It's not that it's useless, but a fresh start might not be the worst outcome.
The article gave the implication of having a locked-down internet reminiscent of China's -- losing net neutrality doesn't necessarily mean losing this centralized, tracking and surveillance tool for mass marketing and spying.
I would love to hear your definition of 'fresh start'.
Also even if that is it it would solve nothing, [0]
Fresh start may have been the wrong wording, how about fresh approach? Rather than just settling for what we have, begin experimenting with new technological approaches and new architectures in the hope what we have can rework what we have now, drastically. Moving to better more open models.
It's odd how quickly technology moves in other fields except not much has changed with regards to how the world builds and consumes the Internet over the last few decades, this lack of progress might be deliberate as it's in clearly certain groups interest to have it this way.
[1] https://ipfs.io/
Why reinvent the wheel just to get around people who are messing up the old wheel?
Plus, any new network is susceptible to the same sort of lobbying and moneyed interests plaguing the existing internet.
We will need to be forever vigilant in order to maintain our right to have equal access to data. Some have noted that even a constitutional amendment guaranteeing net neutrality rights could be rolled back, since that has precedent under rolling back prohibition.
BOOM! If corrupt politicians are the problem, then they'll be the problem no matter what you do if it threatens the interests of incumbents paying them. So, you have to fight the real battle.
"Lobbying" is a bad word these days. I don't know why. Our vote will kick lobbyists' butts any day. Barney Frank says so and I believe him,
"If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district." [1]
Without the vote, politicians are out of their favorite job.
This was posted on HN awhile back, Frank's advice on how to deal with the Trump admin [2]. I think it bears repeating, particularly in the face of this net neutrality debate.
[1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...
[2] https://mic.com/articles/167878/barney-frank-heres-how-to-no...
The politicians receive campaign money from these companies. They then do what's in these companies' interests even when it harms their voters they're responsible to. That's corruption. Here's a nice article with plenty of details I just found:
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-tel...
I get that. I think the problem has more to do with the Citizens United + Speechnow court decisions [1] which decided that corporations are people, and therefore can donate as much as they like to super PACs that are not directly run by the candidate's team (as if that really matters).
You're never going to completely remove money from politics. You don't want it to be an unpaid position, otherwise, only the ultra wealthy would be able to do it. And, you don't want it to be oversubsidized by corporations like it is now as a result of the CU decision.
Regardless, the vote still beats the dollar. It becomes more difficult to get the word out as a smaller player, but we all still have the ability to vote, and that means something.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Super_P...
Yeah, problems like that cause it. My solution is a combination of (a) only individual voters can donate money to political campaigns, (b) it's limited to a specific amount, and (c) any law passed on behalf of a donor against the stated interests of the constituency is nullified by default. I also want to attempt to bring back nullification of these corrupt laws in federal courts, up to Supreme Court. It's a risky concept judges don't like but ideal tool to deal with laws passed by corruption. They're already supposed to fight that under checks-and-balances concept.
(c) is already the role of the people. We elect new representatives when we feel the old ones weren't enacting legislation we like.
Judges don't decide whether laws are good or bad. They interpret and apply written law. The moment you allow a judge to determine whether a law is in the interests of the people is the moment you give full power to conservatives who are already chomping at the bit that we have an activist judiciary.
> It's a risky concept judges don't like but ideal tool to deal with laws passed by corruption
Definitely not an ideal tool. Turning judges into politicians who bow to constituents will just make corruption worse. Judges must be independent. I don't know where you got this idea. It's not a good one.
The idea is that a law can't be applied if it's invalid. This already happens in contract law. It can happen with nullification. I'd argue a law passed due to a bribe is invalid and should be nullified by default.
"you give full power to conservatives"
They're already the ones writing these laws. They just convince or pay a handful of people in the states who are unaffordable to the masses. Convincing a judge or a jury of our peers might be easier. Almost all the gains of civil rights and against corrupt companies have started in the courts in past decade or so.
And you would give that power to judges, who are specifically not supposed to obtain their position by popular vote. What you are proposing is the exact reason why we have appointed judges, and not elected ones.
