Live data from Hacker News

More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

hackernoon.com

181–190 of 343 posts

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#181
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does “government price control” relate to simply forbidding double sale? All NN does is to disallow ISP from tiering the internet and double dipping on both sides of the network. Imagine if you had to pay a different subscription to call only family, another also for friends, anyone on the Bell directory, anyone on other directories, businesses. You’d imagine telephones would have remained a novelty to this day

Why should ISPs be disallowed from charging what they like for the product they sell? That's the entire point of a free market. I understand the issues inherent in leasing the lines, but fundamentally companies should be able to price their offerings as they wish. There simply needs to be fewer barriers to entry for new ISPs to come into the market.

"That's the entire point of a free market."

What market? I recently had fiber optic service installed in my building, raising my broadband choice to a whopping two companies. That is not remotely enough to talk about a market.

"There simply needs to be fewer barriers to entry for new ISPs to come into the market."

If you want a market-based approach, you need to have line sharing rules. We used to have that in America with DSL, but the Bush administration ended that and left us with the current situation of local monopolies. I would be all for Pai's proposal if it included a reinstatement of line sharing requirements for ISPs, but as it stands Pai has proposed almost nothing to foster the competition needed for a market to exist, and has instead lied about the broadband choices available to Americans.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#182
post #47
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You created a new account to demoralize the GP?

He created a new account to troll. It's an ugly trend; while it's minor, HN has a bit of a problem with this sort of thing. I assume that 'dang and 'sctb are on the case when this arises (and I flagged the post because of it), but it's probably a hard one to solve.

The solution is already in place - don't engage with them, just flag their comments and leave them alone.

The mods are alerted whenever a comment is flagged so they can get around to banning those accounts eventually.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#183
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a ISP's customer wants to spend 100% of their bandwidth talking to netflix (or anybody else), that's their business. Netflix is sending that data only because the ISP's customer's asked for it . > autobahn An ISP isn't a shared commons. It's offering a service to transit data to/from other hosts on the internet, usually metered at either a fixed rate per unit time, or by the total carriage "weight" (bandwidth). Co…

Sure, if the customer's contract says that their packets need to all be treated with equal priority. But the whole point in repealing net-neutrality is to allow for contracts which don't need to treat all packets with equal priority. In that case the ISP isn't violating the contract and the customer wanting to spend %100 of their bandwidth talking to netflix for instance is the ISP's business too.

Yes, I think we all know what the idea behind repealing NN is. Most here think it's a bad idea.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#184
post #60

FCC has explicitly said that they have ignored any opinion comments. They have only considered comments which bring new facts or a legal opinion. So the fact that many comments were faked is irrelevant anyway.

Which would hopefully bite them in the ass if I had any faith in a Trump-appointed judicial branch. The FCC is required to take public comments into account when making regulations, this should be a fairly straightforward lawsuit.

Taking comments into account is different than simply having an opt-in vote which translates to who's e-petition can go the most viral (and let's not even get into fraud). And this is very much a good thing. In this case, even if I might agree with having some issue with net neutrality being repealed - I think most people have no clue at all what's going on and are voting based on fear mongering and sensationalism.

For instance, what percent of people could explain why Pai thinks repealing net neutrality is a good idea? Most seem to think he's just some Trump appointee selling out the highest bidder. In fact he's been arguing for a path of deregulation for years, even before he was appointed to the FCC by Obama 5 years ago.

I tend to debate against the masses on this issue simply because I think we're acting like a mob instead of a rational collective. And even if we may be getting it right on this issue, mob mentality is something that should never be condoned - even if you side with them on an issue.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#185
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a ISP's customer wants to spend 100% of their bandwidth talking to netflix (or anybody else), that's their business. Netflix is sending that data only because the ISP's customer's asked for it . > autobahn An ISP isn't a shared commons. It's offering a service to transit data to/from other hosts on the internet, usually metered at either a fixed rate per unit time, or by the total carriage "weight" (bandwidth). Co…

Sure, if the customer's contract says that their packets need to all be treated with equal priority. But the whole point in repealing net-neutrality is to allow for contracts which don't need to treat all packets with equal priority. In that case the ISP isn't violating the contract and the customer wanting to spend %100 of their bandwidth talking to netflix for instance is the ISP's business too.

If the ISP wants to be involved in monitoring and regulating (or charging differently depending) where your packets go, then they can be liable for providing child pornography, being a party to all copyright infringements, etc... If they want to take action depending on the data, then they can be held liable for the data as well. This is why the telcos wanted "common carrier" status in the first place.

But now they're too greedy having seen the cable TV model where they get to charge rent on both ends for content they didn't even create.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#186

FCC has explicitly said that they have ignored any opinion comments. They have only considered comments which bring new facts or a legal opinion. So the fact that many comments were faked is irrelevant anyway.

The government governs by the consent of its citizens. It is never acceptable for the government to ignore the opinions of its citizens, and anyone in government claiming otherwise should be removed. I utterly reject your claim that we should just acquiesce in the face of such malignancy.

The consent was given in the ballot box, No?

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#187
post #144
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan isn't, it seems quite mixed over there.

It definitely was a few years ago, when it was about memes and anime and before it went alt-right/Trump.

It actually seems like quite a refreshing mix of options to me. There is a right wing bias, but its far from the only viewpoint on there.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if the customer's contract says that their packets need to all be treated with equal priority. But the whole point in repealing net-neutrality is to allow for contracts which don't need to treat all packets with equal priority. In that case the ISP isn't violating the contract and the customer wanting to spend %100 of their bandwidth talking to netflix for instance is the ISP's business too.

If the ISP wants to be involved in monitoring and regulating (or charging differently depending) where your packets go, then they can be liable for providing child pornography, being a party to all copyright infringements, etc... If they want to take action depending on the data, then they can be held liable for the data as well. This is why the telcos wanted "common carrier" status in the first place. But now they'r…

Aren’t they already? I thought they are the ones sending warnings about piracy etc.

Also, its not like youtube, fb etc. Create their own content

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government governs by the consent of its citizens. It is never acceptable for the government to ignore the opinions of its citizens, and anyone in government claiming otherwise should be removed. I utterly reject your claim that we should just acquiesce in the face of such malignancy.

The consent was given in the ballot box, No?

The FCC is appointed, not elected. And the current President, who appoints the FCC chairperson, lost the popular election by 3 million votes.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All network traffic is the same. As far as an ISP should be concerned, it's all just bits flowing through a wire. When they start characterizing those bits, net neutrality is violated.

> All network traffic is the same. No competent network technician would mark VOIP the same as Torrent traffic. Now, all Internet traffic may not be handled in such a manner but that's another matter.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN