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

141–150 of 250 posts

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

#141

Post by cabaalis »

smsm42 wrote: post #121
peterwwillis wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

> It's called checks and balances, and it was how the system was designed to work. No, it's not. Just repeating "checks and balances" doesn't mean courts can be abused for doing something that is not court's purpose. The court's purpose is preserving the consistency of legislation (including the Constitution as supreme, very hard to change part of the law) and adherence of executive to the law. In this case, the exec…

What's broken is that there are "sides" at all. The American people are being restricted from free thinking on individual issues because of party-based politics. This is intentional, to create "wedge" issues out of thin air so we stay divided and whoever wants power has a shot at taking it.

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

#142

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

komali2 wrote: post #111
PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You need access to electricity, but there are alternatives such as solar panels or diesel generators. As for phone, more and more people are switching pure to cell phone, of which there are many different options.

By the same measure, depending upon what you are trying to do, it will not be an even playing field if you are removed from Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, etc.

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

#143

Post by bsder »

delinka wrote: post #46
justinzollars wrote: post #40

I would like to see Twitter, Google, CloudFlare and Facebook classified as public utilities. While Alex Jones is a nut case (And shouldn't be defended), other less publicized incidents of censorship by Social Media companies has occurred (related to picking winners between Israel and Palestine) [1]. While I am a Democrat who has been elected in the past, I agree with the conservative argument that: Corporate censorsh…

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.

> Nor Google. Definitely not Facebook.

While I agree with you on Twitter, these two are less clear.

Google wields vast influence by being search provider, advertising provider, email provider and phone provider simultaneously. Google IS the panopticon for the average user.

Facebook is someone I can't avoid in quite a lot of situations. When government starts using Facebook to coordinate and contact (and it has), Facebook has become more than a mere company.

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

#144

Post by burkaman »

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…

Here's the EFF's Civil Liberties Director coming as close to standing up for Alex Jones as any reasonable person needs to: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/beware-the-digital-c...

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

#145

Post by openasocket »

smsm42 wrote: post #121
peterwwillis wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

> It's called checks and balances, and it was how the system was designed to work. No, it's not. Just repeating "checks and balances" doesn't mean courts can be abused for doing something that is not court's purpose. The court's purpose is preserving the consistency of legislation (including the Constitution as supreme, very hard to change part of the law) and adherence of executive to the law. In this case, the exec…

This is very much a case of checks and balances. This article is a little misleading because it only quotes those filing suit saying that they don't like the FCC's actions. The actual suit filed (https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/nn_govt_petitioners_br...) has actual legal arguments. First, they argue the process by which the rule was passed was in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. Second, they argue that the rule exceeds the FCC's authority by preventing states from enacting their own net neutrality regulation.

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

#146

Post by bsder »

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.

Speed doesn't matter if bandwidth went down aka download caps.

So, speed can go up on the "preferred service" while speed goes down for "everybody else".

Lots of the ISPs now have deals where traffic to their preferred video streaming service doesn't count against your caps. And, wonder of wonders, that traffic is somehow faster than everything else.

NN isn't about "speed". It's about the fact that everybody's packets are given the same "speed".

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

#147

Post by komali2 »

Vinnl wrote: post #137
komali2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

If you want to reach an audience, the vast majority of companies would reach for Facebook and/or Google in a heartbeat. Either they're all wrong, or you're not on an even playing field if you do not use them as an advertiser.

Ok, but you a seven year old still needs the internet to have a level education playing field, and her mom needs it to sort out her taxes and ID applications and look up nutritional information and SNAP information and parks nearby and how to register a car and available jobs at the DMV and...

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

#148

Post by komali2 »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #142
komali2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

You need access to electricity, but there are alternatives such as solar panels or diesel generators. As for phone, more and more people are switching pure to cell phone, of which there are many different options. By the same measure, depending upon what you are trying to do, it will not be an even playing field if you are removed from Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, etc.

Cell phone calls are regulated just like land lines... But yes I think data should also be a utility.

Being banned from Facebook/Google/Amazon doesn't prevent you from using the free irs file option, or applying for your ID online, or helping your child with math homework you have no idea how to work on cause you grew up without access to schooling, or etc.

I'm more talking level playing field for your average American, not your average hackernews poster.

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

#149

Post by pseudalopex »

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…

> Or rather, absence of action in this case.

Issuing an order is an action. The states claim that the federal executive didn't follow the legally required procedure.

> The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation.

The federal executive says they can't. The states are asking the courts to say they can.

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

#150

Post by [deleted] »

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.…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN