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

311–320 of 423 posts

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

#311

Post by p49k »

taohansen wrote: post #108
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…

both parties don't make decisions i consider sane or particularly clever yet those are the only two parties i may vote for with any chance of success. the voting system is broken by outmoded/gamed structures (gerrymandering, an electoral college), and all-or-nothing outcomes (if i vote for one candidate and they don't win, i may make no second or third choice with which then to put my voting power behind). i simply f…

You can pick the party which most closely represents your interests and then work to change the party from the inside. I also wish that the US was structured to allow more parties to thrive, but we are not helpless.

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

#312

Post by emiliobumachar »

thinkloop wrote: post #244
saulrh wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the DOT [1] it looks like my intuition is a bit out of date. Right now US freight about even, trucking still a little bit ahead by ton-mile. Ten years ago rail carried 2/3 as much freight as trucks. Last-mile delivery on trucks (from the rail station to the point of use) is taken care of by the unit of measurement (one ton of freight traveling one mile), so I think that those numbers are relatively reaso…

It's wasn't obvious to me that trucking is much less energy effecient than rail. According to treehugger.com rail achieves "400 ton-miles per gallon whereas trucks currently hover around 130 ton-miles per gallon" [1]. I wonder why that would be - rubber tires vs steel-on-steel? Traffic? There isn't much traffic during the majority of a long-haul and the last few miles have to be done by truck anyway. [1] https://www.…

A small part of it is air resistance. A train has a lot less frontal area per ton.

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

#313

Post by Endy »

QAkICoU7IDNkpFu wrote: post #287
jinfiesto wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty liberal, and I believe that there is some truth to the "less regulation and more competition will solve the issues" mantra. The issue here being that there isn't a real way to inject more competition into the ISP space. Soooo, we are just getting less regulation. Which will inevitably lead to abuses.

Break up the biggest ISP's by force.

We'd need another Teddy Roosevelt for that to happen. Unfortunately, we have Trump. And frankly I don't see politics changing from that mindset for a long time.

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

#314

Post by Endy »

badestrand wrote: post #127
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be 'too preemptive' to outlaw it?" But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason). > "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now." But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.

> But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen At least in Germany planning a murder is illegal. Just like preparing a terrorist attack is - otherwise the police wouldn't be allowed to stop it. Also Wiki: "In some jurisdictions, the very act of preparing for a crime is a criminal offense in itself" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_preparation ) For the US, interesting read: https://www.l…

"Conspiracy to commit murder" is a crime. So, there's that.

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

#315

Post by rtpg »

QAkICoU7IDNkpFu wrote: post #287
jinfiesto wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty liberal, and I believe that there is some truth to the "less regulation and more competition will solve the issues" mantra. The issue here being that there isn't a real way to inject more competition into the ISP space. Soooo, we are just getting less regulation. Which will inevitably lead to abuses.

Break up the biggest ISP's by force.

The biggest issue is that since this is a network the most cost effective thing is for there to be a single network.

Networks are a great example where a regulated monopoly on one level can allow for a healthy free market on the upper levels.

If you forget about the money, having a single operator makes the most sense. Thus we should model our economic system to take this into account

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

#316

Post by thirdsun »

gaius wrote: post #257

Google et al want the infrastructure to be dumb pipes so they can direct traffic by manipulating search results. Ending NN is bad for them but it is yet to be shown it will be bad for the consumer. You're your ISP's customer but Google's product .

Ending net neutrality is, while not in their longterm interest, just fine for Google & Co. - they are already established players that are able to afford the bandwidth and overcome whatever other barriers ISPs might come up with. It's the future services and companies that might challenge Google, Facebook and Netflix someday. They won't be able to enter the market due to not being able to afford access to the fast lane.

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

#318

Post by Angostura »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #300
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be 'too preemptive' to outlaw it?" But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason). > "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now." But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.

Wait a minute, the opposite of net neutrality is called "net freedom "? This is sick (the lack of net neutrality is more likely to reduce freedoms than to promote them). If you remotely support net neutrality, please never use that term again. This is self defeating.

The freedom in this case is for the ISPs.

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

#319

Post by sambe »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #300
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be 'too preemptive' to outlaw it?" But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason). > "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now." But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.

Wait a minute, the opposite of net neutrality is called "net freedom "? This is sick (the lack of net neutrality is more likely to reduce freedoms than to promote them). If you remotely support net neutrality, please never use that term again. This is self defeating.

I'm pro-net neutrality and I'm against dishonest marketing, but I think overall it's important to take the higher ground and remain intellectually honest. Doing otherwise results in a mud-slinging contest.

Existing regulations are a restriction on the freedom of service providers. That is undeniable. There many cases where we restrict freedoms for the greater good, but I don't like to pretend we are not doing so in those cases.

I'd also add that freedom is not the right to demand other people give you something you want. I wouldn't say that I've lost my freedoms if there are no good ISPs left after the regulatory change. Everyone involved can still either choose an existing provider or set up their own. We have monopoly/anti-trust laws when that ceases to be the case. Of course, this may not be the efficient path to a world that a huge majority of people want - which is why I slightly side with net neutrality.

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

#320

Post by zwily »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #300
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be 'too preemptive' to outlaw it?" But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason). > "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now." But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.

Wait a minute, the opposite of net neutrality is called "net freedom "? This is sick (the lack of net neutrality is more likely to reduce freedoms than to promote them). If you remotely support net neutrality, please never use that term again. This is self defeating.

Sounds like pro-life/pro-choice. Both sound so good!
Post reply on HN