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

Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 167 posts

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#71

Post by smsm42 »

harikb wrote: post #58
smsm42 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comcast profit margin is 12%: https://ycharts.com/companies/CMCSA/profit_margin That's on the high side, usually it's around 10%. For comparison, profit margins for Internet/IT companies are around 25%, Google's 24%. Facebook's a whopping 45%. Microsoft's a remarkable 26%. Is 12% "insane"? Which one would be the "sane" one?

For a company not having any R&D cost, granted monopoly/duopoly via lobbying, yes 12% may be insane.

Why do you think they don't have any R&D cost? They just launched a mobile network, you don't think that involved at least some R&D investment? How much would be sane in your opinion? 1%? No profit at all?

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#72

Post by awalton »

pdonis wrote: post #55
awalton wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. Shame, because this vote is incredibly predictable by anyone who has been paying any attention at all. Republicans are on the bullet train to dismantle and sell off the government to the highest bidders. This vote goes straight down party lines. But, it'll be an easy banner for Dems to hoist in November to rally voters, since it's categor…

> Republicans are on the bullet train to dismantle and sell off the government to the highest bidders. This is equally true of the Democrats; they just have a different set of preferred highest bidders.

[citation needed].

You're going to need some high octane evidence to compare adding new regulations that disproportionally help one industry, verses destroying the established works of the FCC, EPA, NOAA, the Bureau of Land Management/National Parks, the Department of Education... the list is literally too long for me to keep enumerating here, so take a look at articles like this one: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/05/23/here-li...

I understand being upset at the Dems for stuff like the TPP, basically rolling over to Hollywood any time they ask for a copyright extension or more copyright enforcement powers, or even being soft on enforcement of any given regulation... but in general there's one party in America that wants regulation and structure and enforcement of existing laws... and one party in America that's currently actively working to remove as many government agencies and regulations that exist to protect the nation from Captialism Gone Wild, and as a staunch independent it's quite easy to see the difference.

I'm sorry, but this shit needs to end. This statement might have been closer to true in the earlier 2000's, but it couldn't be further from the truth in 2018. This "both sides" equivocation needs to be put to death.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#73

Post by cure »

rconti wrote: post #20
arctia wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF-specific. Comcast has to step up because competition is fierce. Even just 30 miles south from SF, Comcast is crap because there's less competition there.

28.4 miles south from SF (according to Google Maps driving directions from "San Francisco"), I've got gig down/40 up from Comcast. And the only competition is ATT DSL (yes, I'm like 2000 feet from the CO and they'll only give me 40mbit). Comcast advertises on broadcast TV all over the bay area "gigabit now available in your area". So I'd think penetration is pretty high now. Now, I'd rather pay pretty much anyone oth…

Comcast advertises on broadcast TV all over the bay area "gigabit now available in your area". So I'd think penetration is pretty high now.

I wouldn't read too much into that. Here in Boston, the Verizon vans have sported "get FiOS now!" advertisements for more than a decade.

But FiOS is simply not available in most of the area.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#74

Post by [deleted] »

Steltek wrote: post #50
renlo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that was the point the article was positing; it's a symbolic vote to get Republicans on the record for their support of an unpopular position.

I think what people fail to realize is that it's not unpopular enough and not with the right people. For the GOP base, they may disagree wholeheartedly but what are they going to do? Vote for a abortionist gun-grabbing Democrat? For Dems, the best use of these things is barrage the election cycle with negative news about the GOP. Failed policies, bad ideas, myopic leadership. Bad bad bad bad. Suck the energy right ou…

[deleted]

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#75

Post by landryraccoon »

Kequc wrote: post #63
JoshuaEN wrote: post #4

This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. Congress ultimately directly serve at the pleasure of their constituents, unlike the FCC commissioners. Point being, the time leading up to this vote is probably be the best time to let your congress members know your opinion on NN. Do not let the "failure"[1] of previous efforts to get congress to act in defense of NN dissuade you from fut…

Why don't Democrats pass NN through congress and get it enshrined into law? Instead of trying to block that from happening, since it's Republicans who are trying to do that. Why was NN so easy to repeal in the first place? Why didn't Obama do a proper job if it's such an important issue? I still don't agree with the accepted wisdom about what NN is in the first place. Seems to me to suggest companies that are using u…

> Why didn't Obama do a proper job if it's such an important issue?

To be clear, you're trying to blame Obama for something the Republican controlled Congress was responsible for? Obama wasn't a dictator; Congress decides what laws to pass and Congress wasn't exactly in favor of just about anything Obama wanted to do.

Also I think you're misunderstanding what Net Neutrality is about. Net Neutrality doesn't say that everyone pays the same regardless of what bandwidth they use - ISPs are free to charge more for more bandwidth usage. Net Neutrality says that ISPs can't rate discriminate based on the type of data shared. NN means that Comcast can't charge more for packets coming from foxnews.com as opposed to msnbc.com, but it doesn't say that they can't charge an end user that uses 5 GB more than one that uses 1 GB.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#76

Post by meddlepal »

untog wrote: post #59
pdonis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Republicans are on the bullet train to dismantle and sell off the government to the highest bidders. This is equally true of the Democrats; they just have a different set of preferred highest bidders.

No it is not. Republicans are far more dedicated to the task of destroying government than Democrats are. I agree that some Democratic senators have historically been pretty shitty on the topic of net neutrality but this false equivalence nonsense needs to stop. Republicans will sell off national parks, shut down the EPA and FDA and shut down any banking regulation you put in front of them.

I agree that some Republican senators have historically been pretty shitty on the topic of FDA, EPA and banking regulation but this false narrative of all Republicans are evil needs to stop.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#77

Post by smsm42 »

lukeschlather wrote: post #69
smsm42 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where the idea that FCC latest ruling is opposed by majority of conservatives comes from? Moreover, if you think issue as obscure and technical as NN would be important enough for a senator to break with their own party, you are deluding yourself. The only way to make it so is to wage blatantly false campaign like "without NN you'd be paying 100x for Internet tomorrow and all your favorite sites would be blocked" - w…

We have a monopoly problem with Comcast, etc. so this isn't that complicated. It's an oversimplification to say that net neutrality is going to solve that problem, but I don't think it's an oversimplification to say that people against NN are against solving the problem, and I think most people get that intuitively, even if they don't get the details.

> but I don't think it's an oversimplification to say that people against NN are against solving the problem

You think wrong. Actually, there's three levels of wrong here.

1. Not everybody thinks that government regulations are the best way to solve the problems, especially ones largely created by government regulations.

2. Not everybody thinks that this particular way of regulations that Obama's FCC took is the best way to solve the problem.

3. If people disagree with you about particular way of solving the problem, it doesn't mean they are for not solving the problem.

And, of course, most of the population wouldn't change their vote for Senator because of such niche issue, especially if the best argument here is "Comcast is the monopoly, NN wouldn't solve it but if you don't vote for NN it would be bad".

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#79

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

pwtweet wrote: post #64
danjayh wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't net neutrality, it's lack of competition among ISPs. Normally, I would agree with them - regulating the internet is not the way to spur innovation. But with an ISP monopoly or duopoly in most markets, either more competition (my preferred solution) or regulation is needed. As we've seen with phone service (if you're old enough to remember), regulation will give us reliable but expensive service, and…

"competition will give us cheap, reliable, and feature-filled service". Really, I would love to see the evidence that this would be the case.

Competition lowers costs in most industries, especially in markets with a low barrier to entry. In 1956, fridge would have cost the equivalent of $3000[1]. Now, it's down to a few hundred of dollars, completely because competition spurred the creation of technological and manufacturing advances, driving the price down.

The issue here is that some industries, particularly industries with a high barrier to entry and low returns due to existing competition, are incredibly difficult to enter. The internet service provider industry happens to be one of those industries that form monopolies.

[1] http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/50selectrical.html

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#80

Post by awalton »

Kequc wrote: post #63
JoshuaEN wrote: post #4

This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. Congress ultimately directly serve at the pleasure of their constituents, unlike the FCC commissioners. Point being, the time leading up to this vote is probably be the best time to let your congress members know your opinion on NN. Do not let the "failure"[1] of previous efforts to get congress to act in defense of NN dissuade you from fut…

Why don't Democrats pass NN through congress and get it enshrined into law? Instead of trying to block that from happening, since it's Republicans who are trying to do that. Why was NN so easy to repeal in the first place? Why didn't Obama do a proper job if it's such an important issue? I still don't agree with the accepted wisdom about what NN is in the first place. Seems to me to suggest companies that are using u…

> Why didn't Obama do a proper job if it's such an important issue?

Obama was president while the Republicans held the legislature hostage. It was a miracle his administration was able to ask for and get any legislation passed at all; it was easily the most obstructionist congress ever. He couldn't even appoint a Supreme Court Justice because Mitch McConnell wouldn't allow congress to hold hearings - that's how impossible a situation he was in.

Obama did exactly as much as he was able to do with the powers he had. He wasn't about to try the kinds of stunts our current president thinks he can.

And speaking frankly, as a black person, I don't think he even could have tried to pull these kinds of stunts - he would have been impeached and booted, as any President pulling these kinds of fascist, dictatorial moves should be.

Post reply on HN