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

61–70 of 242 posts

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#61

Post by dragonwriter »

wilsonnb wrote: post #57
sykh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not a foreigner and I think the comment you're responding to is spot on. Are we just supposed to pretend that all issues are equal? People aren't going to die because the nets aren't neutral. People are going to die based on our health care policy, whether we go to war, whether we can prevent nuclear proliferation. The author of the comment you call patronizing made no statement on whether or not he's happy that…

> Are we just supposed to pretend that all issues are equal? People aren't going to die because the nets aren't neutral.

Probably not very many as a first-order effect, no.

> People are going to die based on our health care policy, whether we go to war, whether we can prevent nuclear proliferation.

And a narrow range of corporations with a fairly tight alignment on policy preferences controlling media access affects long term ability of the public to understand thode issues, organize efforts around them, and achieve positive results.

Which is why a lot wide-view activist organizations that aren't particularly focussed on tech issues have made it a priority, when they do normally focus on the issues you have concerns about make it a priority.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#62

Post by Iv »

jacquesm wrote: post #18
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…

There are a lot of issues on the front burner right now that would fall in that bracket and net neutrality isn't the most pressing one by a very long shot so why would you let your vote hinge on that one issue?

It is not because you say to your congressman that you are a one-issue voter that you really are. Elected officials keep lying about their promises, I don't see why this should be a one-way street.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#63

Post by rascul »

dragontamer wrote: post #52
Consultant32452 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the root problem is lack of competition at the ISP level. If we had that, net neutrality regulation would likely not be necessary. Instead we're trying to fix a bad regulatory environment with even more regulations.

The market conditions are set up for what is called a "natural monopoly". Its inefficient for new companies to build wires to an already wired up neighborhood. Companies therefore become de-facto monopolies on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. The exception are cities where a dense population of people can support additional carriers for sake of competition. But at a basic level, the economic conditions just make…

> as well as a few European countries who have adopted this scheme.

Do you have examples of which countries that have implemented something similar? I recall reading about this in the past, and I would like to read more about it, but I can't think off the top of my head which countries I might have read about.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#64

Post by redbeard0x0a »

dragontamer wrote: post #52
Consultant32452 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the root problem is lack of competition at the ISP level. If we had that, net neutrality regulation would likely not be necessary. Instead we're trying to fix a bad regulatory environment with even more regulations.

The market conditions are set up for what is called a "natural monopoly". Its inefficient for new companies to build wires to an already wired up neighborhood. Companies therefore become de-facto monopolies on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. The exception are cities where a dense population of people can support additional carriers for sake of competition. But at a basic level, the economic conditions just make…

Eventually, this is probably what needs to happen in the US to fix the market problems with ISPs. NN is a stop-gap measure to prevent a mono/duopoly from taking advantage of their position.

We should be pressing for NN right now and work towards the next steps of deregulation like the splitting of wire / ISP after this effort.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#65

Post by hueving »

wilsonnb wrote: post #57
sykh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not a foreigner and I think the comment you're responding to is spot on. Are we just supposed to pretend that all issues are equal? People aren't going to die because the nets aren't neutral. People are going to die based on our health care policy, whether we go to war, whether we can prevent nuclear proliferation. The author of the comment you call patronizing made no statement on whether or not he's happy that…

>People are going to die based on our health care policy

Yes, and people are going to die based on our self-driving car policies, our affordable housing policies, our food subsidy policies, our energy policies, our alcohol policies, our gambling policies, our foreign aid policies, etc.

The crippling of the Internet via poor net policies could hamper technologies that ultimately would have saved billions.

You are presumptuous to claim your issues are more important than any of these others.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#66

Post by dragonwriter »

Iv wrote: post #62
jacquesm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of issues on the front burner right now that would fall in that bracket and net neutrality isn't the most pressing one by a very long shot so why would you let your vote hinge on that one issue?

It is not because you say to your congressman that you are a one-issue voter that you really are. Elected officials keep lying about their promises, I don't see why this should be a one-way street.

> Elected officials keep lying about their promises, I don't see why this should be a one-way street.

It's not a one way street, and never has been. Of course, neither is the disregard of what people say that isn't the supported by concrete, substantive action that it engenders.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#67

Post by sykh »

wilsonnb wrote: post #57
sykh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not a foreigner and I think the comment you're responding to is spot on. Are we just supposed to pretend that all issues are equal? People aren't going to die because the nets aren't neutral. People are going to die based on our health care policy, whether we go to war, whether we can prevent nuclear proliferation. The author of the comment you call patronizing made no statement on whether or not he's happy that…

Not all issues are a equal. Clearly not. But what is important changes from person to person. To suggest that your concerns and what constitutes a single voter issue for you is wrong is condescending. Since you think net neutrality is a stupid single voter issue then I suggest it not be one for you. But not everyone has your concerns.

It’s not a big issue for me but I can see why it is for others. People need to get involved and active. I’m not going to discourage anyone from doing this.

There is always a more important issue on the horizon. There’s always some cause that is more important. We don’t all get up in arms over the same things. To me climate change is the most important issue facing humans. I’ll advocate this position but my arrogance is not so great as to belittle someone else's pet cause.

So I’m not going to tell you that health care policy is a stupid issue to get energized about when the climate is changing.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#68

Post by dragontamer »

rascul wrote: post #63
dragontamer wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market conditions are set up for what is called a "natural monopoly". Its inefficient for new companies to build wires to an already wired up neighborhood. Companies therefore become de-facto monopolies on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. The exception are cities where a dense population of people can support additional carriers for sake of competition. But at a basic level, the economic conditions just make…

> as well as a few European countries who have adopted this scheme. Do you have examples of which countries that have implemented something similar? I recall reading about this in the past, and I would like to read more about it, but I can't think off the top of my head which countries I might have read about.

I also happen to forget the name of these countries, basically every time I read about them. :-(

Ignorant American stereotype and all that jazz. If I were to guess, I think it was someone from Norway who told me about this. But I'm not 100% sure from memory.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#69

Post by hueving »

NeoBasilisk wrote: post #59
dragonwriter wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is ok for net neutrality to be someone's number 1 issue as long as they recognize that they are likely viewing issues from a position of tremendous privilege.

It's okay even if they don't recognize it.

Every issue in the US is one of tremendous privilege. Recognizing that doesn't change anything.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#70

Post by hueving »

psychometry wrote: post #16
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…

So you're a single-issue voter, basically? How do you feel about all of the other things the GOP has been doing to this country?

Single issue voter or multiple issue voter, holding someone responsible for the actions of an entire political party is shockingly stupid.
Post reply on HN