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

Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 250 posts

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#111

Post by komali2 »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #104
delinka wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes these companies "public utilities" as opposed to others? I don't need Twitter in my life. Nor Google. Definitely not Facebook. And maybe lots of web sites use CloudFlare, but consumers don't interact directly with them. Maybe applying common carrier status is something that's more palatable, but classifying them as "public utilities" doesn't have to be the mechanism by which CC is applied.

What counts as a need? Does one need land lines? Electricity? People live off the grid by generating these themselves and people live elsewhere without them at all. Of course, one could bring a distinction between things that naturally grant a physical monopoly and things that don't, but I think one could make an argument that certain sites have effectively become the new public square and in doing so have a natural…

>what counts as need

When access to it is required to be on an even playing field.

Hence internet, yes. Electricity, yes. Phone? Yup.

Facebook? Ehhhh

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#112

Post by ocdtrekkie »

randyrand wrote: post #21

this is one of the main reasons why states rights is important. Here are the big ones: 1. each state can be tailored to its population 2. each state acts an an incubator for new ideas and other states can follow 3. usa citizens have more choice in who governs then and can easily move between them

The unfortunate part is that people generally only advocate for states' rights when the opposing party is in power. I've never heard more liberals advocate for states making legislation than I have since Trump got elected, and conservatives haven't been all that hot on states being able to make their own laws since.

People need to remember how crucial states' rights are from when the other party is in power, and then continue to advocate for them once their party is in power.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#113

Post by peterwwillis »

smsm42 wrote: post #98
peterwwillis wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came here to say the opposite. The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. This is the system working for the people. Without the ability or interest from the states to push back against the federal government's decrees, we would be stuck with an authoritarian nation. Currently, trying to pass meaningful legislation is like trying to squeeze a watermelon through a pinhole…

> The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. Or rather, absence of action in this case. > This is the system working for the people. The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. > Currently, try…

> The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working.

It's called checks and balances, and it was how the system was designed to work.

> Legislature is complex and hard. Not the reason to try and make courts into its replacement. That's not how the system is supposed to work, and doing that will result in a system even more broken than now.

The courts aren't being used as a replacement, they're being used as a court. When one part of the government does something, you use another part of the government to counter it, until you've exhausted all your options. Then you can go back to the drawing board, which is to start a grassroots movement to push for overwhelming bipartisan support to force even a one-sided legislative branch to adopt the reforms you seek. It's an iterative process. Using the courts is not circumventing anything. You can always use legislation later to determine law that supersedes ruling by the courts, unless such legislation is found to be unconstitutional.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#114

Post by jrockway »

User23 wrote: post #85

I haven’t noticed any change in my Internet connectivity since so-called net neutrality regulations were rolled back. That said, the fears of a single party dictating what you can and can’t see on the Internet are not just clear, they’re present. How many net neutrality supporters stood up for Alex Jones? Or say anything about shadow bans on Twitter, Facebook, and Google search results based on organizational caprici…

> How many net neutrality supporters stood up for Alex Jones?

Are ISPs refusing to peer with Alex Jones? If not, this has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#115

Post by komali2 »

xena wrote: post #43
randyrand wrote: post #21

this is one of the main reasons why states rights is important. Here are the big ones: 1. each state can be tailored to its population 2. each state acts an an incubator for new ideas and other states can follow 3. usa citizens have more choice in who governs then and can easily move between them

The problem is that people poor enough they can't choose to move states get kinda screwed over.

Well, yes, but that's also currently an issue for say your average rural Indian farmer. Or north Korean.

I get that we're talking about Americans here, and can't be expected to solve every problem across the world, but I'm having a hard time drawing some arbitrary line in the sand here.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#116

Post by cyphar »

monocasa wrote: post #101
xenophonf wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system's not broken. If that many people in that many states really want net neutrality legislation, then they should advocate for that within the House of Representatives, who are our direct representatives at the federal level. The Presidency is designed to have broad national appeal---across rural and urban states, large and small states---so it's not enough that a minority of attorneys-general want regulatory…

Except that, due to gerrymandering, the ratios of our federal representatives don't match the ratios of the population.

And even if you were to argue that gerrymandering didn't swing overall election results (it does), gerrymandering also makes certain seats more secure than they normally would be -- causing certain politicians to become incumbents. What reason does an incumbent have to listen to their local community's grievances? Their job isn't at risk if they don't please the public (which is the opposite of how it should be).

So, even if the House of Representatives was a direct representation of the US population, they would still not have the incentive to listen to their populace.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#117

Post by s73v3r_ »

peterwwillis wrote: post #61
EpiphanyMachine wrote: post #2

The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that much backing it should be done through the legislative branch. I'm concerned about the growing use of courts to try to decide policies because our legislative bodies can't work together and instead just try to force one sided issues through or block each other.…

I came here to say the opposite. The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. This is the system working for the people. Without the ability or interest from the states to push back against the federal government's decrees, we would be stuck with an authoritarian nation. Currently, trying to pass meaningful legislation is like trying to squeeze a watermelon through a pinhole…

The ability for these State Attorneys General to do this is good. The fact that it had to come down to this is terrible.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#118

Post by NickM »

shkkmo wrote: post #57
IronWolve wrote: post #26

>US Internet Speed Has Gone From 12th To 6th Fastest Since End Of Net Neutrality I see this being tossed around as a counter to the main point of NN being slow down of speed. Also, why do the state dem AG's always suing to enforce new laws instead of the legislation process, it seems like the new way to pass laws is to get a judge to give it to you. We have legal weed from legislation now.

I believe all the states that currently have recreation cannabis have it because of referendums and ballot initiatives. The legalization process has shown exactly how our legislatures have failed to address this issue. Canada did legalize recreational use with legislation, but they are the only ones so far. I personally blame gerrymandering.

Vermont recently legalized it via the legislature, though I think your main point still stands.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#119

Post by travmatt »

monocasa wrote: post #101
xenophonf wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system's not broken. If that many people in that many states really want net neutrality legislation, then they should advocate for that within the House of Representatives, who are our direct representatives at the federal level. The Presidency is designed to have broad national appeal---across rural and urban states, large and small states---so it's not enough that a minority of attorneys-general want regulatory…

Except that, due to gerrymandering, the ratios of our federal representatives don't match the ratios of the population.

Even more egregious is the proportioned delegates within the electoral college.
Post reply on HN