Hacker News Reader

Comment by crispyambulance | Hacker News Reader

Net neutrality is dying because no one has been able to make a compelling case for it that can be understood by constituents, let alone politicians.

There is one thing that just enough politicians do understand, however, and that's money. In their pockets. From ghouls who will profit handsomely when online access in the USA becomes effectively equivalent to shitty cable-tv service.

View on HN

>Net neutrality is dying because no one has been able to make a compelling case for it that can be understood by constituents,

I disagree, I think the case can be easily made but it is being drowned out by the ISP's and their supporters with a MASSIVE wave of disinformation, and false information.

I have spent the majority of my time in discussions not attempting to explain why Title II is needed, but simply attempting to cut through the bullshit that has been spread.

For example the most common attack is that "the internet was fine with no regulation" and the feeling is that opposing NN means no regulation with bumper sticker "Hands off my internet" type of sayings

When In reality is a Debate over Title I vs Title II regulations, and if a Internet Service provider is a Telecommunications company (clearly yes) or a Information Services companies (clearly no)

The ISP's and their supporters have tanked any opportunity for real debate with a massive propaganda and disinformation war.. which they appear to have won

While I agree that there is a disinformation campaign going on, I don't think its "massive".

They got a stooge FCC commissioner, they have some well-paid lobbyists and they are lining the pockets of politicos in various ways to get what they want. Every once in a while some odious talking-head will say something against net-neutrality on AM radio or Fox news. That's a pretty low-key campaign if you ask me.

The fact is not enough regular people care about this issue, not enough are informed about what it really means. That's why they're winning.

> MASSIVE wave of disinformation

None of it has reached me. The only anti-NN arguments I see are from a small handful of anarcho-capitalist friends.

THIS. It is very clear that if there is a "MASSIVE wave of anything", it is from the other side i.e. companies like Netflix, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter etc. They have made it an "internet freedom" issue when internet freedom is not a problem at all.

If there is a threat on internet freedom, it's already there and it's Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. who can pick and choose what a user can see on the internet. In fact, they are much bigger threat in that they can filter out websites based on their contents, and make certain things impossible to search for or go viral... while ISPs, at best, can block individual IPs.

Someone did not read the story it would seem.....

>They have made it an "internet freedom" issue when internet freedom is not a problem at all.

Example of the disinformation...

>If there is a threat on internet freedom, it's already there and it's Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. who can pick and choose what a user can see on the internet.

They can? How do they do that? I do not use Facebook or Twitter at all, and used google very very limited having transition to DDG as my search provider over a year ago...

Does facebook control my Arch Linux Computer... shit....

>> while ISPs, at best, can block individual IPs.

Please tell me your not serial....

You really believe the is "at best" all they can do... really... You just keep highlighting how successful the disinformation campaign is...

>They can?

Yes.

>How do they do that?

Most people get their news from their Facebook newsfeed or their Google search results. Facebook can analyze and prioritize certain content over another. Google does the same. The best example of this is how uninformed you are about this issue.

>You really believe the is "at best" all they can do... really...

Yes. What else can they do? Most traffic is secure and the internet is moving more and more towards secure traffic everywhere. ISPs can't intercept the content of the traffic. So, they might block the IP of the server but they can't block the information if it is shared in social media for example.

>Example of the disinformation... >You just keep highlighting how successful the disinformation campaign is...

So, where is this "disinformation" you speak of? Where am I being bombarded by this idea? I haven't heard or read anything about this from any sources. It is based on my own understanding of the issue. You can read more in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14807940 and tell me where I am wrong.

All I see everywhere is disinformation from the other side and they don't even bring up the actual issue anywhere ever. So, I am pretty much certain that they are the ones disinforming people.

>>Yes. What else can they do? Most traffic is secure and the internet is moving more and more towards secure traffic everywhere. ISPs can't intercept the content of the traffic. So, they might block the IP of the server but they can't block the information if it is shared in social media for example

That is funny right there, see the difference is people have a CHOICE to get their news from facebook (which facebook is not a news organization but anyway) or some other source

I however do not have a CHOICE in broadband internet providers, I use comcast or Nothing, there is no other option for me.

