Ask HN: How can we stop the plan to end net neutrality?

—I had no idea how much this was going to cost. Consider adding the price near to the CC field.

—I had no idea where this money was going. I assume to send the letter, but what company? How will this appear on my CC bill?

—Non-SSL form for CC info. I know this is still a work in progress, but will be a concern for some.

—Next button was on the left. When going through the process, I would expect the primary action to be on the right.

Best of luck!

Cynically? Market segmentation. Segment the market into sub-communities along demographic lines as well as producers and consumers. Figure out how to charge both small businesses trying to start a shopify store and the consumers who're likely to visit them.

> How will ISPs decide what websites I can not visit? Will they have a whitelist/blacklist?

If they don't have to treat all traffic passing through their lines equally, then they can choose to downgrade traffic from say Google unless El Goog pays up the fee. And, probably, ask you to pay up too.

> Will there be ISPs that offer packages that we have now? (I.E bandwidth only restriction)

To quote myself;

What makes you think they won't take full advantage of the power that you've given them? Once you give them that power, do you think they won't use it to make more and more? To squeeze every last dime from your pockets?

That's what they've done in the past. They've carved up territory like drug gangs to maximise profit. (Look at the maps - notice how they don't overlap? https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16998/us-internet... ). At the same time, they've often colluded to pass legislation that locks out competitors (https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcas...). And they've gotten so good at it that even the almighty El Goog couldn't break into their territory - I mean, market.

What makes you think that these rent seekers won't extract their pound of flesh and then some from you and your customers?

After all, past behavior is indeed predictive of future results.

> I've seen good arguments both for and against net neutrality and I really don't know which would be better.

When all else fails, go with enlightened self interest. Do you really want to pay some "ISP-fee" in the future to start your startup? Do you think consumers will be able to find your company or bother to do so if they have to pay $5 extra for the privilege of seeing your website?

It's in everyone's enlightened self interest over here to oppose this, because in the long run it will kill the consumer internet as we know it.

That's not what the term blacklist means.

It's an odd bird these types of positions when they are handled like this. To Illustrate how odd they are, imagine you apply for a job which a friend helped discover for you, then that friend recommends you to his manager. You get hired but instead of taking orders from your managers you ignore them, and you work for your friends instead.

Source: A Senate staffer I had drinks with a few months ago.

I was under the impression it only provides authenticity and integrity for answers. (I am by no means an expert, though!)

Your error is in assuming that this is due to corruption, rather than due to Republicans' philosophical belief that minimal regulation and free markets are better [1]. The Republican position on net neutrality is consistent with, and entirely predictable from, their positions on internet and telecommunications regulations going back long before Citizens United.

> But in narrower scope, the best way is to support the inevitable court case against FCC that will follow their expected decision.

Will there actually be a serious court case? There were court cases when the FCC made net neutrality rules, in both 2010 and 2015, but making a rule requires exercising authority, and so the question of whether or not they exceeded their authority can arise, and be litigated.

In the case of repealing one of their prior rules, instead of making a rule, is there really a plausible litigable issue? Since there is nothing that requires them to have a net neutrality regulation, it is hard to see how they could be exceeding their authority by dropping their net neutrality rules.

As long as they don't make a procedural mistake, it is hard to see what grounds they can be challenged on.

[1] Yes, I know that ISP markets are usually not competitive, which is one of the requirements for a free market to work well, but that's not relevant since I'm not saying that Republicans are right that minimal regulation and markets will protect the internet. I'm just saying that this is what they believe.

Consider a hypothetical situation where you are talking with your friend and they tell you about a wonderful blog that they read recently. You get very much interested in the idea that as soon as you reach home you want to read them all. Unfortunately you own a "video pack".

What you mentioned about the data packs make sense for many people. People who spend most of the time on Netflix, Facebook etc. But that is not what internet is all about. Internet is not Facebook or Google or Netflix. What makes internet great is the fact that any random unknown person can host any idea that they want to share with others and I can find that note and read it from other part of the world.

I considered "experiencing" the same thing around the same time, but decided it wasn't worth the money for the limited experience. There are about 5 sites that I know I'll visit daily, and a few dozen that will change day to day. I don't want to pay less and have access to only a subset of the internet (talking about more than just the web).

Look at TV. It's a fucking wasteland, compared to the internet. No dark shady corners, no half-forgotten back alleyways to discover. A whole lot of mass-appeal crap, and not much else. There's a lot to lose.

Is there anything to gain? The things that I do already work the way I'd like them to. If my ISP gave me the option for a discount to accept prioritization of access to their business partners, I'd reject it; I don't believe it's in my best interest. I don't see a valuable gain for rejecting net neutrality. I see the internet sliding into a gutter of uselessness.

You are missing the picture, let me try painting it for you, and for everyone has to face this question -

The internet is not netflix. Its not amazon, or facebook, or even google.

ALL of those are just webpages, or websites sitting on the internet.

And they are Just like my site - mysite.somewhere.com.

OR the sites that many of my country men could and will make, when they finally come online.

My spice selling family friend, could come online and make a site to sell spices for example.

And when they do - the instantly are accessible to every human being connected to the internet. (And quite a few robots too).

THAT'S the internet.

vs just new cable television.

It drives me nuts that a lot of techies don't understand this. Abstaining, or side stepping, from politics because of some misguided sense of ideological purity does not help.

If I do get on their calendars, I hope I can articulate my reasoning well. I doubt I'll be given much time.

Prior to that many people were still on dialup and the fight was to get people to sign up for broadband. Now the market is saturated so it’s time to seek as much rent as possible.

They successfully squeezed Netflix. You don’t think they see dollar signs?

That's one way and there will be variants on it, other methods, bait and switch etc. etc.

Call it bandwagoning, or consider it not to analytical to conclude what the intended purpose of anti-NN policy is based on who is for and against it, but the only reason why we're having this discussion is because, time and time again, ISP's push legislation or Republicans appoint FCC regulators to dismantle NN protection.

There is no 'other side' to this. It's pushed directly by the ISP's for their own benefit. Consumers get nothing. It's incredibly obvious.

1. ...but why give them ability to charge based on what you're doing with access they give you? It's like your electric power provider would charge you more if you have a blacklisted freezer...

2. ...but maybe let's start by lowering the bar for new ISPs and getting rid of monopolies instead of giving them more means to squeeze more money? How getting rid of NN helps with that? Google couldn't get into that market.

3. ...but what if my provider throttles wired network, not wireless, and not 4k, but full HD? What if they throttle my twitch, because they got a deal with google to serve unlimited access to Youtube Gaming at the cost of limiting access to twitch? Sure, change IPS! Whoops, there's no competition in my area. What now?

To be clear, I get everyone's concern and if what everyone is saying is true, I agree 100% this seems bad. However, all the hysteria makes it hard to get a grip on the facts

Just to be clear, I think net neutrality is a Good Thing(tm), but your comment is certainly thought-provoking.

Having a discussion with reasonable people even - no! especially! - if I do not agree with them is part of what I like about this community so much.

No, they don't have the right, their infrastructure covers physical space and is in the same category as power grids and sewers, you cannot have a "free market" because the world has space limitations, I would hate to live in a street with a thousand energy cables, ten different providers of sanitation systems and in a permanent construction zone.

Since there's no feasible way to guarantee a real free market, they need to be regulated to avoid the exploitation of consumers that don't have other choices.

And even if we have the choice of multiple ISPs providing the last mile, we will need to keep some regulation on companies that sell the bandwidth to the ISPs.

Physical infrastructure is a different beast than digital goods, companies shouldn't have the right to exploit consumers just because there's no feasible way to provide more competition.

> I have only seen vague bullshit till now.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Sorry, that's rude, but it's the truth. There have been plenty of well thought out and presented arguments created by the EFF and by a number of pundants across the internet. Even Google supported NN before they decided they can afford the double dipping in exchange for a higher barrier to competition.

Do more than berate people on a forum for being angry about the very foundations of a free (as in speech) internet being torn asunder; do some basic research for yourself and you'll find them.

Alternatively, just look at the rest of the world for a view of a non-NN future. ISPs have already demonstrated that they will use the lack of enforced neutrality to promote their own services in an unfair way, such as applying artificial limits on Netflix but not their own on-demand video services. They raise the prices of internet services while simultaneously removing our options. How is that in any way good for consumers?

- The company that builds and operates the network has been granted substantial subsidy; the government subsidizing it has a right to make demands to the quality and pricing of the product.

- The company is interested in maximizing profits from the product; the government is interested in providing the service to the maximum number of people. This includes places where laying infrastructure is not cost-effective, i.e. sparsely populated rural areas far from the current network. The company would not be willing to build infrastructure for them, so the government subsidizes it, but expects a certain measure of quality in return(back to argument 1)

- The de-facto situation is a monopoly, and the Telco Act is designed to deal with such a situation. While you say "just fix the root cause", it's not obvious how to do that. Assuming that new ISPs will pop up, there will still be a painful transition period. During this period, what are people supposed to do? NN shifts the "harm" from the users to the companies, which is a short and medium-term net-positive for the users. And what if no ISPs pop up? You're throwing people's livelihood in jeopardy on a gamble. This is essentially the "internet is a public good" argument.

For these reasons you want some measure of regulation where you can provide internet connectivity to the maximum number of people. This is very reminiscent to phones, so it's natural to reach for the Telco Act.

I think NN is a painful compromise for the current situation the US is in.

I think the only obvious endgame of NN is essentially nationalizing ISPs - what are you going to do in the long term when they refuse to provide better internet because they can't justify the cost? NN will be a fairly powerful tool for them to eliminate any possible competition, or as a MAD weapon to enforce their turfs(look at the clauses about compliance - they are regulated on a local level, guess where ISPs have the most lobbying power?).

On the other hand, the situation in the US "as-is" is pretty shit, and people want some kind of assurance for the future of their internet access. That assurance can only realistically come from the government. I am not sure whether I would vote for or against NN if I had to, even though I opposite it on principle(I don't think it's a good solution).

