7 ms·

I think as has always been the case, money talks more then words ever could in a political system. If these 100+ tech companies each put in a few dollars, they

I think as has always been the case, money talks more then words ever could in a political system. If these 100+ tech companies each put in a few dollars, they would have enough lobbying money to swing the argument in the right direction. We are only at the current point in the anti-net neutrality argument because ISP's and telecommunication providers have been lobbying Washington rather successfully. It's a sad fact he with the biggest cheque book wins, especially when it comes to reform. Look at the whole music/movies piracy argument, it extends as far back as the late nineties; publisher groups, the likes of the RIAA suing people and skewing the legal system by throwing money at the right people who have the power to vote and act upon such decisions. It's happening all over again, except this time the repercussions will be far worse then any anti-piracy bill. I'm not saying lobbying is the only solution, but if the entities on the wrong side of the argument are doing it, does it matter if Google, Amazon, Facebook and other companies issue statements and express concerns to congress if it will only fall on deaf ears or be brushed off as a selfish act? It kind of reminds me of when Labor were in power in Australia before the recent election and were in the process of rolling out the National Broadband Network (NBN) which was a fibre to the premises plan the current party has basically scrapped. Google Australia issued a statement saying the current Government needs to understand the value of such a network, but they were shrugged off. If they opened up their cheque book and started donating to particular Government interests and districts, would they have been taken more seriously? Maybe.

gaelian 12y ago
Totally agree. If anything, the vested interests in this case are generally more obvious than they were/are with our ill-fated NBN. I think it's time for the big tech companies to put their lobbying efforts into overdrive and supplement that with another public awareness campaign across their web properties, modeled on the SOPA/PIPA protest.
- ralmidani 12y ago
  Here's an idea: Google, Twitter, FaceBook, Amazon, etc. all slow traffic to their sites, along with a clickable notice at the top suggesting they take action to prevent future slowdowns.
  - poolpool 12y ago
    So they will lose god knows how much revenue, piss off their customers, and get a tiny fraction of people to 1) actually click the banner 2) read all those scary words 3) actually understand and get angry about the implications.
    - ralmidani 12y ago
      If it's a coordinated effort it will resonate. It's risky, but the best way to bring attention to the issue. In the long-run, it would cost less than allowing Comcast and others to practice legal extortion.
euank 12y ago
On the contrary, I'm glad they aren't throwing money at this. Throwing money at things sets a precedent; if they let things run as they are now, it's quite possible that the bill will fail (like SOPA did) due to public outrage, not due to money. The fact that politics is powered by money in the US is terrible, and the more exceptions there are to that, the better. I think this can set another precedent. I think the big tech companies should only toss money in if the current efforts fail, as a matter of efficiency, morality, and precedent.
- mayneack 12y ago
  Sure, I think throwing money at it is bad for the country as a whole, but I also don't want my interest group to unilaterally disarm. There has to be some other plan for carrot and stick to decide to not lobby.
rayiner 12y ago
You don't think Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc, lobby? This isn't just a matter of throwing money at the right people. Its part of a larger ideological debate about how to regulate the telecom industry. The trend over the last 20 years at the FCC has been rooted in conservative economic thinking. Deregulate the industry, use auctions to allocate spectrum, etc. The 1996 reforms didn't achieve everything it was billed to, but the fact is: 1) at the end of the day, Washington views it as largely successful; 2) the state of the internet in the U.S. is competitive with other large western countries: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709948. The telcos certainly don't lack numbers to point to to show the competitiveness of the U.S. industry under the existing regime. Net neutrality is a hard sell because it goes quite against the prevailing thought at the FCC. It has the support of many netopions, but not really among the mainstream/conservative economists that carry the most weight in these policy debates. The internet companies need to lobby, sure, but they also need a "hook." And "openness" and "neutrality" which are words that resonate in Silicon Valley on their own are not ones that resonate in Washington. To compare, look how the environmental movement has responded. Environmental groups don't talk about "conservation" and fuzzy ideas like that, not anymore, not in Washington. They talk about externalized costs and concrete economic phenomena that justify regulation. The tech industry needs to ground net neutrality in something like that. Incidentally, this is part of a debate that has been raging for 30+ years. Telecom and wireless regulation has spawned thousands of journal articles and thesises. Politicians don't read these things, of course, but they're hugely influential to the technocrats that do the first draft proposals. At least to the extent they can back ideological viewpoints with a theory-based narrative.
- cynicalkane 12y ago
  I just want to meta-comment how depressing it that people are attacking rayiner for explaining how Washington sees things. Many people feel it's wrong to sympathize with the pre-judged "bad guys", but the truth is seeing things from others' perspectives is 1) a valuable thing and 2) does not constitute endorsement of those perspectives. If you think otherwise, prepare to live a life lonely and full of disagreement.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
gfdhfd454 12y ago
=does not want to charge higher fees to those who use more internet traffic lanes= =is angry about the slow internet=
sytelus 12y ago
Not sure if anyone realizes this, but I re-read parent comment by replacing the word "lobbying" with "bribing" and it feels pretty awkward. But that's exactly what it is. If we stop using the word lobbying in actual communication, I think it's ill effects would really start to illuminate. Congress is there to protect public interest but its quickly becoming a proxy for lobbyists and apparently no one seem to think that this is just bribe in disguise.
- prawks 12y ago
  I think everyone knows that it's bribery, it's pretty clear. Unfortunately, politics.
whatevsbro 12y ago
> It's a sad fact he with the biggest cheque book wins, especially when it comes to reform. That's how political power works. Its primary use is to benefit at other people's expense, after all. Corporations don't like honest competition, and someone with political power can help alleviate that problem. Both parties benefit: the one with power gets a bribe, and the corporation gets shielded from having to compete. It's a win-win, except, of course, for the rest of us. Without power, there is no one to bribe. As long as there is political power, it will be bribed.
speleding 12y ago
Writing to U.S. telecom regulators and notifying the press about them _is_ lobbying. These letters do not write themselves so resources _are_ being spent. Not all "lobbying" takes the form of bribing congressmen.

