Nobody in Congress had a view on net neutrality until they were paid to. Because it's a largely invented issue between those groups of corporations. ISPs want to charge tech companies more for the traffic they generate, and tech companies don't want to pay it. Those companies were already donating to politicians which align with their own views... but primarily because of their views on other topics.
> net neutrality... [is] a largely invented issue between those groups of corporations
We've been discussing the concept of Net Neutrality for more than a decade; the 2006 Title I reclassification was the trigger that threw the concept into question. I remember debates on long-since-defunct websites (remember Digg?) about the importance of educating friends, family, and elected officials about the importance of protecting the concept in some way. (This I would later learn is called political organizing.)
There is legitimate debate to be had about how to best preserve NN, but framing it as a made up issue that corporations are inventing for political expediency is a serious mischaracterization.
This is HN after all, I'm sure many others can back me up here.
The different internet providers have peering agreements. If traffic isn't the same between the two peers, they pay the difference.
Simplified. If Netflix's service provider is Verizon and they have a peering agreement with Comcast and Netflix traffic is causing peering to become out of balance between Comcast and Verizon. Verizon pays Comcast and Verizon charges Netflix more. No one is getting a free ride.
I've heard the rhetoric. It's not relevant to my point:
Group A of companies wants B to pay a bill. Group B doesn't want to pay it. Corporate lobbying ensues, as each tries to make the other's position illegal. Who is "right" or whether or not Group B should pay Group A's bill is not relevant to the accuracy of my statement.
EDIT: Please keep this thread on the topic at hand: Why net neutrality is perceived as a liberal position. There are other subthreads where you can discuss your opinion on net neutrality itself.
That's not "rhetoric" that's how the internet has worked for decades.
Group A and Group B are already paying their own bills for internet traffic via peering agreements and cash when there is unequal traffic on one side.
It's not like there is competition for last mile internet service in most of the United States. If Comcast decided they wanted to charge netflix specifically more and not just charge the owner of the network they are peering with - what choice does Netflix or it's user have?
And if Comcast wanted to start Comflix and zero rate it and charge all other providers more, then what?
Before you bring up T-mobile's zero rating of video content, T-mobile zero rates any provider from Netflix to UGetP0rn.com (hopefully that's not a real website) as long as they meet the technical requirements and no money changes hands.
That's not how peering works, economically. When Netflix's ISP sends a movie to my ISP, is my ISP doing Netflix a favor? No, it's doing me a favor, or both of us a favor. So who should pay? Backbones who aren't either of our ISPs complicate it further.
ISP should be able to charge a fair price for providing connectivity across their networks, but it's not at all obvious what a fair price is, because it's not clear how expensive each packet delivery is and whose packet it is. That's why capitalists/right-wingers say "free market sort it out" and socialists/left-wingers say "government should decide rules about what's fair".
That's not how peering works, economically. When Netflix's ISP sends a movie to my ISP, is my ISP doing Netflix a favor? No, it's doing me a favor, or both of us a favor. So who should pay? Backbones who aren't either of our ISPs complicate it further.
The backbones charge the ISPs for traffic. That doesn't change what I said before. Instead of A and B
having a peering agreement, they both have peering agreements with C. (A<->C<->B).
ISP should be able to charge a fair price for providing connectivity across their networks, but it's not at all obvious what a fair price is, because it's not clear how expensive each packet delivery is and whose packet it is. That's why capitalists/right-wingers say "free market sort it out" and socialists/left-wingers say "government should decide rules about what's fair".
Net Neutrality doesn't have anything to do with the government deciding how much ISPs and backbone providers charge each other. Net Neutrality is about charging for each packet at the same price and with some exceptions not prioritizing one packet over the other based on origin.
