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

91–100 of 242 posts

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#91

Post by leot »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #89

I am on the one hand happy to hear about this, but I couldn't help but laugh at the way it was reported on NPR. They said Democrats see this as an issue that can bring voters to the polls. I immediately thought of how few people even know what the heck net neutrality is (about 1 in 4 [0]). Either NPR is making stuff up or the Democrats are seriously in need of some new advice. [0]: https://americanactionnetwork.org/w…

Base enthusiasm matters a lot, since it drives turnout.

And the only thing that matters in elections in the US is turnout and undecideds (of whom there are very few).

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#92

Post by spynxic »

sykh wrote: post #80
wilsonnb wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conce…

> 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.

This argument seems to have finished on the wrong point.

It isn't that net neutrality or any other issues have more or less value (although they intrinsically do -- that's for the individual to decide). Instead it's that single issue voting is severely short-sighted since the very same politician may support several other policies contradicting your own well-being.

Yes the example above is extreme but this is what it attempts to convey.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#93

Post by scarface74 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #84
scarface74 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ge…

I've heard the rhetoric. It's not relevant to my point: Group A of companies wants B to pay a bill. Group B doesn't want to pay it. Corporate lobbying ensues, as each tries to make the other's position illegal. Who is "right" or whether or not Group B should pay Group A's bill is not relevant to the accuracy of my statement. EDIT: Please keep this thread on the topic at hand: Why net neutrality is perceived as a libe…

That's not "rhetoric" that's how the internet has worked for decades.

Group A and Group B are already paying their own bills for internet traffic via peering agreements and cash when there is unequal traffic on one side.

It's not like there is competition for last mile internet service in most of the United States. If Comcast decided they wanted to charge netflix specifically more and not just charge the owner of the network they are peering with - what choice does Netflix or it's user have?

And if Comcast wanted to start Comflix and zero rate it and charge all other providers more, then what?

Before you bring up T-mobile's zero rating of video content, T-mobile zero rates any provider from Netflix to UGetP0rn.com (hopefully that's not a real website) as long as they meet the technical requirements and no money changes hands.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#94

Post by caf »

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…

One of the problems with that approach is that a wholesale monopoly selling to various competitive retail ISPs will still end up capturing all the economic surplus.

So you end up having to regulate how much profit that wholesale monopoly is allowed to make.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#95

Post by caf »

rickycook wrote: post #73
rascul wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

thats not a glowing recommendation of he system though because our electrical network is all kinds of expensive

Yes. The distribution monopolies are only allowed to make a fair rate of return on their operating and capital expenses, as determined by the independent regulator (this is to prevent them from raising their prices to the point that they capture all the economic surplus, as they otherwise would). Unfortunately this has incentivised over-investment in the distribution networks (the more they spend, the more profit they're allowed to make) - referred to as "gold-plating" - which ends up being passed on in the prices faced by consumers.

Specific to the ISP issue, this is how the NBN works in Australia too - the NBN provides the underlying network, but isn't a retail ISP itself.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#96

Post by alarge »

dcow wrote: post #58
jacquesm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Republicans are reprehensible? By your logic we can never make any progress unless citizens vote for a platform perfectly aligned with their own values. That degenerates to everyone voting for themselves. IMO absolutist stances like this miss the entire point of politics which is to strike compromise in the face of disperate ideologies. Sure the two party system is broken, but the way to make progress is to focus on…

I'm not sure I follow your logic. First off, he didn't say that Republicans are reprehensible. He said that voting for a Republican implies that you are voting for a lot of reprehensible stuff (by proxy through your Republican representative). Reprehensible doesn't mean "I don't agree with". Over the years I've had disagreements with both parties (and have voted for members of both parties). However, with the increased polarization in Congress, I don't think it is unfair to say that Republican behavior and the Republican platform has largely become reprehensible. That certainly doesn't mean all Republicans politicians have reprehensible views - just that they are too cowardly to vote against their party when they should be doing so.

The OP is suggesting that he wants to use his vote to encourage a Republican to do the right thing on a very narrow issue. The parent is effectively saying this focuses on a single tree instead of the entire forest. In a two-party system you are effectively voting for the entire platform and not for a single issue, so I have no idea why you consider his critique absolutist.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#97

Post by leohutson »

dragontamer wrote: post #68
rascul wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well this is pretty much how it works in NZ.

We had a state owned company, telecom, which was then privatised by a National govt., and then as a response to local loop unbundling regulations from Labour, it split itself into two companies, telecom (now spark) for retail and chorus for infrastructure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_New_Zealand#Industry_reg...

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#98

Post by chocolatebunny »

poulsbohemian wrote: post #87
komali2 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For everyone's amusement, can you let us know what he says? When I lived in Texas, the responses I got from my representatives were comically evil. Straight up bond villain.

That sounds exactly like what I got from Cathy mcmorris Rodgers in eastern Washington as well

I wonder if there's a "Letter's from my Congressman" website where random people post letters they got from their congressman.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#99

Post by aerotwelve »

supertrope wrote: post #83
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…

The term of art is "local loop unbundling"

Local loop unbundling was required under law wrt dial-up and DSL until 2006, when DSL was reclassified from being a Title II to Title I, service, correct?

It was my understanding that Title I service providers, like cable companies, can use the lack of LLU requirements to charge exorbitant rates to competitors who want access to someone else's local loop, which secures the incumbent's effective monopoly in a neighborhood.

Would love to be corrected here if I'm wrong so I don't spread misinformation about this elsewhere.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#100

Post by caf »

It's interesting the way that the Congressional Review Act operates, to require both houses and the president to sign off on overruling the decision of an executive agency.

In bicameral Westminster-style systems, delegated legislation (ie. executive regulations) can usually be vetoed by either chamber. This being under the principle that if the regulation in question had been enacted as regular legislation it would have required the approval of both chambers to pass.

Post reply on HN