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

I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 423 posts

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#201

Post by bkanber »

averagewall wrote: post #186
throwaway5752 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're a dope if you don't vote. It's impolite to mention this, but it is not a political problem, but a Republican problem. A Democratic administration's FCC enacted Net Neutrality, a Republican one is attempting to dismantle it. Vote for Democrats at every level of government, in every election possible. This will change some day, but today the Republican party has lost its mind and morals. To be clear, I'm not cal…

Democrats use drones to kill innocent or presumed-guilty people in other countries. Are you sure their lives don't matter compared to net neutrality? They're also responsible for harsh sentences for drug offences which is a major reason for all the imprisoned people in the US. Net neutrality is still more important than all those ruined lives? The housing shortage in San Francisco is democrats too. Maybe with money s…

> Democrats use drones to kill innocent or presumed-guilty people in other countries.

That's not a Democrat thing, that's an American thing.

We don't have enough data to say democrats use drones more than republicans. GW Bush was the first President to have access to drones period, and it was not yet a mature technology nor at the beginning of his term. Obama was the first President to have drones available for his first term, and yes he did use them.

President Trump is using drones just as much as Obama did, and in fact Trump has taken the White House out of the command loop and is giving more authority to the CIA to execute drone strikes! So not just drone strikes, but drone strikes with little accountability, ordered neither by an elected official or the military but instead the CIA. Also, President Trump rolled back Obama's mandate that drones can't be used outside of war zones.

Don't forget that President Reagan signed that drug sentencing act into law.

The housing shortage in SF is NIMBYs, not democrats. It just happens that democrats are overrepresented in SF so you are using a correlation as causation.

> Net neutrality is still more important than all those ruined lives?

It's not a binary decision. But losing net neutrality could lead to some pretty awful social and economic effects 20 years down the line. It can lead to even more class inequality, lower education levels, increased crime, and potentially even a major recession or crash as our tech sector productivity decreases due to the anticompetitive environment.

> It's far from a simple as "always vote democrat".

That I agree with.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#202

Post by rtpg »

transposed wrote: post #146
saulrh wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem. I think that this is the part that I can't comprehend. The railroads misbehaved so badly that the government had to break rail transportation as an industry to kill them. Ninety years later we're still using long-haul semi trailers for everything. Bell's abuse of its monopoly was similarly severe. How do peop…

I don't think that many people actually do hold this belief. That's why someone had to make a bot to create the illusion.

A bunch of the GOP seems to hold this belief. If there wasn't such a strong movement for net neutrality, I bet a bunch of Democrats would like this as well.

I understand there are a lot of lobbyists, but there are many people who sincerely believe the "less regulation and more competition will solve the issues" mantra.

I place a lot of the blame on outlets like the Wall Street Journal giving credence to arguments that strip out all context and use fancy words to justify these positions. Doesn't help that other people are afraid to call out their lies because they came from the same social circles.

Yes, the "free market + competition makes things cheaper" argument works well when you remove all the reasons why a specific case does not fit the theory perfectly.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#204

Post by notyourday »

Nokinside wrote: post #142
netsec_burn wrote: post #43

Nick Gillespie: Your plan will, according to a write up in Politico, and I think this is accurate, it quote, "will jettison rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so called paid internet fast lanes." Question for you, do you think fast lanes will become a thing? What is the value of a internet fast lane? Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We'v…

The net neutrality laws prohibit anti-competitive blocking and "throttling" of Internet services or discriminating by protocol, ip-adress, application, etc. What should be outside net neutrality laws are protocols that leave the customer and applications in control. There is nothing wrong with using Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP), DSCP and IPv6 flow labels to get QoS that differ from the dumb pipe. Many future…

> The net neutrality laws prohibit anti-competitive blocking and "throttling" of Internet services or discriminating by protocol, ip-adress, application, etc.

Except that NN does not prohibit it for traffic engineering purposes. And I'm here, just doing traffic engineering:

if (you-pay-me-for-PNIs) { set-local-preference really-high } else { set-local-preference default }

Oh look, your traffic is going to the non-congested path which happens to be the path to my PNI locations, directly into your network. Jack on the other hand, Jack gets to use the standard transit. "Hey Jack, you know, we will drag all your traffic to SJC, even if you are on the East Coast and hand it off to TATA because TATA gives us the lowest transit price. Man, TATA seem to be congested from 5pm Eastern to about 2am Eastern. Oh well, maybe you guys need to yell at TATA. Oh, do you want to buy a dozen of 10Gs to me all over the country? That would avoid those dolts at TATA."

