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

Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 242 posts

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#41

Post by alanbernstein »

jacquesm wrote: post #35
sykh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you presume that net neutrality isn’t among the most pressing for OP? There are few issues where a majority of both Republicans and Democrats both agree. It seems like a worthy issue to hinge a vote on.

Because I follow American politics pretty closely for a foreigner and it would appear to me that if the house is on fire the color of the sidewall isn't top priority.

I see the death of net neutrality as a first step toward extremely effective censorship of electronic media. Media control like what sinclair is doing is already dangerous enough. Restoring net neutrality is close to top priority.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#43

Post by timdavila »

jacquesm wrote: post #30
Lionsion wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so why would you let your vote hinge on that one issue? Single issue voters make policy, and this is a case where the small weight of my vote could tip a scale and actually accomplish something. Plus, I hate our current state of extreme polarization, and I value politicians who have the independence to go against their party. If he'll do that, it's another aspect I'd like to reward.

Ok, I see. So this is the local equivalent for voting for a small party in a country with many more parties in the running for a coalition. That makes some sense, but at the same time it would mean that you are also voting for a lot of stuff that is reprehensible and probably against your own interest. Because once the votes are counted your vote will not be counted as a 'single issue' vote but as a total mandate for…

So your solution is what, not vote?

Everyone in America faces this dilemma, it's the problem with our two party system.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#44

Post by sykh »

jacquesm wrote: post #35
sykh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you presume that net neutrality isn’t among the most pressing for OP? There are few issues where a majority of both Republicans and Democrats both agree. It seems like a worthy issue to hinge a vote on.

Because I follow American politics pretty closely for a foreigner and it would appear to me that if the house is on fire the color of the sidewall isn't top priority.

That is mighty patronizing of you to tell someone that their concerns aren’t worthy enough. A majority of Americans who are registered to vote don't. There is an abundance of apathy in the U.S. toward the political process. Here we have someone willing to go so far as to contact their elected representative and you respond as you did.

Off the top of my head I can’t name another issue that has support by majorties of both parties. This is an issue that is most likely to gain sympathy of Republican senators and most likely to result in an instance of the peoples' interest outwaying corporate interests.

Instead of encouragement we have jaquesm here to let us know that you follow American politics pretty closely and we should all concentrate on something else. I do not subscribe to your patronizing attitude.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#45

Post by atomi »

Lionsion wrote: post #3

Time to call your Congressmen. I live in a purple district, and I'm going to make it clear to my Republican representative that: 1) I'm going to vote in November, 2) I will vote for him if he votes to keep the pre-existing title II net neutrality regulations, and against them if he does not, and 3) Net neutrality is even supported by a majority of Republican voters [1], so if he votes against it's clear he's voting a…

This won't get a House vote in a Republican controlled House. But the senate vote gives you an indication on where the Republican party stands. They're not going to change their minds.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#46

Post by meko »

jacquesm wrote: post #30
Lionsion wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so why would you let your vote hinge on that one issue? Single issue voters make policy, and this is a case where the small weight of my vote could tip a scale and actually accomplish something. Plus, I hate our current state of extreme polarization, and I value politicians who have the independence to go against their party. If he'll do that, it's another aspect I'd like to reward.

Ok, I see. So this is the local equivalent for voting for a small party in a country with many more parties in the running for a coalition. That makes some sense, but at the same time it would mean that you are also voting for a lot of stuff that is reprehensible and probably against your own interest. Because once the votes are counted your vote will not be counted as a 'single issue' vote but as a total mandate for…

I mean, at the end of the day, you're voting for classical liberalism either way.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#47

Post by pasbesoin »

My Comcast bill, over the course of two consecutive months since the beginning of this year -- and since the apparent, "inevitable" coming end of net neutrality, increased about 25%.

My Congressmen are going to hear about this. About how, for the better part of 20 years, Ameritech/SBC/ATT refused to upgrade my neighborhood trunk line, that doesn't even support DSL. In a high-density suburban neighborhood in the home/headquarters state of the corporation.

About how Ameritech/SBC (now rebranded ATT) received the better part of three quarters of a billion dollars in tax breaks and other incentives from the State of Illinois, in return for a commitment to provide "universal" (minimum 95% coverage) broadband access throughout the State. Whereupon, they immediately turned around and lobbied the State legislature to let them out of their side of the agreement, that commitment, while keeping the tax breaks and incentives.

They're going to hear how, several years ago, I couldn't watch Netflix streaming without constant interruptions, particularly during prime viewing hours, because Comcast refused to peer with Netflix in their datacenters -- at Netflix's expense and providing of the necessary equipment and installation. That problem didn't resolve until the bad publicity and outcry was giving Comcast (and its ilk exercising similar manipulation) an enormous PR black eye.

This right at the time Comcast was attempting to launch and gain traction with one of their "competing" streaming video offers.

About paid advocacy promoting lies about support for their actions within non-profit centric communities, such as... was it the NAACP, or another organization, that was supporting Comcast quite apparently in return for contributions.

How Congressmen supporting these telcos' agenda are functioning as paid shills for these private companies. Not just lobbied. Outright bought, with no effort or success in actually understanding the issues involved.

And I don't vote for paid shills.

--

P.S. My State Democratic representative made the rounds, a couple of years ago after some heavy local storm damage. I took the opportunity to tell him about our local problem with ATT. (This was after the storm aftermath's crisis period was passed; he wasn't overloaded with it.)

He told me that actually, he had a meeting with ATT executives the following day and would bring it up. And that he'd get back to me on that.

I never heard a word. And when I followed up later with his staff, I still didn't hear anything.

I don't vote for him, any more. I faced that decision again, this past April. And no, still no vote for him.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#48

Post by gremlinsinc »

dragonwriter wrote: post #39
jacquesm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I follow American politics pretty closely for a foreigner and it would appear to me that if the house is on fire the color of the sidewall isn't top priority.

To many peoole, neutrality isn't a color of the sidewalk issue, it's a house on fire issue, because it concerns control of communication content in a major channel of public communication by a narrow band of actors vs. guaranteed freedom for lawful communication on that channel.

To add to that - we already have fake news along ALL political spectrums, and propaganda and lies coming from fake and legit places, to further be told what we can / can't view because of net neutrality, or for corporations to ban content themselves or make you pay to view certain websites moves us further into censorship territory like China. -- We definitely need to ensure that the internet stays as open as possible, if not we may need to create a new decentralized uncensorable internet like in Silicon Valley where net neutrality cannot be revoked.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#49

Post by imh »

jacquesm wrote: post #35
sykh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you presume that net neutrality isn’t among the most pressing for OP? There are few issues where a majority of both Republicans and Democrats both agree. It seems like a worthy issue to hinge a vote on.

Because I follow American politics pretty closely for a foreigner and it would appear to me that if the house is on fire the color of the sidewall isn't top priority.

The analogy is closer to the house being on fire, but the landlord 100% won't budge on that, so you might as well ask them for a glass of water, which you have at least some chance of getting.
Post reply on HN