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

FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 169 posts

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#131

Post by afiori »

crooked-v wrote: post #45
afiori wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I never properly understood is whether these caps appear anywhere on your contracts, if they don't then net neutrality should[1] not be necessary and if they do then it should not apply. [0] I guess I am wrong in believing this should is respected

Contracts with ISPs are whatever the ISP wants them to be at any time, because the US court system allows one-sided non-negotiable contracts that include "we can change this contract at any time" clauses. Also, if you want to sue over the changes in the contract... you can't, because the US court system allows those one-sided non-negotiable contracts to include "you can never sue us for anything and instead are requi…

But then the thing I am relatively unsure about the stance of net-neutrality proponents would be whether it is legal for Comcast to sell "shitty internet." That is something that always get throttled first, that blocks certain websites, or that prioritize promoted services.

I mean a VPN could legally do that, and in the case of a ISP my personal idea of net-neutrality would be that a neutral service needs to be available and that non-neutral offerings needs to be clearly marketed as such.

I honestly see this as a possible drive to competition, as ISP would be forced to disclose how shitty or not the service is.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#133

Post by cozos »

Proziam wrote: post #129

I just left my remarks. Here's what I wrote, just for the sake of public record (last time we played this game there was a lot of comments thrown out, unfairly). The internet is a critical part of both military and civilian infrastructure and should not be monitored, limited, or in any way restricted by any entity. Under the definition of arms understood at the time of the Constitution (as written by James Madison in…

> Under the definition of arms understood at the time of the Constitution (as written by James Madison in Federalist 46), the internet and any digital tools which may be used in the defense of the nation are "arms" and therefore protected by the second amendment.

I'm not sure about this. What about shovels, nuclear bombs, or meth [0]? Do we have a right to bear nukes?

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_culture_of_subst...

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#134

Post by Proziam »

cozos wrote: post #133
Proziam wrote: post #129

I just left my remarks. Here's what I wrote, just for the sake of public record (last time we played this game there was a lot of comments thrown out, unfairly). The internet is a critical part of both military and civilian infrastructure and should not be monitored, limited, or in any way restricted by any entity. Under the definition of arms understood at the time of the Constitution (as written by James Madison in…

> Under the definition of arms understood at the time of the Constitution (as written by James Madison in Federalist 46), the internet and any digital tools which may be used in the defense of the nation are "arms" and therefore protected by the second amendment. I'm not sure about this. What about shovels, nuclear bombs, or meth [0]? Do we have a right to bear nukes? [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_c…

My personal stance on the 'right to bear nukes' question is that a weapon of mass destruction has no defensive utility and is either self-destructive or offensive by nature. Therefore, nukes would not be protected in the same way as precision munitions and firearms.

Amphetamines or other performance-enhancing drugs are absolutely useful for military applications. As much as I loathe drugs and addiction I don't believe I have the right to restrict what another human being can or cannot put into their body.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#135

Post by gsich »

javagram wrote: post #91
gsich wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How should your ISP know? Diffserv might help, but I doubt some shitty application will set them.

They can tell right now. T-Mobile gives free data usage for video and music streaming, for instance. You can either do traffic pattern analysis or just base it on what IPs they are connecting to.

That is not independent and not net neutral.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#136

Post by mattashii »

Proziam wrote: post #134
cozos wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Under the definition of arms understood at the time of the Constitution (as written by James Madison in Federalist 46), the internet and any digital tools which may be used in the defense of the nation are "arms" and therefore protected by the second amendment. I'm not sure about this. What about shovels, nuclear bombs, or meth [0]? Do we have a right to bear nukes? [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_c…

My personal stance on the 'right to bear nukes' question is that a weapon of mass destruction has no defensive utility and is either self-destructive or offensive by nature. Therefore, nukes would not be protected in the same way as precision munitions and firearms. Amphetamines or other performance-enhancing drugs are absolutely useful for military applications. As much as I loathe drugs and addiction I don't believ…

EU citizen here.

> My personal stance on the 'right to bear nukes' question is that a weapon of mass destruction has no defensive utility and is either self-destructive or offensive by nature.

Serious question: How is that different from munition and/or firearms?

As far as I know, if you exclude weapons whose utility is only self-destructive or offensive, you'll only have (active/passive) shielding left, which precise munitions and firearms to the best of my knowledge are not. Yes, they can be used as a threat, but the same can be said for nukes.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#137

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

mattashii wrote: post #136
Proziam wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal stance on the 'right to bear nukes' question is that a weapon of mass destruction has no defensive utility and is either self-destructive or offensive by nature. Therefore, nukes would not be protected in the same way as precision munitions and firearms. Amphetamines or other performance-enhancing drugs are absolutely useful for military applications. As much as I loathe drugs and addiction I don't believ…

EU citizen here. > My personal stance on the 'right to bear nukes' question is that a weapon of mass destruction has no defensive utility and is either self-destructive or offensive by nature. Serious question: How is that different from munition and/or firearms? As far as I know, if you exclude weapons whose utility is only self-destructive or offensive, you'll only have (active/passive) shielding left, which precis…

Munitions and firearms make both extreme tyranny and invasion untenable with the application of asymmetric warfare strategies, thus aiding significantly in the defense of the nation.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#138

Post by Proziam »

mattashii wrote: post #136
Proziam wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal stance on the 'right to bear nukes' question is that a weapon of mass destruction has no defensive utility and is either self-destructive or offensive by nature. Therefore, nukes would not be protected in the same way as precision munitions and firearms. Amphetamines or other performance-enhancing drugs are absolutely useful for military applications. As much as I loathe drugs and addiction I don't believ…

EU citizen here. > My personal stance on the 'right to bear nukes' question is that a weapon of mass destruction has no defensive utility and is either self-destructive or offensive by nature. Serious question: How is that different from munition and/or firearms? As far as I know, if you exclude weapons whose utility is only self-destructive or offensive, you'll only have (active/passive) shielding left, which precis…

Essentially it boils down to this:

If someone breaks into your home, you can reliably combat the intruder with a firearm - without harming a bystander.

If someone is attacking your town or village, you can at least situationally combat them with precision-guided munitions without killing any civilians (not that they are used ethically in all cases, just speaking to their potential use).

Neither of those things is true of WMDs. You have to stretch the bounds of realism pretty far before you can find a way to deploy a nuke effectively without killing innocent people, or yourself.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#139

Post by propogandist »

Last time, Net Neutrality had clauses that would provide the government and corporations the ability to effectively establish a firewall that would Only Allow "Lawful internet traffic" and "Lawful applications, services or nom-harmful devices..."

previous Net Neutrality text:

> § 8.5 No blocking. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

> § 8.7 No throttling. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

-

this is putting too much faith in the government (+corporations) and enables the lawful establishment of the Great American Firewall to manage what's "lawful"

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#140

Post by chance_state »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #2

Recent interview with Ajit Pai covers some of his thoughts on net neutrality. I thought it was was worth a listen/read http://freakonomics.com/podcast/ajit-pai/ As for the article, I don't think it matters all that much except maybe possible slight embarassment?

Can you share some of the highlights that made it worth a listen?

I don't really want to listen to that guy babel pro-ISP nonsense.

Post reply on HN