I have CHOOSEN not to use Facebook instead I use other services to communicate with friends and family, I can not CHOOSE the use another ISP as none are available

See the difference...

But continue to educate me on how uninformed I am on this issue despite my near 20 years working professionally in the field

>I use comcast or Nothing, there is no other option for me

That is unfortunate... not the fact that you don't have an option... but the fact that you are on the side of the argument which denies you that option.

I'm done here. Good luck!

You missed his point. He is pointing out that Comcast (and other ISPs) already has substantial power over end-users, since in most cases they are the only ones that can provide internet connectivity.

However, one can easily choose to never use Facebook and not lose quintillionth of the information available on the internet. Facebook or any other such service is one of a quintillion of end-nodes that you can reach on the internet.

Comcast is the choke through which your internet connectivity comes through, and you are proposing to allow increased manipulative power to them.

>already has substantial power over end-users

As I have mentioned earlier, the only power they have is they can block access to specific site. They can't actually know or filter out what the user sees.

>you are proposing to allow increased manipulative power to them.

OK tell me a realistic case how they could use the "manipulative powers" thus gained to harm the end users.

>>but the fact that you are on the side of the argument which denies you that option.

How will Regulating ISP's under title I give me more providers? Title II regulation could if the FCC would do it force the Comcast to resell their service wholesale like in the 1990's but nothing under Title I provides the FCC the ability to do that

So explain to me exactly how Rural America that barely gets 1 provider will magically have multiple providers wanting to run separate infrastructure to their 5 homes

>I'm done here.

Yes you are... you have lost the argument, your are done here because you know this. Go tell your comcast overlords you did you best and collect your silver

You're right about not being able to choose ISP. What I don't understand is, why don't ISPs just offer data-tiered plans?

Funny, isn't it, that a free and neutral Internet is one of the key technologies that allowed the acerbic alt-right movement to bubble up from the fringes, to become grassroots, and then mainstream, finally to put Trump in office. Then, his team gleefully work to destroy it. I suppose they think that greedy, unfair measures that currently benefit themselves will never be handed to their opponents. That's a lesson the left never learned. sigh

That's just another example of pulling the ladder up behind you, once you reach safety. Happens in many domains (immigrations, most famously).

But they haven't reached safety. They will be censored into oblivion by large corps who don't want to be seen endorsing/promoting that content, and any rival services they set up to fill those gaps will wither on the vine.

There will be strange bedfellows to be had in this particular fight.

They in this case are the Trump people that got to the top. Yes, once they are out of power they are screwed. That's just myopic short-term thinking, though.

Trump doesn't care about listening to anyone, least of all those who put him in office. Republicans in general don't either, or they wouldn't be cutting everyone's healthcare.

They listen to their base. They can't afford to lose the base. It's the outreach to moderates that only happens during campaigns.

For what it's worth, they aren't actually cutting health care. There's a reason they can't get a repeal through even though they control both houses of congress and have a rubber stamp waiting in the white house.

To be fair, it's their own healthcare plan. The Republican party held Congress during Obama's administration.

Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote. The Republicans took over congress largely as a result of the unpopularity of the policy and the process.

Oh, I hadn't followed it that closely then.

The problem for them is they have a slim margin. And there's disagreement between cutting healthcare a little bit for the moderates, or completely slashing it for the hardcore.

Their base lost the popular vote, the MO of the modern GOP is rule by minority through any means necessary. Plus all they need to do to get their base to vote is induce moral panic about abortions or transgender people, which they're already pretty good at.

> Funny, isn't it, that a free and neutral Internet is one of the key technologies that allowed the acerbic alt-right movement to bubble up from the fringes, to become grassroots, and then mainstream, finally to put Trump in office.

The thing about human mind is that there is no way to truly stop the way it reasons other than to counter it with reason. You can't really change someone's mind by smacking them in the face until their mind is changed take for instance.

