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

141–150 of 167 posts

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

#141

Post by wooter »

dragonwriter wrote: post #137
wooter wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

weird post fact times? heres a CMU taught, Cambridge written paper that concludes: "we never had network neutrality in the past, and I do not believe we should engineer for it in the future either." Its the exact condescension and willful ignorance of intelligent opposition in this thread that so characterizes the left. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~srini/15-744/papers/p49-crowcroft.pdf

We've had net neutrality as official FCC policy with different enforcement mechanisms from 2005 until 2017. Being “CMU taught, Cambridge written” apparently doesn't stop the paper from being blatantly wrong and simple, easily verifiable facts.

Absolute nonsense. What mechanisms? The cases of fraud or misrepresentation are just that. Not preemptive regulation like NN.

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

#142

Post by dragonwriter »

wooter wrote: post #141
dragonwriter wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've had net neutrality as official FCC policy with different enforcement mechanisms from 2005 until 2017. Being “CMU taught, Cambridge written” apparently doesn't stop the paper from being blatantly wrong and simple, easily verifiable facts.

Absolute nonsense. What mechanisms? The cases of fraud or misrepresentation are just that. Not preemptive regulation like NN.

> What mechanisms?

Case-by-case application of the Open Internet principles from 2005-2010, Title I regulation from 2010-2014, Title II regulation from 2015-2017. The case-by-case approach was struck down by the courts in 2010 while the Title I regs were being drafted; the Title I regs being struck down in 2014 with a specific identification of Title II as the legal basis that would support the kind of rules the FCC adopted under Title I is what prompted the Title II regulations to be drafted.

> The cases of fraud or misrepresentation are just that.

The VoIP and BitTorrent blocking cases before the Title I regs were adopted weren't based on general fraud or misrepresentation principles, but on the FCCs publicly adopted Open Internet (net neutrality) principles.

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

#143

Post by root_axis »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #138
landryraccoon wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I assume you are in support of Net Neutrality? Wouldn’t the correct thing to do in that case be to support politicians that are in favor of it, and oppose politicians that are against it? Obama could have done better, but I am satisfied that he did more than any other president, before or since, to establish Net Neutrality. I don't think it's productive to assign blame in situations where a politician helped, but…

The correct thing to do is to support politicians who work to ensure net neutrality. That does not describe the Democrats, at best they worked to ensure the courts would decide the fate of net neutrality.

> The correct thing to do is to support politicians who work to ensure net neutrality.

I agree... we should support politicians based on their policies not based on their party, but it just so happens that the republican party is ideologically opposed to net-neutrality while the democratic party is, at a minimum, friendly towards the notion of net-neutrality, so democrats are really the only option if net-neutrality is your issue.

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

#144

Post by wooter »

dragonwriter wrote: post #142
wooter wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolute nonsense. What mechanisms? The cases of fraud or misrepresentation are just that. Not preemptive regulation like NN.

> What mechanisms? Case-by-case application of the Open Internet principles from 2005-2010, Title I regulation from 2010-2014, Title II regulation from 2015-2017. The case-by-case approach was struck down by the courts in 2010 while the Title I regs were being drafted; the Title I regs being struck down in 2014 with a specific identification of Title II as the legal basis that would support the kind of rules the FCC…

So no preemptive regulation before 2015. When the entire internet was created.

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

#145

Post by dragonwriter »

wooter wrote: post #144
dragonwriter wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What mechanisms? Case-by-case application of the Open Internet principles from 2005-2010, Title I regulation from 2010-2014, Title II regulation from 2015-2017. The case-by-case approach was struck down by the courts in 2010 while the Title I regs were being drafted; the Title I regs being struck down in 2014 with a specific identification of Title II as the legal basis that would support the kind of rules the FCC…

So no preemptive regulation before 2015. When the entire internet was created.

> So no preemptive regulation before 2015.