gaelian 12y ago

Totally agree. If anything, the vested interests in this case are generally more obvious than they were/are with our ill-fated NBN. I think it's time for the big tech companies to put their lobbying efforts into overdrive and supplement that with another public awareness campaign across their web properties, modeled on the SOPA/PIPA protest.

ralmidani 12y ago
Here's an idea: Google, Twitter, FaceBook, Amazon, etc. all slow traffic to their sites, along with a clickable notice at the top suggesting they take action to prevent future slowdowns.
- poolpool 12y ago
  So they will lose god knows how much revenue, piss off their customers, and get a tiny fraction of people to 1) actually click the banner 2) read all those scary words 3) actually understand and get angry about the implications.
  - ralmidani 12y ago
    If it's a coordinated effort it will resonate. It's risky, but the best way to bring attention to the issue. In the long-run, it would cost less than allowing Comcast and others to practice legal extortion.

euank 12y ago

On the contrary, I'm glad they aren't throwing money at this. Throwing money at things sets a precedent; if they let things run as they are now, it's quite possible that the bill will fail (like SOPA did) due to public outrage, not due to money. The fact that politics is powered by money in the US is terrible, and the more exceptions there are to that, the better. I think this can set another precedent. I think the big tech companies should only toss money in if the current efforts fail, as a matter of efficiency, morality, and precedent.

mayneack 12y ago
Sure, I think throwing money at it is bad for the country as a whole, but I also don't want my interest group to unilaterally disarm. There has to be some other plan for carrot and stick to decide to not lobby.

rayiner 12y ago

You don't think Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc, lobby? This isn't just a matter of throwing money at the right people. Its part of a larger ideological debate about how to regulate the telecom industry. The trend over the last 20 years at the FCC has been rooted in conservative economic thinking. Deregulate the industry, use auctions to allocate spectrum, etc. The 1996 reforms didn't achieve everything it was billed to, but the fact is: 1) at the end of the day, Washington views it as largely successful; 2) the state of the internet in the U.S. is competitive with other large western countries: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709948. The telcos certainly don't lack numbers to point to to show the competitiveness of the U.S. industry under the existing regime. Net neutrality is a hard sell because it goes quite against the prevailing thought at the FCC. It has the support of many netopions, but not really among the mainstream/conservative economists that carry the most weight in these policy debates. The internet companies need to lobby, sure, but they also need a "hook." And "openness" and "neutrality" which are words that resonate in Silicon Valley on their own are not ones that resonate in Washington. To compare, look how the environmental movement has responded. Environmental groups don't talk about "conservation" and fuzzy ideas like that, not anymore, not in Washington. They talk about externalized costs and concrete economic phenomena that justify regulation. The tech industry needs to ground net neutrality in something like that. Incidentally, this is part of a debate that has been raging for 30+ years. Telecom and wireless regulation has spawned thousands of journal articles and thesises. Politicians don't read these things, of course, but they're hugely influential to the technocrats that do the first draft proposals. At least to the extent they can back ideological viewpoints with a theory-based narrative.

cynicalkane 12y ago
I just want to meta-comment how depressing it that people are attacking rayiner for explaining how Washington sees things. Many people feel it's wrong to sympathize with the pre-judged "bad guys", but the truth is seeing things from others' perspectives is 1) a valuable thing and 2) does not constitute endorsement of those perspectives. If you think otherwise, prepare to live a life lonely and full of disagreement.
sillysaurus3 12y ago

gfdhfd454 12y ago

=does not want to charge higher fees to those who use more internet traffic lanes= =is angry about the slow internet=

sytelus 12y ago

Not sure if anyone realizes this, but I re-read parent comment by replacing the word "lobbying" with "bribing" and it feels pretty awkward. But that's exactly what it is. If we stop using the word lobbying in actual communication, I think it's ill effects would really start to illuminate. Congress is there to protect public interest but its quickly becoming a proxy for lobbyists and apparently no one seem to think that this is just bribe in disguise.

prawks 12y ago
I think everyone knows that it's bribery, it's pretty clear. Unfortunately, politics.

whatevsbro 12y ago

> It's a sad fact he with the biggest cheque book wins, especially when it comes to reform. That's how political power works. Its primary use is to benefit at other people's expense, after all. Corporations don't like honest competition, and someone with political power can help alleviate that problem. Both parties benefit: the one with power gets a bribe, and the corporation gets shielded from having to compete. It's a win-win, except, of course, for the rest of us. Without power, there is no one to bribe. As long as there is political power, it will be bribed.

speleding 12y ago

Writing to U.S. telecom regulators and notifying the press about them _is_ lobbying. These letters do not write themselves so resources _are_ being spent. Not all "lobbying" takes the form of bribing congressmen.