8 ms·

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 wa

by 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.
    - Yzupnick 16y ago
      Unfortunately on the Internet, Republican has become synonymous with racist radical Christian.
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.

by mcantor 16y ago

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.
  - Yzupnick 16y ago
    Unfortunately on the Internet, Republican has become synonymous with racist radical Christian.

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.