271–280 of 388 posts
Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.
Also since you're curious, Pai recently gave his views: http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/21/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-po...
Why isn't Google fighting this? They have a backup plan?
Funny how libertarian mythology doesn't really hold up to even the most basic of game theory applications.
I wish I knew more about wireless/WISP? There has to be a way to provide reliable 1Gbps service to residential areas. If I could find a way to provide such a service, I would certainly look to do it and provide NN myself. Maybe I could even strike a deal with Netflix/Amazon/Hulu/etc and try to do my own double-play/triple-play sort of thing. Does anyone have any resources regarding getting 1Gbps bandwidth to the mass…
*I have no idea how much this would cost, probably more than I said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So maybe these plans are serving a different market segment. Is there any reason to believe an ISP would get rid of all their regular offerings in favour of these site-specific plans?
The big ISPs (in the US) haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big ISPs (in the US) haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.
Okay, so if they do this, then the government should act. Preemptive regulation has all the downsides of regulation (eg lower investment) but potentially none of the benefits. This isn’t the kind of thing that will cause immediate, long-lasting, harm if a few ISPs explore this route before being shut down by the FCC or Congress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big ISPs (in the US) haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.
Okay, so if they do this, then the government should act. Preemptive regulation has all the downsides of regulation (eg lower investment) but potentially none of the benefits. This isn’t the kind of thing that will cause immediate, long-lasting, harm if a few ISPs explore this route before being shut down by the FCC or Congress.
Why isn't Google fighting this? They have a backup plan?
Google doesn't need to care. They can out purchase speed tiers/entire ISP's to make their services extremely favorable/speedy to use or just out right prevent competition in certain areas. They own the biggest ad network in the world. This will be in their favor. Funny how libertarian mythology doesn't really hold up to even the most basic of game theory applications.
Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.
Actually I've just stumbled across a very(!) active HN poster that seems to be against it on a popular micro blogging platform.. The common counter argument seems to be that "Regulation is bad for the open market" and that "Better options would come up if an ISP starts doing weird shit, if the market demands it". It's interesting to me that the very same people seem to be pro Freedom of Press/Freedom of Speech (as a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a made up issue. "Net neutrality" doesn't mean a free internet. It means a free internet regulated by the FCC. Almost nobody is against a free internet. A lot of people such as myself are against the FCC being in charge of regulating it. Competition and the FTC's anti-trust authority have kept the internet free for decades and will continue to do so in the future. The people pushing "net neutrality" want to tran…
You are deliberately being deceptive to fool people into agreeing with you. Net Neutrality is a mandate that ISPs cannot prioritize data from one website over another. It's a regulation to ensure that Comcast cannot effectively censor websites it doesn't like by hiding it behind a slow lane of sorts. We know that ISPs have attempted to throttle Netflix's content, which is what prompted the recent regulatory changes i…
Personally I am ambivalent about net neutrality. I, however, am deeply opposed to the existence of Title II, let alone it being used to regulate the internet. If advocates want net neutrality to be the governing policy of the internet why don't they advocate for specific legislation that does only that and doesn't give the FCC the ability to become a heavy handed regulator of ISPs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, not after you lose. I think this time is it. However, it is "merely" a symptom of the US political system not being sensitive to the citizens' wants and needs. Or no longer being a democracy by modern standards, if you want to be dramatic.
>However, it is "merely" a symptom of the US political system not being sensitive to the citizens' wants and needs. No. Stop saying this. It completely muddies the water on what's actually going on here. People DID vote for this. They voted for their reps. And they voted for reps of a very particular political bent. Elections have consequences. The electorate chose this. Freely and willingly. The electorate being com…
So while a large voting bloc did vote for these people, it's not the will of the majority. It's just that America's democracy is kind of broken (not completely broken, but it's getting there).