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#205

Post by trivial »

thesmallestcat wrote: post #123
throwaway5752 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not about liberalism or conservativism at all. It would be lovely if the current Republican party was about conservativism. This is not about political philosophy, this is about party and who exercises power in those parties.

Not all Dems support Net Neutrality, not all Republicans oppose it, which contradicts your point.

There are some people that think the earth is flat or that lizard shape shifting aliens control the highest level of every government does that make them a fair representation of the views of humanity as a whole? There are significant differences between the two parties.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#206

Post by makecheck »

exabrial wrote: post #7

Sorry I'm not buying into the panic. Between wide scale TLS deployment and larger swaths of bandwidth available, I'd rather see free market solutions so these regulatory powers can't be abused. Net neutrality only matters if your ISP can decrypt your traffic and there is a limited share of bandwidth available.

Encryption is not a synonym for security, there are many ways your activities can leak and ISPs can still be biased against you if there are no rules to stop them.

For instance, they can decide you’re simply transmitting too much of this data that they can’t decrypt. They can observe the times of day you perform activities and guess what that means, e.g. heavy data use in evenings might be watching streaming content. They can look at addresses and infer activity based on what is going where. And they could even install a blanket ban on any data they can’t inspect unless it’s between some approved domains like banks with deep pockets.

You can’t just be comfortable with encryption. There’s no real security without net neutrality.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#207

Post by richardknop »

enraged_camel wrote: post #175
maehwasu wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the Arab Spring, that beacon of hope and light for the world.

For that part of the world, it certainly was. Not sure what your point is. Yes, ultimately it failed, but it is difficult to dispute that it was a noble attempt. More will come in time.

It wasn’t purely noble attempt. Arab Spring was actually driven largely by rising food prices and high unemployment. And it lead to some dangerous people getting in power. E.g. Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Unrest in this part of the world will continue as the population is still rising fast, average age is very low so you get young unemployed population with no jobs and no money and basics such as food are rising in price. That is a recipe for more revolutions.

But revolutions and overthrowing of local governments won’t solve the underlying issues of these countries not being able to provide some reasonable standard of living to their population due to economic reasons.

It would be much safer to do incremental change and try to slowly build up local economies to create jobs for millions of young people. Violent revolutions will only further damage economic conditions and make situation worse in many cases.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#208

Post by duckMuppet »

netsec_burn wrote: post #43

Nick Gillespie: Your plan will, according to a write up in Politico, and I think this is accurate, it quote, "will jettison rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so called paid internet fast lanes." Question for you, do you think fast lanes will become a thing? What is the value of a internet fast lane? Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We'v…

Pai gave a pretty complete interview with Tech Policy Podcast yesterday and went in depth with much of what he was thinking.

Tech Policy Podcast: #206: The Future of Internet Regulation w/ FCC Chairman Ajit Pai http://podcast.techfreedom.org/e/206-the-future-of-internet-...

But, I think Robert Graham summed it up pretty well when he said "you believe the FCC should allow companies to bend the rules when it's in the interests of customers, then you don't believe in NetNeutrality." Lots of politics and emotion in the hysteria, very little sound reasoning.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#209

Post by Nokinside »

dtech wrote: post #179
Nokinside wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The net neutrality laws prohibit anti-competitive blocking and "throttling" of Internet services or discriminating by protocol, ip-adress, application, etc. What should be outside net neutrality laws are protocols that leave the customer and applications in control. There is nothing wrong with using Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP), DSCP and IPv6 flow labels to get QoS that differ from the dumb pipe. Many future…

But who is going to determine what gets which priority at what price? The only one who can is the ISP and I don't trust them.

Customer determines by requesting QoS for connection.

ISP sells service with fixed price that states what kind of QoS requests it can fulfill. Net neutrality prevents the ISP from setting them on their own.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#210

Post by afuchs »

jquery wrote: post #167
dragonwriter wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NN is a joke of a solution that doesn't even cover anything more than the FTC already covers. The FTC covers nothing in this domain, and there is recent appellate case law which suggests that they could not act in it without significant change to the statutes governing their authority.

In what domain? The FTC certain covers situations where ISPs use anticompetitive practices against potential competitors. The FTC does not cover voluntary capitalist behavior that benefits the consumer, such as ISPs preferring to reduce gaming latency over website or email latency. Good.

> The FTC certain covers situations where ISPs use anticompetitive practices against potential competitors.

I thought the FTC tried to, but a SCOTUS ruling gave the sole responsibility for this to the FCC?

Post reply on HN