That's clearly wrong, but how wrong is a matter of interpretation: it's either the 2010 or 2005; the Title I regs in 2010 were no less “preemptive” than Title II, and the 2005-2010 approach was, IIRC, struck down because it amounted to preemptive regulation adopting the net neutrality principles as binding rules without following the mandatory process of the Administrative Procedure Act.

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

#146

Post by mankash666 »

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…

LOL - you're obviously joking right? You seem to be stating as fact a fictitious opinion perpetrated by the far right press.

Oh, and Obama wasn't born in Kenya

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

#147

Post by dragonwriter »

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 don't Democrats pass NN through congress and get it enshrined into law?

Because Republicans (and some Democrats, too) have consistently opposed that when it was a legislative issue, and Republicans currently have a majority, preventing Democrats from passing, well, anything without their support.

> Instead of trying to block that from happening, since it's Republicans who are trying to do that.

The Republican bill would explicitly allow paid prioritization and other practices that are contrary to net neutrality, and would prohibit stronger state protections of net neutrality. It is therefore a bill to prevent rather than protect neutrality.

> Why was NN so easy to repeal in the first place?

Because Republicans prevented a legislative solution, repeatedly.

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

Because the US President isn't a dictator that can impose laws or make “super regulations” that cannot be repealed under future administrations.

> Which is why every single large company is opposed to the change.

Huh? Large companies that are ISPs are against net neutrality. Large companies and small companies and medium companies that are edge providers tend to be for it. There is no side where all large companies fall.

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

#148

Post by kadenshep »

Kequc wrote: post #139
lurr wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead of trying to block that from happening, since it's Republicans who are trying to do that. They are? Which bills?

The Open Internet Preservation Act (Dec 2017) https://freedomoutpost.com/open-internet-preservation-act-se... http://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NN_02_xml....

You do realize those bills are more bark than bite right? In typical fashion, the right+ in this country wants to act like it's doing something good while still being subservient to the worst parts of our society.

Seriously just fucking read them. What a complete joke.

>Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of broadband internet access service providers to offer specialized services.

Oh okay. Let's read (2)

>(2) PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PRACTICES.—Specialized services may not be offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service or that have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section.

NEAT. What is meaningful availability? Oh and I like how the same party is seeking to greatly increase the scope of what defines "broadband" (i.e., they're lowering standards).

The right+ in this country is literally our biggest threat to a prosperous and secure existence. Always dishonest, always disingenuous, always harmful, and always a complete waste of time.

Healthcare, the economy, and general social policies. I'm so tired of dealing with this crap.

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

#149

Post by mrguyorama »

comicjk wrote: post #56
sumedh wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since it's categorical that Americans do not want this madness As an outsider it is kind of amusing when I see lines like "Americans do not want" said by both Democrats and Republicans.

Often these statements are carefully phrased to be correct. For instance, most Americans want to "protect gun rights", and also have "common sense gun laws". These two slogans don't conflict, but the politicians who push them clearly do. In the case of Net Neutrality, a survey which started by giving people pros and cons of net neutrality found 83% support for it, while another which phrased it as "government regulat…

I find it a good argument for increasing education funding, especially in the non-STEM fields

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

#150

Post by mrguyorama »

rayiner wrote: post #120
tfigment wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its an improvement but Comcast has been delaying real improvements for years but collect insane profits (afaik). I would love to see the numbers as well. The X1 DVR as far as I am concerned was horrible compared to the ReplayTV or Tivo circa 2001 (except for obviously HD improvement). It only took 15 years and lots of legislation mandating cablecards and whatnot to get them to get there. I don't have hope that they w…

> Its an improvement but Comcast has been delaying real improvements for years but collect insane profits (afaik). Comcast has raised speeds from about 16 mbps to gigabit in the last ten years, through multiple rounds of DOCSIS upgrades. As to access to the last mile: that’s already the law. Pole and conduit owners are required to lease out access at non-discriminatory rates. Comcast owns few if any poles. They lease…

They've only done that in very specific areas
Post reply on HN