I never thought hackernews would have so many opposing net neutrality. Is some alt-right brigading this thread? which is ironic considering how they claim to care about free speech.
"Why aren't you all falling in line out of fear of this boogeyman?"
Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
191–200 of 452 posts
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#192I wasn't impressed with this article; it reads like fear mongering. More importantly, I don't think the fix is regulation, I think it's better privacy tech + increased competition via elimination of local monopolies. Do we really want to depend on government to enforce privacy on the Internet?
> I think it's better privacy tech + increased competition via elimination of local monopolies. Do we really want to depend on government to enforce privacy on the Internet
Unfortunately, if that ever hapoens it won't be any time soon. ISP's just throw lawyers at new entrants to the market who can, through legal maneuvering, delay entrance by years and fighting them will cost a fortune. There were some successes by municipalities (who voted foe their own city owned isp) but many many more losses
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#193I think a great thing to do (if you are for net neutrality), is pick specific parts of the NPRM filed with this proceeding and comment directly on it[1] to help do some work for the defense. I feel sorry for anyone who might actually need to address this document point for point to defend net neutrality.
I tried my hand at the general claim of regulatory uncertainty hurting business, then Paragraphs 45 and 47:
-> It is worth noting that by bringing this into the spotlight again the NPRM is guilty of iginiting the same regulatory uncertainty it repeatedly claims has hurt its investments.
-> Paragraph 45 devotes 124 words (94% of the paragraph), gives 3 sources (75% of the references in this paragraph) and a number of figures (100% of explicitly hand-picked data) making the claim Title II regulation has suppressed investment. It then ends with 8 words and 1 reference vaguely stating "Other interested parties have come to different conclusions." Given the NPRM's insistence on both detail and clarity, this is absolutely unacceptable.
-> There are also a number of extremely misleading and insubstantiated arguments throughout. Reference 114 in Paragraph 47, for example, is actually a hapzard mishmash of 3 references with clearly hand-picked data from somewhat disjointed sources and analyses. Then the next two references [115, 116] in the same paragraph, point to letters sent to the FCC over 2 years ago from small ISP providers before regulations were classified as Title II. Despite discussing the fears raised in these letters, the NRPM provides little data on whether these fears were actually borne out. In fact, one of the providers explicitly mentioned in reference 115, Cedar Falls Utilities, have not in any way been subject to these regulations (they have less than 100,000 customers ... in fact the population of Cedar Falls isn't even 1/2 of the 100,000 customer exemption the FCC has provided!). This is obviously faked concern for the small ISP businesses and again, given the NPRM's insistence on both detail and clarity, this is absolutely unacceptable.
[1] makes a great point on specifically addressing what's being brought up in the NPRM: https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/27/how-to-comment-on-the-fccs...
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#194http://gofccyourself.com (redirect) Edit: If it stays blank after redirect it's because it (FCC's site) can't handle the load, or [conspiracy theory].
Preserve NET NEUTRALITY & Title 2
This half assed fuck america Trump big business mentality for the sake of the ALREADY HAVE EVERYTHING I NEED 1% is going to STUN the FREEDOM and growth of this great country. Not the other way around.
STOP the INSANITY - Preserve NET NEUTRALITY & Title 2
Thank you Thierry
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#195http://gofccyourself.com (redirect) Edit: If it stays blank after redirect it's because it (FCC's site) can't handle the load, or [conspiracy theory].
Preserve NET NEUTRALITY & Title 2
This half assed fuck america Trump big business mentality for the sake of the ALREADY HAVE EVERYTHING I NEED 1% is going to STUN the FREEDOM and growth of this great country. Not the other way around.
STOP the INSANITY - Preserve NET NEUTRALITY & Title 2
Thank you Thierry
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#196http://gofccyourself.com (redirect) Edit: If it stays blank after redirect it's because it (FCC's site) can't handle the load, or [conspiracy theory].
PLEASE maintain Title Two for net neutrality. Do not destroy our freedom over commercial interests. Thank you.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Infrastructure which everyone else has access to. Unless you think ISPs will simply block off many hosts, this is likely hyperbole. More likely, certain services would be charged tolls upstream and others would be promoted with discounts.
> More likely, certain services would be charged tolls upstream Any service that competes with an ISP's service > others would be promoted with discounts. An ISP's or their partner's service. When you have at most 3 but usually only 2 choices for an ISP in a local market, how do you think this will benefit anyone ither than them? My only two choices are comcast and at&t DSL. I live in a dense, wealthy area where peop…
Both of your comments will require a bit more in-depth a response. I will do so later on today. Enjoying the discussion.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#198http://gofccyourself.com (redirect) Edit: If it stays blank after redirect it's because it (FCC's site) can't handle the load, or [conspiracy theory].
Preserve NET NEUTRALITY & Title 2
This half assed fuck america Trump big business mentality for the sake of the ALREADY HAVE EVERYTHING I NEED 1% is going to STUN the FREEDOM and growth of this great country. Not the other way around.
STOP the INSANITY - Preserve NET NEUTRALITY & Title 2 !!!!!
Thank you Thierry
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
ISPs are natural monopolies due to the incredibly high infrastructure investments required. In countries or regions where there are many ISPs to choose from, it's almost always because the government has required the one or two that own all the infra to rent capacity at cost to anyone who wants to start up a competing service. In return, the governments frequently supply tax breaks. This mechanism may be a viable alt…
FYI, there is no forced rental in Romania, Ukraine or Russia. Their governments simply didn't bother to regulate ISPs at all for a long time.
I don't think we want to use Russia or the Ukraine as examples of Bastions of free speech... for obvious reasons.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
ISPs are natural monopolies due to the incredibly high infrastructure investments required. In countries or regions where there are many ISPs to choose from, it's almost always because the government has required the one or two that own all the infra to rent capacity at cost to anyone who wants to start up a competing service. In return, the governments frequently supply tax breaks. This mechanism may be a viable alt…
FYI, there is no forced rental in Romania, Ukraine or Russia. Their governments simply didn't bother to regulate ISPs at all for a long time.
I don't think we want to use Russia or the Ukraine as examples of Bastions of free speech... for obvious reasons.