4 ms·

Net Neutrality: John McCain introduces bill to stop it

16 points by spoiledtechie 17y ago

icey 17y ago
Arizona politicians have seriously gone off the deep end this year. I gotta get out of this state - who's hiring?
- tptacek 17y ago
  Dunno. I think reasonable people could disagree about the net neutrality issue. A stand against it is pretty consistent with basic conservatism.
  - grellas 17y ago
    The basic free market case against net neutrality rules is articulated pretty well here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427170618003020.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020448830457442....
    - ubernostrum 17y ago
      I stopped reading at this line: "The new policy is a big political victory for Google and other Web content providers whose business model depends on free-loading off the huge capital investments in broadband made by others." Anyone who could write that either is not in possession of the facts, or has chosen to disregard the facts. Lies and inaccuracies do not a cogent argument make. Unless I'm misunderstanding, and your point was to claim that free-market arguments must be based on lies?
      - tptacek 17y ago
        Instead of just saying "liar, liar", maybe you yourself could form a cogent argument about how the article is wrong. I'm likely to agree with the argument you come up with. I'm just pointing out: you haven't come up with anything yet.
        aaronblohowiak 17y ago
        How is there any freeloading going on? Where can you get free bandwidth? Oh that's right.. you can't. You have to have agreements with people to connect to their network. It is like you have have an agreement with bob and i have an agreement with bob, but you're saying that I'm freeloading off of you -- even though nobody is going against any preexisting agreement.
        bluedanieru 17y ago
        Pointing out that another party isn't arguing in good faith isn't unfair. The case for net neutrality is pretty clear cut and doesn't need to be laid out in full every time someone posts an article, especially from a useless rag like the Wall Street Journal.
        camccann 17y ago
        Google pays for internet connection to their servers. Google's users pay for their own internet connections, in order to have access to websites (such as Google). Calling Google a free-loader when not only is it already paying for what it uses, but when its existence itself contributes substantially to the value of connecting to the internet is beyond wildly inaccurate and wandering into either delusion or dishonesty. It'd be like getting three paragraphs into a scientific paper and finding a reference to creationism as "a scientific theory with strong support"; it undermines the credibility of the article so badly that it's not unreasonable to question the value of reading further.
        tptacek 17y ago
        First, Google "probably" doesn't buy bandwidth on a level playing field with the rest of the market (people have tried to suss this out of their financial disclosures, but it's also common sense). Second, Google buys a specific kind of bandwidth. Last mile costs dominate over backbone costs. Finally, and from a political perspective most simply: they're AT&T's circuits, AT&T's DSLAMs, AT&T's routers, and AT&T's operating expenditures. They should be able to do with them what they want. On that last point, even though I support net neutrality, I sympathize pretty strongly with the argument. At what point does the government get to say "your business is so important that we're going to start regulating how you price it even though you operate in a competitive market"? I want to say clearly that I agree with you that Google isn't in fact "freeloading", and I think the argument the op-ed makes for that claim is dubious. But I don't think you can declare, cut-and-dry, that it's a bad-faith argument.
      - grellas 17y ago
        I think the main point of the op-ed is, in essence, that it is dangerous to allow government regulators to become the traffic cop of the Internet. That is the free-market case. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean it is based on lies (though the Google reference is a cheap shot). It is a philosophical disagreement: one either has faith in centralized authority being benign and protective or one is skeptical of that premise. The free-market view is skeptical and doesn't just assume that government regulation will wind up being benign. Once established, the only limit to such authority is . . . nothing more than the discretion of the regulators themselves (what has the FCC done to warrant placing faith in its future decisions in this manner?). Government mandates tend to morph over time and they are backed by institutional power as to which individuals are often powerless to resist. There is no gain in freedom when a society cedes control in ever-larger amounts to a central authority without proper checks on such authority. Again, anyone is free to disagree. But this is a principled position that reasonable people can adopt, and it has nothing to do with being a shill for AT&T or any other telco. Remember, what government can regulate, it can also tax. Will that be a benign outcome if some future administration starts to tax the hell out of Internet-based transactions? What principled argument is left once it is ceded that this is the government's domain to do with it what it will (whether on behalf of some lobbying group or not), even if this means stepping on the property rights of companies or individuals. I realize I am going against the grain here when it comes to what is obviously a tidal wave of emotional support for this initiative within this community. But what spirit of comity exists when it cannot even be conceded that reasonable minds can differ on such an issue?
