Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–136 of 136 posts

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#131

Post by anotherbrownguy »

SherlockeHolmes wrote: post #128
anotherbrownguy wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>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.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#132

Post by theseatoms »

syshum wrote: post #122
anotherbrownguy wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>>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 i…

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?

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#133

Post by syshum »

anotherbrownguy wrote: post #127
syshum wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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 i…

>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!

>>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

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#134

Post by cirgue »

trophycase wrote: post #95
cirgue wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see what this fuss is all about. If Facebook wants to offer cheaper Internet with their services prioritized, why not? Incumbency advantage and the arbitrary consolidation of economic power. The one clear duty of a government in regulating an economy is to ensure competition. We had the same fight about railroads, and we had the same fight about telecom in the thirties. The economic principles have not chan…

It's role is more to minimize externalities, of which ensuring competition is a part.

The how and why are extremely contentious for most externailities. That government has a duty to prevent certain kinds of anti-competitive behavior is one of the few points of general agreement.

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#135

Post by gremlinsinc »

wcarron wrote: post #85
gremlinsinc wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 repu…

> 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 Rep…

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...

Re: Net neutrality is dying with a whimper

#136

Post by gremlinsinc »

Arubis wrote: post #61
gremlinsinc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 N…

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.

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
Post reply on HN