It seems you do not understand the separation of powers of the three branches of US government. I'd suggest reading about that, particularly the judiciary.
> [conservatives are] already the ones writing these laws
Nonsense. Republicans have control of the white house and congress, that's true, but it won't be true forever. And, currently, they can't do anything they please without being concerned that democrats won't do the same in the future when they have a majority.
> Almost all the gains of civil rights and against corrupt companies have started in the courts in past decade or so.
That's true and has been done in accordance with standard procedure. We don't have judges deciding what laws are in the interests of the people. We have judges interpreting the US constitution and laws made thereafter by elected legislators.
What you are suggesting, that judges have been a party to activism, is exactly what conservatives are saying. Nice trolling.
They already have the power to reinterpret or nullify laws. They just usually avoid using it due to history of abuse. I'm not giving them anything. I'm just asking them to block attacks by ISP's in their courts on local, tax-funded investments that local taxpayers approve of. Nullify ideally but dismiss consistently otherwise.
"Nonsense. Republicans have control of the white house and congress, that's true"
We're talking about bills restricting ability to build tax-funded Internet infrastructure. They're mostly coming from Republicans and capitalists controlling state legislatures. They're enforced in conservative areas (esp rural). You don't need a conservative judge and jury to get conservative politics enforced in areas that vote conservative. Nullifying something even the voters didn't want is another issue.
"We don't have judges deciding what laws are in the interests of the people. We have judges interpreting the US constitution and laws made thereafter by elected legislators."
The laws are supposed to be made in service of the people. If they're not, they're to be countered. That's why courts can reinterpret or nullify law in the first place. The people have been clear when surveyed that they want faster speed, more reliability, and better service than what they're getting. Laws paid for with bribery are preventing it. The judges don't have to "decide what laws are in the interest of the people" to know a law bought by a corporation eliminating its competition and causing problems for the people isn't in the interest of the people. The people rarely ask for politicians to accept bribes and let corporations run the government. The Constitution doesn't even recognize the existence of a corporation on top of it. So, in short, we're nullifying a law that's bought by corporations, runs counter to openly stated interest of many to most citizens, hurts them benefiting the corporation, and the corporation files lawsuits to intimidate local governments. That's beyond time for courts to take action against the corporation and that law. Nullification is the nice way to do it vs what the people who wrote the Constitution did in similar situation.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of judges.
Judges don't nullify laws that don't satisfy people. They can strike down a law as unconstitutional
> That's why courts can reinterpret or nullify law in the first place
That's completely untrue. They cannot reinterpret law according to the population's wishes.
What you are saying is straight out of an alt-right playbook.
I learned it from liberals talking about fugitive slaves and such originally. Then states nullifying federal law. Past that, I don't have a law degree so sure I might misunderstand some of it. I only intend to attempt it as one of the few, remaining strategies that are minimally disruptive.
Roll back to the nineties, when most of the traffic was made of text, and then a Cuban network is good enough.
But of course, you have to say goodbye to Netflix and Youtube. That's not a bad thing. When I was a student in the nineties, I decided I wouldn't have a TV or a computer in my room, because those where too distracting for me. So I ended up reading books and listening to radio.
The radio is a wonderful thing. It doesn't monopolize your primary sense. Making content doesn't require as much resources as for the TV. They don't need makeup. They don't need lighting. As a result they can focus more on the meaningful content. They just can't distract people with spectacular or pretty images anyway (even ads are better, because it's kind of difficult to sell stuff with boobs here).
But don't hope too much. People won't go back in the nineties. YouTube and Facebook not being available is a no-go for them. Net neutrality and openness will be undone piece by piece over time. But if you're OK with going back to the BBS era (or the too short Gopher era), the bandwidth you'd use would be so tiny compared to the rest that the Internet giants won't care about you.
Media is what you make it. Parents once viewed radio and books as distractions too. Fact is, the internet is loaded with free, useful educational content. The availability of that to anyone who has an internet connection is threatened by rolling back net neutrality.