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

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#191

Post by Crisco »

snuxoll wrote: post #78
awinder wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-voters / people on the “there’s no difference” train also deserve a moment of reflection about whether their reality is true.

I was tempted to not vote seeing as I live in Idaho, I don't even have anyone running for local/state seats I want to vote for (our state district had republicans running unopposed for house/senate) and though I hate the phrase my vote literally meant nothing in the federal elections last year. I still did it, because I firmly believe it's my duty (and I personally would go so far as to say we should have Australia-s…

I too am from Idaho and voted for a third party candidate because I didn't feel comfortable voting for either Trump or Clinton. I know my vote will likely never change Idaho, but I still vote for who I think is right.

The problem with most voters is that they choose an identity and then vote according to how they think that identity votes. It's why you end up with people who vote Republican even if it is not in their best interests. I try to vote for people that I think have strong moral character and will be willing to do what's right (in my opinion) rather than what's likely to get them elected.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#192

Post by tptacek »

russdill wrote: post #161
tptacek wrote: post #127

The voters elected a Republican government. That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine. Anybody who told you that lobbying the FCC was going to make a difference here was, whether they meant to or not, selling a bill of goods. As someone who respects but mostly profoundly disagrees with principled Republican la…

Yes, I think the biggest take away of this is to push the fact that republican legislators did not listen to their constituents. At all. They did not put their constituents first. At all. The chairman actually talked about consumers working with the FCC to enforce regulations as a bad thing.

I do not agree. I believe Republican voters do not in fact want the government extensively regulating the Internet. It is very difficult to argue in 2017 that the Republican party is the party of a pragmatic, consumer-protected regulatory state. The Republicans believe that the market will take better care of Internet users than any regulatory agency. On this one issue, it's possible they're even right.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#193

Post by jdhendrickson »

judah wrote: post #117
ransom1538 wrote: post #47

Comcast board meeting (RIGHT NOW): "First things first, how do we charge more for netflix streaming."

They're free to do so; companies exist to make money. Cable internet carriers probably will attempt something like this. The next thing that will happen is, when Comcast goes too far, another provider (cable? wireless carrier? satellite broadband? something new from a startup?) disrupts the market by offering an alternative to Comcasts' egregious policies. Comcast loses subscribers and is monetarily forced to be more…

Hand waving and saying the market will correct itself (somehow? someway? someday?) is unhelpful.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#194

Post by InitialLastName »

judah wrote: post #117
ransom1538 wrote: post #47

Comcast board meeting (RIGHT NOW): "First things first, how do we charge more for netflix streaming."

They're free to do so; companies exist to make money. Cable internet carriers probably will attempt something like this. The next thing that will happen is, when Comcast goes too far, another provider (cable? wireless carrier? satellite broadband? something new from a startup?) disrupts the market by offering an alternative to Comcasts' egregious policies. Comcast loses subscribers and is monetarily forced to be more…

In the last ten years, I've lived in 6 different localities and have had a total of 4 options for ISP, never more than 2 at any given time. In at least some of those cases, I've watched as potential competition to those options was shut down by ISP-lobbied local regulation. At whatever point there's a possibility of competition in this space, I'll readily buy the free-market argument that they should be de-regulated.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#195

Post by meatbundragon »

slg wrote: post #130
dorchadas wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it was a disaster. The only reason the rule got put into place was because Verizon was found to be throttling Netflix. There's no reason to suspect they won't go back to it as soon as they can.

If there was ISP competition then a Verizon customer could switch ISPs if they disagreed with the throttling of Netflix. I would compare it to wireless which never had these net neutrality rules. Is wireless a disaster? It seems like mobile plans are constantly including more data at faster speeds at a cheaper price. Some (all?) of the carriers have various anti-net neutrality policies but consumers at least have the…

There's only one ISP (Xfinity) that provides 25+ mbps in my area (Bay Area). If they decided to throttle, it would be very hard for people in this area to not simply live with it...

Based on my limited knowledge of the ISP market, there's significant barrier of entry in each area for a new ISP or even an existing one like AT&T or Wave G.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#196

Post by humanrebar »

rkuykendall-com wrote: post #110
jackfrodo wrote: post #36

This has made me feel pretty damn powerless, as pretty much every site/person of significance has stated their opposition to such a repeal, and yet they went through it anyway. Just a gut feeling that our democracy isn't working properly when such a loud and clear, great majority of the population messaging is completely ignored.

> our democracy isn't working properly Democracy doesn't work through public declarations, it works through elections. One year ago, the states chose Donald Trump as president, knowing they he would end Net Neutrality [1]. If a population wants to send a different message, they must do it in the next election [2]. [1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716... [2] https://swingleft.org/

> One year ago, the states chose Donald Trump as president, knowing they he would end Net Neutrality

More charitably, they chose Donald Trump on the suspicion that he would do "better" than Hillary Clinton on: abortion, immigration, the economy, leading in "the culture wars", and maybe a few other issues. Net neutrality was a litmus test for basically nobody.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#197

Post by idibidiart »

sam0x17 wrote: post #138
idibidiart wrote: post #93

If we stage a nation-wide boycot of Amazon, Walmart.com, and a few other big retailers (and stop using Google, Bing et al) I can almost guarantee it that they will move mountains to bring back net neutrality. You have to get the big corporations a profit motive to get anything done in this country.

Except everyone you listed is for net neutrality, and yet the decision still passed

If they start losing money they will have a much stronger motivation to act. I feel like they say they are for it but they are not spending considerable resources (they should be) to stand up to the FCC.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#199

Post by humanrebar »

tmat wrote: post #178
rkuykendall-com wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> our democracy isn't working properly Democracy doesn't work through public declarations, it works through elections. One year ago, the states chose Donald Trump as president, knowing they he would end Net Neutrality [1]. If a population wants to send a different message, they must do it in the next election [2]. [1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716... [2] https://swingleft.org/

the problem with this statement is we weren't given a fair choice of options.. It was this or that and they both stunk to high heaven.

Absolutely. The strongest point of each candidate was that they weren't the other candidate.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#200

Post by dashundchen »

craftyguy wrote: post #51
awinder wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-voters / people on the “there’s no difference” train also deserve a moment of reflection about whether their reality is true.

No. Give me a candidate worth voting for, and I will vote. The current "pick the lesser of two shitheads" is ridiculous. Both parties in the US are to blame. The two party system in the US today means that voting for anyone that is not a Democrat or Republican is a complete waste of time.

The "both sides are the same" argument is false at the congressional level.

Take a look at some of these votes:

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6brytw/comment/dhpcbd...

Post reply on HN