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

101–110 of 242 posts

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#101

Post by leohutson »

caf wrote: post #94
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…

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.

The other option is to have the wholesaler owned by the govt, then the economic surplus can come off everyones tax bill.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#102

Post by dcow »

alarge wrote: post #96
dcow wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 increas…

I understand exactly what the parent's point is. I'm just continuing the discussion. The implication (and the sibling comments agree) is that you shouldn't vote for a party if you don't agree with everything about the platform. I'm defending the GP in this case arguing that I wish collectively we would focus more on single issues and less on broad sweeping platform stereotypes (e.g. reprehensible republican). I initially commented because I've put some thought into this recently. I even commented last week here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17028256

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#104

Post by baddox »

tzs wrote: post #90
ComputerGuru wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm presuming purple (being red + blue) means a district that could either way? Lucky you. Here we don't have elections that matter because thanks to redistricting and gerrymandering, the outcome (along party lines) is well established.

> Here we don't have elections that matter because thanks to redistricting and gerrymandering, the outcome (along party lines) is well established. All that means is that the general election doesn't matter, and so you need to move your vote to whatever comes before the general election in your district to make it matter. 1. Register for the party that the redistricting and gerrymandering favors. 2. Vote in that part…

I’d like to hear an argument for why #1 might be dishonest. There is no definition of “registered Democrat” except for “someone who is registered as a Democrat.” I’m pretty sure you don’t have to sign anything claiming to believe in certain principles. I’m struggling to think of any way this could be considered dishonest.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#105

Post by baddox »

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…

It doesn’t make sense for everyone to focus primarily on the political issue they deem to be the most important, for the same reason that it doesn’t make sense for everyone to choose the career they deem to be the most important. Competitive advantage applies to both of these arenas, and it is perfectly rational and prudent to focus on political issues that you do not believe to be the most important issues facing society, if you have reason to believe that your efforts can make more of a difference in some other political issue.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#106

Post by aerotwelve »

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.

> net neutrality... [is] a largely invented issue between those groups of corporations

We've been discussing the concept of Net Neutrality for more than a decade; the 2006 Title I reclassification was the trigger that threw the concept into question. I remember debates on long-since-defunct websites (remember Digg?) about the importance of educating friends, family, and elected officials about the importance of protecting the concept in some way. (This I would later learn is called political organizing.)

There is legitimate debate to be had about how to best preserve NN, but framing it as a made up issue that corporations are inventing for political expediency is a serious mischaracterization.

This is HN after all, I'm sure many others can back me up here.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#107

Post by baddox »

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…

I suspect very few people are truly single issue voters. There’s a difference between saying “you should only care about issue X” and saying “I will never vote for someone who doesn’t share my position on issue X.” For example, I doubt many people would vote for someone who supports net neutrality but also includes universal forced child labor in their platform.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#108

Post by drawkbox »

bifrost wrote: post #42

Considering where this has been politically, this isn't going to change anything. And really all "killing" NN does is move this back to the FTC, where it was for a decade+

Internet is a utility now though and only the FCC can make network / internet a utility / common carrier.

ISPs want it at the FTC for that reason, so it isn't seen as a utility, it is.

Internet is as required as radio, phone, tv, water, electricity etc, it makes more sense under Title II and 80%+ of people support that. [1]

> Americans embrace a Title II vision of internet service. A strong majority (88 percent, 48 percent strongly) agree that “when I buy internet service, I am paying to transmit information between my computer and the websites I visit, free from interference.” This finding demonstrates that the public views internet access as a Title II telecommunications service, similar to phone service. Americans recognize the vital role the internet plays, with 83 percent agreeing that the “internet is essential infrastructure, like roads and bridges.”

[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/353285485/Freedman-Consultin...

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#109

Post by crowbahr »

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…

Young people are less likely to vote but far, far more likely to know about Net Neutrality. I think it's a shrewd strategy: it will get more young people out, who tend to vote Democrat.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#110

Post by favorited »

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…

Do you know how it breaks down by age group? It could help drive younger voter turnout at the midterms, which is traditionally impossible.
Post reply on HN