Live data from Hacker News

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

hackernoon.com

291–300 of 343 posts

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

#291

What needs to happen for shit like this not to happen anymore.

First Past the Post voting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Range Voting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig

Single Transferable vote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

Do away with voting booths, attach voting to everyone's tax forms. Give everyone a $5 tax credit for voting. People who don't do taxes can go to a public library and just pull the voting portion off of the tax forms there and mail it in.

Break up corporations in every sector of the economy and either resell the chunks back to the market or turn them all into 100% worker owned and operated co-ops.

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

#292
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, but we have (ideally/optimistically) a representative democracy, and not a direct government-by-the-people. You say it as if it's a good thing. Representative "democracy" is seldom representative, and is a watered down version of actual democracy.

>is a watered down version of actual democracy. And a true form of democracy is mob justice. Reddit is not a good way to govern.

>And a true form of democracy is mob justice.

Only if a state's citizens are unwashed mobs. In which case representative democracy is not gonna fix things either.

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

#293

How we express our opinions in a democracy needs to re-engineered. It needs to be secure and it needs to matter. Comments anybody can make and that are easily ignored are relatively useless. The powers that be aren't going to fix this. If the voters had real, direct power, the lobbyists would not. And you can't put the voters' money directly into your pocket. So we have to do it. We need to create an open-source, sec…

I would not say that something applied in California, state with the largest population, is an example of "work small before they trust it big".

Are you proposing a direct democracy system where the regular election cycle for representatives is obsolete, and people directly vote on issues and/or can elect new representatives at any time?

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

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 That's garbage. I don't need my ISP shaking down the content business to be able to put their own content up front while requiring payment from others for equal level treatment. Taxpayers built this infrastructure and there are still regional broadband…

>Taxpayers built this infrastructure and there are still regional broadband monopolies all over the place. Taxpayers building modern ISP infrastructure is a myth. Very little public money went to last mile ISPs. In fact, they are typically taxed fairly highly by local governments. Governments see ISPs are a money raising source not a place to spend money . There are still regional "telecom" companies like AT&T and Ve…

> Taxpayers building modern ISP infrastructure is a myth.

The deregulatory 1996 Telecom Act included provisions for a particular level of broadband penetration and performance. Those provisions were not met. Instead, now we have an FCC trying to reclassify broadband to 10 Mbps.

Look at the distribution of throughput speeds in the green image posted here [1]. ISPs haven't fulfill their end of the deal with regards to speeds, and the country is mostly covered by regional broadband monopolies.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/5/15191048/fcc-chairman-ajit...

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

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 That's garbage. I don't need my ISP shaking down the content business to be able to put their own content up front while requiring payment from others for equal level treatment. Taxpayers built this infrastructure and there are still regional broadband…

> "Taxpayers built this infrastructure" ARPANET became obsolete and made redundant by private backbone providers, and so was decommissioned in 1990.

Taxpayers have done more than ARPANET.

This is about the 1996 Telecom Act, and how the public has allowed private companies to acquire regional monopolies while using public resources.

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

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What competitors? Many Americans have access to one ISP, and if they have access to more than one, it's often a false choice (DSL v Cable, e.g.) where the speeds are not comparable. I live in Chicago, the third most populous US city, and I have access to only AT&T and Comcast. I've searched for alternatives, but RCN isn't allowed to service my area for some reason, WOW! doesn't serve my area. So I'm stuck with Comcas…

That's a different argument from Net Neutrality. What you should argue for is that localities cannot interfere with IP traffic via franchising the rights to provide telecom/cable services.

The argument for net neutrality is entirely that it is necessary in the absence of competition, and that competition is indeed absent in practice. The two things are inseparable - if there were a competitive market for internet service, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

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

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a different argument from Net Neutrality. What you should argue for is that localities cannot interfere with IP traffic via franchising the rights to provide telecom/cable services.

It is an argument that goes along with it. The refrain (and argument given by parent) about NN is that you can use your voice as a consumer to go elsewhere (to another competitor) in a non-NN world if they are dissatisfied with their ISP's NN policies. The problem I outlined shows that isn't really an option for many Americans.

It does not.

The issue is that the population of localities does not want competition. That's why the population does not want cell phone towers ( eyesore ), the population does not want more wires on poles (wires, eww!) etc etc etc. And the population wants to protect the busy bodies that attempt to block things ( because busy bodies are typically nice old people who should really be helped to remain in their homes and they really really really like stuff to be the same as it was fifty years ago ).