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - jsz0 17y ago
    Sure it's possible. It's also possible the $894,379 AT&T gave him last year has something to do with it. This was the most AT&T gave to any single individual while their overall payout to legislators was $9.4M total. McCain on the 96 Telecom Act: “It is nothing less than an elaborate influence-peddling scheme in which both parties conspire to stay in office by selling the country to the highest bidder,” Certainly looks like it.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      AT&T is also a huge contributor in Dem politics, and a client of David Axelrod's former firm. But besides that, what you're implying is also tripped up by post hoc ergo propter hoc: It would make just as much sense for AT&T to donate to McCain because of his position as it would for McCain to take a strong anti-neutrality position because of the donation. Given the political ideas behind net neutrality --- ideas I support, by the way --- I lean towards the former interpretation. Net neutrality is an activist regulatory posture.
      - jsz0 17y ago
        If it were someone other than Sen. McCain I'd be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. He was previously involved in an influence peddling scheme (Keating Five) and I can't quite figure out how his public position on lobbying matches the reality that he does indeed take lobbyist money. Something just doesn't add up for me.
- dkasper 17y ago
  Justin TV! http://news.ycombinator.com/jobs http://news.ycombinator.com/jobs
jsz0 17y ago
Nothing new here. Be skeptical of politicians who constantly talk about how they are above influence from lobbyists. It's a good way to cover your tracks. It's called Double Think and it works really well.
haseman 17y ago
-sarcasm- I, for one, support net neutrality. I can't wait for the people who brought us the amazing FCC to regulate the hell out of the internet. Maybe while they're at it they could stop me from getting rick-rolled so much... -/sarcasm- I'm skeptical of politicians...which is exactly why I support the concept of net neutrality but I could never support letting the US Government enforce it.
- fuzzmeister 17y ago
  Since net neutrality does not seem to be in the economic best interest of the ISPs and wireless carriers, government is likely the only way to enforce it.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    In the presence of real competition, network discrimination wouldn't be in the best interests of many ISPs, because they'd shed customers over it. Customer turnover is a huge issue for ISPs.
    - camccann 17y ago
      Which is why the telecoms would fight anything that might actually force them to compete even harder than they're fighting net neutrality regulations. Large, entrenched corporations only support "free markets" insofar as it makes convenient political cover for "let us do what we want".
  - haseman 17y ago
    Better the devil I know (corporate greed) than the devil I don't (lobbyist driven re-election hungry politicians) In the same way, the government has exactly zero economic interest in a correctly regulated network. Over time, laws have a way of favoring those who are connected over those who are not... Goldman Sachs springs to mind as an example of just such behavior.
    - spoiledtechie 17y ago
benofsky 17y ago
I'm not going to be very popular for saying this however to be honest net neutrality is not currently a problem. So why fix it? Even if John McCain's stated reasons for introducing this bill are completely idiotic and ignorant, to me what the FCC is introducing seems like unnecessary legislation. If net neutrality becomes a problem, the market will react people will stop using ISP X, if all the ISPs do it then the government should intervene but it is not currently a problem. I don't live in the US though so if I'm missing something please tell me.
- txxxxd 17y ago
  "If net neutrality becomes a problem, the market will react people will stop using ISP X" Any of the networks your information travels through may decide to de-prioritize traffic to a site you visit. Your ISP is probably only in control of the first few hops.
  - efaith 17y ago
    But that does not negate the competitive principle that he articulated. Many, perhaps most of the products we buy involve a chain (or tree) of producers, all keeping each other honest by the competitive principle. In the making and selling of the pencil, one company mines the graphite, another shapes it into the final form, a third makes it immediately available to the public, and there may be many in between. Similarly for the other components of the pencil - the wood, the rubber, the metal, the paint. It's a vast cooperative effort, and most of it is not directly connected to the final customer.
- camccann 17y ago
  One thing you're missing is that for the most part there is no substantial competitive market for broadband internet in the USA. For many people, their choices are "put up with what the ISP offers" or "use dial-up". As for the necessity, the whole thing was sparked because of stuff that telecom executives actually talked about, so it's not completely speculative, just somewhat preemptive.
  - efaith 17y ago

