doesn't have anything to do with that. However it does set the precedent that the FCC can set rules for how businesses operate their networks, and once that precedent is set it will become much easier to extend it to regulation of traffic. Keep in mind that governments rarely give up a power once it's become accepted, but that they are quick to extend any powers they do have. This isn't necessarily the first or last link in that chain, but it is a link in the chain.
  - runjake 16y ago
    Well put, thanks.
  - wmf 16y ago
    Isn't the FCC already regulating the Internet through CALEA? I don't quite understand the idea that NN is the FCC's "foot in the door".
    - jimmyk 16y ago
      Yes that's a good point. I edited my comment before I saw your reply and once after I saw your reply. I'm not too familiar with CALEA but it seems to be an example of the phenomenon I was describing. It began as a way for law enforcement to monitor VOIP but expanded in 10 years to cover all internet traffic.

blueben 16y ago

There are a number of disturbing aspects of this news, but I find the new "no discussion, no consideration, no compromise" attitude of the Republican party to be extremely frightening.

maxxxxx 16y ago
It works pretty well though. Every issue is framed as a decision whether the country as we know it will be destroyed. Seems a lot of voters like this style.
- gnosis 16y ago
  Just a few years ago all the news was about how the American public was sick of this sort of "polarizing" style of politics, and wanted a kinder, gentler style epitomized by "compromise". Of course, that was when the Democrats were coming in to power. Now that the Republicans seem to be coming back in to power, it seems that "compromise" is off the table. Not that it ever was on the table for Republicans.
ars 16y ago
Until the mid term elections that's exactly what President Obama did. (He would claim he wants ideas from Republicans, but mention a few things that were no compromise, and it was exactly those things that the Republicans actually wanted a compromise on.) Basically whoever has a majority talks that way - both parties. I wish we could have at least 3 (very different) parties so that no one party could ever get an automatic majority. Failing that I like the current situation where each house has a different party in the majority. It's just not good for politicians to have too much power, forcing them to compromise and negotiate is very good for them.

Dornkirk 16y ago

Can someone tell me if net neutrality was to fail and big service providers did restrict access as they saw fit - what ways would there be around it without paying extra $ to line their pockets? VPN? Something else? (I don't know much about this stuff so sorry if this is a dumb question)

DanI-S 16y ago

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing America that freedom for corporations equates to freedom for individuals.

ars 16y ago
Corporation are MADE of individuals. A corporation is not a person and does not think. There is an actual human on the other end, and it is that human to whom you are giving that freedom. People have a tendency to anthropomorphize corporations. A corporation did this, wants that, etc.
- DanI-S 16y ago
  Collections of individuals don't act with the same motivations and ethics as individuals, so they shouldn't have the same rights.
- bootload 16y ago
  "... Corporation are MADE of individuals. ^A corporation is not a person^ and does not think. ..." Yes they are. "... In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. ..." ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation#United_States A dubious outcome in what was meant in spirit to uphold a person's (black or white) civil and political rights being interfered by any state. cf: 14th amendment ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Citizenship_and_civil_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni...

CulturalNgineer 16y ago

Check the following totally misleading article put out by the Corporate front "Ameripac": FCC: Information Superhighway Traffic Cops http://conservativeactionalerts.com/blog_post/show/2120 http://conservativeactionalerts.com/blog_post/show/2120 This looks to be a campaign intentionally designed to confuse with the goal of restricting a truly free Internet in order to benefit big money interests. Frankly I've had more than enough of mega-corporations corrupting good governance.

protomyth 16y ago

I still want a technical definition of what Net Neutrality is. No using words like "freedom", given me something that is not open to interpretation.

sorbus 16y ago
As I define it: No packet shaping based on what service users are accessing; all packets are created equal. Wikipedia also has a quite good definition. A key line from it: "The principle advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication." Sadly, it's a term which is used to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. Political language does horrible things to words.
- protomyth 16y ago
  Actually, I want packet shaping as long as its under my control (my netflix is more important than the download of software updates). "Sadly, it's a term which is used to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. Political language does horrible things to words." You nailed the words to my biggest problem. I see how bills are named, and really won't say I support something unless I have a real definition.

russell 16y ago

The idea of net neutrality comes from the concept of Common Carrier in the Communications Act of 1934: carriers cannot block communications between any two parties (such as favoring their subscribers over those of another carrier). In exchange the carriers are not liable for the content of the communications. Another thing that seems to totally ignored by Boehner et. al. is that you sometimes need regulation to protect basic rights, the Civil Rights Act for example. Net neutrality (hacker view) is the right to communicate whatever with whomever. The FCC has actually been protecting the Internet, bu ever since Powell the child's term as FCC chairman, the waters have been considerably muddied. (In order to give my rant some measure of verisimilitude, I attempted to vet it against Common Carrier and Communications Act of 1934 over at Wikipedia. I found two of the worst and most incomplete articles that I have ever encountered. The Act itself is a 333 page PDF. tl;dnr So please be kind. :-)

l0c0b0x 16y ago

I'm sorry, but I've heard a lot of topics from Boehner that include: "protecting our most basic freedoms". Of course, by "our", he mostly means "Corporations" (IMHO, viewed as first-class citizen groups). Just my opinion.

webXL 16y ago

Oh, Republicans are against net neutrality, so we should be for it, right? If there's one dominant theme I've seen over the years when politics rears its ugly head in an online discussion, it's that Republicans = Corporations (Evil) Democrats = Workers (Wholesome goodness) Now, it's entirely possible that those statements are true 100% of the time, but isn't it much more likely that there are exceptions to them, and if you're intellectually honest, you can acknowledge them? I'm not sure if Google results are a trustworthy source, but look up "corporate donations by party" and you'll see countless examples of corporations taking advantage of whatever party is in power. So you must acknowledge that neither party is completely beholden to "wholesome goodness". Whichever side wins in the net neutrality debate, some corporations will lose, and others will win. If net neutrality needs to be enforced, it means that politicians will hold more power. Do we really want to keep giving those people more power, especially over something that's pretty free at the moment? Give more power to the same people who just renewed the Patriot Act?!