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

71–80 of 242 posts

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#71

Post by scarface74 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #37
oh_sigh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure you don't have cause and effect reversed? Could it be the case that those companies donate to politicians because those politicians views naturally align with their own?

Nobody in Congress had a view on net neutrality until they were paid to. Because it's a largely invented issue between those groups of corporations. ISPs want to charge tech companies more for the traffic they generate, and tech companies don't want to pay it. Those companies were already donating to politicians which align with their own views... but primarily because of their views on other topics.

That's not how things work.

The different internet providers have peering agreements. If traffic isn't the same between the two peers, they pay the difference.

Simplified. If Netflix's service provider is Verizon and they have a peering agreement with Comcast and Netflix traffic is causing peering to become out of balance between Comcast and Verizon. Verizon pays Comcast and Verizon charges Netflix more. No one is getting a free ride.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#73

Post by rickycook »

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.

afaik it’s how power distribution works in australia? i think there are energy “retailers” and energy “wholesalers”, and you legally aren’t allowed to be both. wholesalers cover plants and wires, and retailers handle billing and connection.

thats not a glowing recommendation of he system though because our electrical network is all kinds of expensive :p (but that could be for other reasons; i’m no expert on it)

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#74

Post by saagarjha »

Rapzid wrote: post #60
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get involved in grassroots politics. Support municipal or state-level candidates who have potential to be federal candidates down the road. Doorknock for candidates who you feel represent you. Tell your friends and family who you're voting for and why. Vote in primaries. Always vote in general elections.

I mean, that's not exactly an either or thing... For the average voter with a family and career you have: * Two parties * Candidates to choose from in those parties with slightly different platforms trying to capture appeal based on big-ticket trending issues * No one person you could possibly agree with on all things unless you are voting for a hardliner and blindly drink the party koolaid So I mean really, if your…

Vote for the one that matches your interests the best. I don't understand why you would do anything else (unless you're trying to make a symbolic statement). The two-party system is not going to go away tomorrow, and it certainly will not go away because you refused to vote.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#75

Post by wilsonnb »

sykh wrote: post #67
wilsonnb wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Some people's ideas of what's important are stupid. Everyone has the right to an opinion but that doesn't mean we should treat every opinion as equal.

If someone was going to vote on the single issue of whether or not we should make it illegal to have more than 17,000,000 butterflies in a room smaller than 100'x100' I would have no problem telling them that their pet issue is stupid and there are other things they should care about more.

I don't see why that principle shouldn't hold for other issues. Obviously net neutrality is something we should be concerned about but a single issue voter says it's the only thing we should be concerned about. That's just not true.

If we elect a government who reinstates net neutrality and proceeds to immediately launch a nuclear missile at Moscow, will the 20 minutes that half of the US population got to enjoy net neutrality matter?

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#77

Post by dreamcompiler »

Whether this passes now or not is immaterial. Net neutrality is guaranteed to come back in the next administration, which will have as its primary agenda undoing all of Trump's damage. The question the big ISPs need to ask themselves is whether it makes any business sense to try to capitalize on this for a short time, knowing that they'll have to spend money to undo it all later.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#78

Post by supertrope »

dragonwriter wrote: post #54
CWuestefeld wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the way you're looking at this is really important, and something that's being lost in the vehement support of NN. Intellectual honesty demands that we admit that there really are problems with NN as it had been implemented. Trying to fit the technology of a massive packet-switched data network into very specific regulations designed for an ancient circuit-switched primarily voice network really was a kluge.…

> Intellectual honesty demands that we admit that there really are problems with NN as it had been implemented. Trying to fit the technology of a massive packet-switched data network into very specific regulations designed for an ancient circuit-switched primarily voice network really was a kluge. It would have been, had that been done, but it wasn't, so it wasn't. The specific regulations applied to the telephone ne…

Verizon was happy to use Title II provisions to access discounts for pole attachments. Regulations originally intended for classic telephony service now being used to lower costs on TV and Internet service deployments.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#79

Post by wilsonnb »

hueving wrote: post #65
wilsonnb wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pres…

The difference here is that you are guessing as to what might happen.

We know that some people without access to medical care will die. You're saying it's okay to gamble those people's lives on the chance that future lives might be saved. Obviously a balance between spending on research and health care must be struck so this isn't a black and white issue but you would need to put forth a pretty convincing argument that a lack of net neutrality would prevent us from saving billions for me to buy that.

For the record, I do not support single issue voting at all. There is no issue that outweighs the others.

I also think the idea that someone who was going to vote based on a single issue would choose something as trivial as net neutrality is particularly ridiculous when there are so many other issues where life hangs in the balance.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#80

Post by sykh »

wilsonnb wrote: post #75
sykh wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Some people's ideas of what's important are stupid. Everyone has the right to an opinion but that doesn't mean we should treat every opinion as equal. If someone was going to vote on the single issue of whether or not we should make it illegal to have more than 17,000,000 butterflies in a room smaller than 100'x100' I would have no problem telling them that their pet issue is stupid and there are other things they sh…

Thank you for keeping the discussion in the realm of the plausible and feasible. I'd hate for extreme situations to be brought up. A number of people have given reasons for why they think net neutrality is as important as it is to them.

Thank you for definitively letting me know that

Obviously net neutrality is something we should be concerned about but a single issue voter says it's the only thing we should be concerned about. That's just not true.

Your argument has been convincing. Convincing enough that I'll be sure to consult you on other issues in the penumbra of the hierarchy of human concerns to see if they merit being single voter issue. Perhaps you can make a flier for those of us not in the know.

Post reply on HN