16 points by spoiledtechie 17y ago

icey 17y ago

Arizona politicians have seriously gone off the deep end this year. I gotta get out of this state - who's hiring?

tptacek 17y ago
Dunno. I think reasonable people could disagree about the net neutrality issue. A stand against it is pretty consistent with basic conservatism.
- grellas 17y ago
  The basic free market case against net neutrality rules is articulated pretty well here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427170618003020.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020448830457442....
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    I stopped reading at this line: "The new policy is a big political victory for Google and other Web content providers whose business model depends on free-loading off the huge capital investments in broadband made by others." Anyone who could write that either is not in possession of the facts, or has chosen to disregard the facts. Lies and inaccuracies do not a cogent argument make. Unless I'm misunderstanding, and your point was to claim that free-market arguments must be based on lies?
    - tptacek 17y ago
      Instead of just saying "liar, liar", maybe you yourself could form a cogent argument about how the article is wrong. I'm likely to agree with the argument you come up with. I'm just pointing out: you haven't come up with anything yet.
      - aaronblohowiak 17y ago
        How is there any freeloading going on? Where can you get free bandwidth? Oh that's right.. you can't. You have to have agreements with people to connect to their network. It is like you have have an agreement with bob and i have an agreement with bob, but you're saying that I'm freeloading off of you -- even though nobody is going against any preexisting agreement.
      - bluedanieru 17y ago
        Pointing out that another party isn't arguing in good faith isn't unfair. The case for net neutrality is pretty clear cut and doesn't need to be laid out in full every time someone posts an article, especially from a useless rag like the Wall Street Journal.
      - camccann 17y ago
        Google pays for internet connection to their servers. Google's users pay for their own internet connections, in order to have access to websites (such as Google). Calling Google a free-loader when not only is it already paying for what it uses, but when its existence itself contributes substantially to the value of connecting to the internet is beyond wildly inaccurate and wandering into either delusion or dishonesty. It'd be like getting three paragraphs into a scientific paper and finding a reference to creationism as "a scientific theory with strong support"; it undermines the credibility of the article so badly that it's not unreasonable to question the value of reading further.
        tptacek 17y ago
        First, Google "probably" doesn't buy bandwidth on a level playing field with the rest of the market (people have tried to suss this out of their financial disclosures, but it's also common sense). Second, Google buys a specific kind of bandwidth. Last mile costs dominate over backbone costs. Finally, and from a political perspective most simply: they're AT&T's circuits, AT&T's DSLAMs, AT&T's routers, and AT&T's operating expenditures. They should be able to do with them what they want. On that last point, even though I support net neutrality, I sympathize pretty strongly with the argument. At what point does the government get to say "your business is so important that we're going to start regulating how you price it even though you operate in a competitive market"? I want to say clearly that I agree with you that Google isn't in fact "freeloading", and I think the argument the op-ed makes for that claim is dubious. But I don't think you can declare, cut-and-dry, that it's a bad-faith argument.
    - grellas 17y ago
      I think the main point of the op-ed is, in essence, that it is dangerous to allow government regulators to become the traffic cop of the Internet. That is the free-market case. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean it is based on lies (though the Google reference is a cheap shot). It is a philosophical disagreement: one either has faith in centralized authority being benign and protective or one is skeptical of that premise. The free-market view is skeptical and doesn't just assume that government regulation will wind up being benign. Once established, the only limit to such authority is . . . nothing more than the discretion of the regulators themselves (what has the FCC done to warrant placing faith in its future decisions in this manner?). Government mandates tend to morph over time and they are backed by institutional power as to which individuals are often powerless to resist. There is no gain in freedom when a society cedes control in ever-larger amounts to a central authority without proper checks on such authority. Again, anyone is free to disagree. But this is a principled position that reasonable people can adopt, and it has nothing to do with being a shill for AT&T or any other telco. Remember, what government can regulate, it can also tax. Will that be a benign outcome if some future administration starts to tax the hell out of Internet-based transactions? What principled argument is left once it is ceded that this is the government's domain to do with it what it will (whether on behalf of some lobbying group or not), even if this means stepping on the property rights of companies or individuals. I realize I am going against the grain here when it comes to what is obviously a tidal wave of emotional support for this initiative within this community. But what spirit of comity exists when it cannot even be conceded that reasonable minds can differ on such an issue?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- jsz0 17y ago
  Sure it's possible. It's also possible the $894,379 AT&T gave him last year has something to do with it. This was the most AT&T gave to any single individual while their overall payout to legislators was $9.4M total. McCain on the 96 Telecom Act: “It is nothing less than an elaborate influence-peddling scheme in which both parties conspire to stay in office by selling the country to the highest bidder,” Certainly looks like it.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    AT&T is also a huge contributor in Dem politics, and a client of David Axelrod's former firm. But besides that, what you're implying is also tripped up by post hoc ergo propter hoc: It would make just as much sense for AT&T to donate to McCain because of his position as it would for McCain to take a strong anti-neutrality position because of the donation. Given the political ideas behind net neutrality --- ideas I support, by the way --- I lean towards the former interpretation. Net neutrality is an activist regulatory posture.
    - jsz0 17y ago
      If it were someone other than Sen. McCain I'd be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. He was previously involved in an influence peddling scheme (Keating Five) and I can't quite figure out how his public position on lobbying matches the reality that he does indeed take lobbyist money. Something just doesn't add up for me.
dkasper 17y ago
Justin TV! http://news.ycombinator.com/jobs http://news.ycombinator.com/jobs