Luckily, I don't have to deal with such a problem. In our country, the nationalized phone company builds internet lines, and leases them to competing ISPs(they are also allowed to build their own). This has worked so far, but the situation is vastly different from the US.

Hacker news and those other niche new sites you visit are niche sites and as such have a lower routing priority. If you would like to prioritize them with full enhanced speed, please upgrade to niche news site plan. An additional $9.99 per month. Sorry, they're so slow right now.

You've noticed all your https traffic is slow now? Easy fix: install this software which proxies all your HTTPS traffic through our fast and secure gateway. This lets us add "supercookies" to all your web requests. We then sell your name and address to operators of sites you visit.

And what's great is that this software also allows us to insert our own advertisements into the websites you visit. Now we can finally take revenue from Google and Facebook and become our own advertising empire. We've wanted Google-money for a long time, but we've never had a way to force ads on users because we don't offer compelling services.

With the recent increases in Netflix and YouTube prices, we recommend you subscribe to ISPFlix. It's an additional $24.99 per month which is half the price of Netflix. We've wanted Netflix money for a long time, but we've never had a way to force users to use our services over Netflix. Now we love cord cutters.

Oh, you've noticed the decreased traffic to the website you operate? That might be due to your site being so much slower for users. If you'd like your site to be fast again, please pay an additional expedited content service fee. It's an additional $299 per month.

Oh, it looks like you have a smart thermostat installed. That's an extra $9.99 per month for the home automation service plan. We'll block packets that look like they're from your thermostat for now. We should let you know we offer a full home automation and security product. It's a terrible product that is not competitive.

See? Regulation to make sure we won't block or slow down sites or alter your traffic just doesn't make sense. It's totally not important to anyone, but we are going to promise we won't block or slow down sites. Our terms and conditions may change at any time.

Buying land for fiber lines, and building out all of the necessary infrastructure to make that happen is not something just anyone can do. Even Google backed out of that race! How much competition can there actually be with ISPs?

You must've never been to Texas, home of stand-your-ground laws and the death penalty.

>You don't see anybody trying to legalize murder, do you?

Actually, you do. Many Republican state congresses are trying to make it legal to murder protesters by e.g. ramming them with your car. Net Neutrality is pretty much as cut and dried as this: there are people who oppose it, but that position is indefensible. "People defend it therefore there must be good arguments in favor of it" just isn't always true.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/08/the-charlottesvi...

The opponents on the FCC (well, the 2 of the 3 that were on the FCC then) voted against the most recent proposal under Title I that preceded the current Title II reclassification. Insofar as they claim to support net neutrality, they oppose any regulation, regardless of basis, that would enforce it.

> If you're making less than $75k you may want to mention that you don't want your taxes to go up while you're at it.

From my experience in a legislative office, for anything short of an in person meeting with someone you have an established relationship with, you want to keep any contact to a single subject: if you want to address two issues, make two separate contacts.

The issue then is not things like "corporations are people" versus "no they're not"; it's to what extent the rights of a corporation should mirror the rights of a human. And generally, the argument people should make to fight Citizens United is one of granting only those rights which are necessary for a corporation -- an artificial, legally-created "person" -- to fulfill its designed function, and avoiding those which are problematic.

Once you reframe the argument that way, you get to talk about how it's useful to have some corporate speech rights for purposes of advertising, but political speech isn't necessary or useful, and may even be self-contradictory. Consider that unlimited corporate political speech also opens the door for forced corporate political speech: if a shareholder can make an argument that, say, Candidate A's positions will increase shareholder value while Candidate B's positions will decrease it, then the shareholder now also has an argument to force the corporation to "speak" on behalf of A and against B as part of the corporation's responsibility to shareholders. So granting "free speech" to corporations could well lead to compelled speech. And it's probably not in the interest of public policy to clog up courts with those kinds of arguments, which then gives you the way in to restricting corporate political speech.

Prioritized traffic just opens up the possibilities for a lot more controlling measures of the internet. Power corrupts, so it's just a matter of that of this being abused by people in power.

Google probably would not have taken over search with its better ranking if AltaVista could just buy being much faster.

Social networks probably would not have overtaken Orkut (culminating in Facebook after may interactions) if Orkut could just buy being much faster.

Reddit (and Hacker News), if slow as molasses, might have lost to traditionally curated news sites (this one is a stretch).

Stripe wouldn't seriously compete with PayPal if it was much slower when it was starting.

So, what giants of the future will we be drowning on birth tomorrow? Specifically? No clue. But I'm very confident that they exist.

Maciej ("idlewords" on HN) has started https://techsolidarity.org/ as one possible solution.

I disagree fundamentally with this. Political parties are trying to win elections, and they decide what they're going to fight for based on what gets them votes. If supporting NN doesn't get Democrats votes, they're not going to fight for it as hard, or maybe just drop the issue. Likewise, if Republicans can keep calling NN "Obamacare for the internet" and winning, then they'll see no reason to stop.