Alt-right movement would have come around with or without Internet and with or without widespread censorship. In fact there is already widespread social and technological censorship against alt-right views, and this is one of the biggest reasons why they have an appeal.

A bunch of my Libertarian friends have to do the same, our opinions aren't really understood or accepted by a lot of liberals, so artful trolling at heavily moderated internet groups and communities is something they all learn to do sooner or later.

Yes, IF there is a moderation of opinions on the internet at the network level (which I don't believe would happen), then controversial opinions like that of alt-right are the ones which would suffer disproportionately more. However, that is much easily handled rather than having govt level laws regarding the control of the Internet.

I find that libertarians are hopelessly out of touch when it comes to the Net Neutrality debate. Sticking to their ideologies is fully expected, and I respect that they actually have a well thought-out ideology, but unfortunately it just doesn't jive with reality.

The the efficiency of the market only works when there is an actual market. We have none. Not even Google could break the Telco strangle-hold on the market. (Google Fiber has basically folded) In an environment like that, removing regulation only serves the incumbent monopoly.

Healthy competition would be great, but it's not realistic anymore. At this point we need our government to stand up for us.

The alt-right is a small fringe movement with outsized presence in election post-mortems due to their visibility on digital platforms used by journalists and bloggers.

Trump voters were (mostly) Romney voters.[1] Clinton lost by failing to galvanize voters who turned out for Obama in prior elections[2] and neglecting to campaign in Rustbelt states.[3]

[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trump...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-no...

[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trumps-...

Clinton lost because the DNC cheated to get her where she was in the first place... She was supposed to be the candidate that could never lose, and Bernie Or Bust isn't a real thing... Sure as heck was, I know Bernie supporters who voted Trump out of spite (mostly the independents) -- I wrote Bernie in personally, because I'd rather see the shit storm that is Trump -- piss people off so badly and ruin the entire reputation of the Republican party that progressive politics will come back in full force in 4 years. Than see clinton in office starting more wars we don't need and doing more regime change and taking money from special interests.

There's a real hatred for the elite class right now in America, some idiots thought Trump was that answer but he IS an elite. Bernie was the answer but the DNC thought they could quash him, now he's the most popular member of congress - and more progressives are running and winning than ever before.

2020 will be interesting to see if he runs again, if he does he'll probably be the next president. Even Nate Silver has said that Bernie is currently the front-runner for 2020 much as Clinton was in 2013.

Bernie will be nearing 80 years of age by then, making it iffy that he will even survive his first term. We're more likely to see Elizabeth Warren run, IMHO.

"Clinton lost because the DNC cheated to get her where she was in the first place"

They absolutely did not. There was absolutely no evidence of such things happening. There was no mass conspiracy.

Seriously, more Democrats wanted Clinton than Bernie. That's why she won. Get over it.

> Clinton lost because the DNC cheater to get her where she was in the first place

There is no grand conspiracy. Stop kidding yourself. More Democrats preferred Hillary over Bernie. End of story. The reason is obvious: Bernie Sanders is not a democrat. Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist. He joined the Democratic party solely for a larger support base and because the Democrats align more with his ideals than Republicans do.

It is absolutely no surprise that the DNC establishment preferred an establishment candidate who had long been a prominent member of the party. Not some coat-tail hanger-on using the predominantly liberal base of a party that he only nominally belongs to. He does not represent the interests (arguably) of the majority of the Democratic party voters. That's why he lost.

So you're sayin no Bernie or Bust movement existed? Because there was a petition w/ at least 100k signatures of people who were #BernieOrBust.. do you think 100K votes mattered at all in the last election cycle? Do you think many people who were pro-bernie and never vote for clinton might be closet Bernie or Bust, or vote Trump, or Jill Stein?

I'm guessing for every outspoken Bernie/Bust person there were 2-3 more people who voted 3rd party or abstained...as a result...

It was an ugly primary, and if you don't think the DNC cheated then you haven't watched any of the news... DNC chair was fired because of it, CNN anchor got in hot water for GIVING CLinton the questions to the debate before hand... that's not conspiracy because it's fact...