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

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, that’s assuming that competitors will pop up to do that. Sadly, the airline, cable, cellular plan and ISP industries have all demonstrated that oligopolies are alive and well - you can bet that ISPs will use the new income from enhanced market segmentation to shut out competitors, not improve their service.

The lack of competition in cable/telecom is purely caused by local rules.

What makes you say that? It is caused by the physical reality that it doesn't make sense to build the same last-mile infrastructure multiple times. We figured this out decades ago when competing cables blotted out the sky in New York. If you think there are better solutions, that might be an interesting thing to discuss, but there are physical limitations that you can't just hand wave away.

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

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with gbrown. Pai’s statements are so untruthful and nonsensical that I can’t figure out why he thinks it could help even after reading many comments by him. His most clear argument is that it will somehow increase investments into ISP infrastructure (citing, I think, what happened in Portugal) while he simultaneously says we have no way to know what effects repealing it will have until we try it. Meanwhile a…

All your reasons for impugning his integrity boil down to you disagree with him. That is narrow minded. Pai (and many economists) believe a double sided market could increase potential profits which would incentive investment so ISPs could provide a "fast lane." That isn't "somehow." They thought about and have a reason for believing what they believe. You can disagree but that doesn't make them hitler.

There is no fast lane except by creating tons and tons of slow lanes. There are many ways to incentivize even our existing ISPs to invest more but he doesn’t pursue most of those.

Meanwhile the actual architects of the Internet point out that he is trying to reclassify a telecommunications service as a data service (despite pretty clear definitions that make it a telecom service) in order to remove most of the FCC’s regulatory powers

https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/25/fcc-doubles-down-on-its-de...

Whether he actually believes less regulation will help the average person or not, he is taking slimy approaches to force his opinion through (over loud complaints from Tim Berners Lee and basically every major internet player that isn’t an ISP)

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

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with gbrown. Pai’s statements are so untruthful and nonsensical that I can’t figure out why he thinks it could help even after reading many comments by him. His most clear argument is that it will somehow increase investments into ISP infrastructure (citing, I think, what happened in Portugal) while he simultaneously says we have no way to know what effects repealing it will have until we try it. Meanwhile a…

I am not stating he is somebody Obama would have chosen to lead the FCC, but Obama saw fit to appoint him. A democratic majority senate saw fit to approve him. I do not necessarily agree with Pai, but actually take the time to read what he says instead of snippets taken out of context and it's hardly nonsensical or untruthful. In going through this process of trying to actually discover his views, I found several int…

As far as the Obama appointment, let me be a bit more specific. It has been customary for a looong time for the majority party to allow the minority party to appoint two members of the FCC. In fact, legally the majority party can only have three of the five seats. So even if Obama/Congress had gone against tons of precedent and not accepted Pai as the nominee, McConnell would have just sent another similar nominee in his place. There was nothing to be gained by being obstructionist other than slowing down the appointment.

I’ll look into the sources you provided and reply to that portion after I’ve had a chance to watch them.

As far as Google Fiber, I think there are several reasons it hasn’t gone well. It was far more difficult and expensive than expected for them to roll it out. This had to do with many problems getting permits, digging and laying fiber, and getting sued by existing ISPs. Then the existing ISPs (who are far better at marketing their services and already have a huge user base that rarely switches providers) immediately increased bandwidth or decreased prices as soon as Google moved into new areas. Thus the consumers greatly benefited when Google Fiber arrived in their town but they had little incentive to actually switch to Google. For example, Time Warner announced in North Carolina that it was boosting its customers from 50 mbps to 300 mbps (for no additional charge) as soon as Google announced they would start rolling out fiber. See http://www.zdnet.com/article/i-wish-google-fiber-was-in-my-n...

Let’s also not forget most ISPs are also large TV and phone companies so they can offer bundles or loss leaders that a new entrant like Google cannot.

This is a great rundown of the many reasons why Google Fiber hasn’t gone well: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-google-fiber-failed...

I really don’t think it was regulations that caused their biggest issues. In fact, if there had been additional regulations requiring shared access to utility poles and other infrastructure then they could have actually tried to compete on a level playing field. Instead you see things like in Louisville and Nashville where “Google faced lawsuits from incumbents over the use of existing infrastructure like utility poles to hang its fiber cables.” I’d love to hear from Pai how undoing net neutrality will suddenly get Google and much smaller players access to utility poles and other basic requirements for launching service.

Post reply on HN