jsz0 17y ago

Nothing new here. Be skeptical of politicians who constantly talk about how they are above influence from lobbyists. It's a good way to cover your tracks. It's called Double Think and it works really well.

haseman 17y ago

-sarcasm- I, for one, support net neutrality. I can't wait for the people who brought us the amazing FCC to regulate the hell out of the internet. Maybe while they're at it they could stop me from getting rick-rolled so much... -/sarcasm- I'm skeptical of politicians...which is exactly why I support the concept of net neutrality but I could never support letting the US Government enforce it.

fuzzmeister 17y ago
Since net neutrality does not seem to be in the economic best interest of the ISPs and wireless carriers, government is likely the only way to enforce it.
- tptacek 17y ago
  In the presence of real competition, network discrimination wouldn't be in the best interests of many ISPs, because they'd shed customers over it. Customer turnover is a huge issue for ISPs.
  - camccann 17y ago
    Which is why the telecoms would fight anything that might actually force them to compete even harder than they're fighting net neutrality regulations. Large, entrenched corporations only support "free markets" insofar as it makes convenient political cover for "let us do what we want".
- haseman 17y ago
  Better the devil I know (corporate greed) than the devil I don't (lobbyist driven re-election hungry politicians) In the same way, the government has exactly zero economic interest in a correctly regulated network. Over time, laws have a way of favoring those who are connected over those who are not... Goldman Sachs springs to mind as an example of just such behavior.
  - spoiledtechie 17y ago

benofsky 17y ago

I'm not going to be very popular for saying this however to be honest net neutrality is not currently a problem. So why fix it? Even if John McCain's stated reasons for introducing this bill are completely idiotic and ignorant, to me what the FCC is introducing seems like unnecessary legislation. If net neutrality becomes a problem, the market will react people will stop using ISP X, if all the ISPs do it then the government should intervene but it is not currently a problem. I don't live in the US though so if I'm missing something please tell me.

txxxxd 17y ago
"If net neutrality becomes a problem, the market will react people will stop using ISP X" Any of the networks your information travels through may decide to de-prioritize traffic to a site you visit. Your ISP is probably only in control of the first few hops.
- efaith 17y ago
  But that does not negate the competitive principle that he articulated. Many, perhaps most of the products we buy involve a chain (or tree) of producers, all keeping each other honest by the competitive principle. In the making and selling of the pencil, one company mines the graphite, another shapes it into the final form, a third makes it immediately available to the public, and there may be many in between. Similarly for the other components of the pencil - the wood, the rubber, the metal, the paint. It's a vast cooperative effort, and most of it is not directly connected to the final customer.
camccann 17y ago
One thing you're missing is that for the most part there is no substantial competitive market for broadband internet in the USA. For many people, their choices are "put up with what the ISP offers" or "use dial-up". As for the necessity, the whole thing was sparked because of stuff that telecom executives actually talked about, so it's not completely speculative, just somewhat preemptive.
- efaith 17y ago