Here's a compelling case: -- All big sites ban users from Comcast, Verizon, ATT every monday, explaining to them what Net Neutrality is, and that if they don't want to pay for special 'access' to sites like google/facebook etc the same way they have to pay for HBO, then they better contact their congressmen or their internet service provider and complain..

Something like: "I'm sorry your provider Comcast is against Net Neutrality, as a sign of protest you will be unable to access our content on Mondays until Net Neutrality is reinstated - here are some numbers where you can contact your congressman, senators, and comcast directly to complain.

Do that --and you'll have comcast/att/verizon BEGGING to get net neutrality brought back.

As much as that would be emotionally satisfying, I suspect that would be handing victory to Comcast et at., as they could claim the moral high ground of "we're just trying to best serve our customers".

One-offs raise visibility. Scheduling pain for people you're trying to convince that you're right will just make them resent you.

Yes, and that would also cost the websites dearly in terms of revenue. They don't care THAT MUCH.

When cable companies and local channels have disputes--the local channel will err messages about their cable company, and sometimes will actually remove themselves from the company's channel lineup until issues are resolved. This would be no different... Or they could just have a horrible nag screen between every page load... you're using comcast they suck, contact them and tell them they suck and we'll remove this nag when net neutrality is re-instated

Instead, if you use the great firewall technique of just making the connection slow... and telling the customer that it's slow because their ISP doesn't support NN and how to fix it... then most users will blame their ISP for slowness, as usual.

Netflix did it to VZ when VZ refused to do more PNIs with NetFlix. NetFlix folded within a couple of weeks after VZ offered them a slightly better deal.

Even if the argument were quite convincing the money is what matters. In the world we live in today most issues that are actually contested have large business interests on both sides of them. If, as this article claims, the pro-neutrality guys no longer care, it doesn't really matter whether your average voter is completely convinced by the case for net neutrality.

I can see that. Website packages, just like channel packages on cable.

- You can get all the shopping sites, and your ISP's streaming service in the base package. - Third-party Music Sites with Music Extra. - Third-party Video Sites with Video Extra.

Then there is the Several speed levels of the Unlimited plan starting at just $999/month.

Personal blogs, websites and Open Source project sites will be restricted to the top 5%. Everyone else will have to just deal with canned media from the big corporations and ISPs.

And the average consumer will think that sounds great. Especially when you throw in a few services that don't count against their data cap.

Unfortunately, a future like that would even be preferable to what we will get, because that would be rejected by consumers.

Instead, they will squeeze outside media and tech companies behind the scenes and will stifle competition (and innovation) out of view of the consumer.

No what you are going to see is Zero Rating with extreme Caps

"Want 4K Content, Use HULU and it will not count toward your 1TB limit"

"Want unlimited music, Our new Xfinity Music Service is now allows you to enjoy all the music you want with out worry about going over your data cap"

Then ofcourse will be fast lanes

"Tired of your 4K movie buffering, Try the new Xfintiy On Demand, Guaranteed not to buffer"

Exactly, and it's easy to make this look like a positive feature to the uninformed consumer. As for "Going to see..." this is already how many mobile data-plans already operate - not charging extra for the exemption, but using it as a way to prioritize a particular service(s).

Net Neutrality fight was lost because it was a fight between billion dollar companies cynically peddled as a fight between "little guys" and "big evil companies". And that is exactly what it is.

On one side there are Google/Facebook/Youtube and likes and on another side are Comcast/Verizon/ATT/Sprint and like. Let me see do I care if Comcast screws Google and makes it pay more? Nope. How about Netflix? Nope. Wait, do I care if NetFlix makes life hell for Verizon? You guessed it, I do not. In fact, I would like them all to beat each other up into total destruction so we can go back to the world with lots of content providers and lots of ISPs.

The average consumer is the same way. He or she hears that Google has billions of dollars in cash. He or she hears how VZ is screwing taxpayers with their broadband roll outs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com