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

Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 148 posts

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#21

Post by sp332 »

mcantor wrote: post #4

I'm not sure how to post this without seeming like a troll, but... is this guy campaigning for or against net neutrality? I can't tell from the article. He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? So... he wants net neutrality? But then he says "no taxpayer dollars [should be] used to fund these net neutrality rules." I'm sure I'm being either naive, stupid or both right now, but I'm honestly confused.

He thinks (mainly because of ignorance, I guess) that ISPs are competing in a decent approximation of a free market, and that consumers have a choice of providers offering various services at various competitive price points. That's how markets in the USA are intended to work, so I guess it's a reasonable assumption, if you're completely ignorant of the state of telecom in the USA.

Just as an example, Verizon decided that my home state of New Hampshire wasn't a desirable market any more for terrestrial broadband. So they sold their franchise (basically a state-granted monopoly over the region) to FairPoint. The state only agreed to give the franchise to FairPoint after FP promised to extend fiber deployment throughout the state, and meet certain access requirements to poor and hard-to-reach areas. (This is why the monopoly is considered a fair tradeoff: the company makes their money on a captive audience in the higher-margin cities, and the state gets guaranteed service to negative-margin rural areas.) Well, it turns out FP were lying through their teeth, have no fiber capability whatsoever, and don't have enough money to improve the infrastructure at all. Verizon shareholders lost over 1 billion dollars, but the trouble is that there is no competition for residential broadband left in the state. In some places, you can get 1.5 Mb/s DSL (which the FCC admits doesn't count as "broadband"), a few places you can get Comcast cable, but there are a lot of places where there's just nothing available. And since we're not a desirable market, there's no chance of getting any other companies to deploy to those areas. NH is screwed for the foreseeable future.

tl;dr No one on any side who's been paying attention would make those claims. Status quo is state-granted monopolies, so it's up to the state to enforce reasonable rules on the ISPs.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#22

Post by isleyaardvark »

moskie wrote: post #5
mcantor wrote: post #4

I'm not sure how to post this without seeming like a troll, but... is this guy campaigning for or against net neutrality? I can't tell from the article. He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? So... he wants net neutrality? But then he says "no taxpayer dollars [should be] used to fund these net neutrality rules." I'm sure I'm being either naive, stupid or both right now, but I'm honestly confused.

He thinks (or claims) that we have network neutrality right now, and doesn't want that to change. He thinks (or claims) that since we got to this point without any rules or laws in place, we shouldn't eff that up putting any in place. (Just to be clear, I do not agree with his perspective, just explaining what I think it is.)

Not quite. Seriously. The current conservative argument against net neutrality is to paint net neutrality as "regulation" and "regulation" is bad. Instead of looking at the specifics of net neutrality regulation, they just say "regulation" and hope that people's imaginations run wild. (If they went into specifics, conservatives likely would support NN, it's essentially how Reagan-era Republicans created the Internet: http://www.archive.org/details/igovernance_rawfootage_l2a)

Boehner doesn't understand it nor will attempt to understand it. His paycheck depends on him not understanding it.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#23

Post by maxxxxx »

reedlaw wrote: post #14
mcantor wrote: post #4

I'm not sure how to post this without seeming like a troll, but... is this guy campaigning for or against net neutrality? I can't tell from the article. He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? So... he wants net neutrality? But then he says "no taxpayer dollars [should be] used to fund these net neutrality rules." I'm sure I'm being either naive, stupid or both right now, but I'm honestly confused.

As a libertarian, I would interpret protecting "our most basic freedoms" meaning the right to freely enter into agreements with whichever service providers we choose. If a service provider chooses to limit bandwidth to certain sites I would be free to buy Internet service elsewhere. But, as a libertarian, I also recognize the fact that this will never work as long as government continues to regulate these services in…

That would be OK if there was a functioning market for ISPs. But there clearly isn't. Most people don't have a choice of service provider and the cost of entry is too high for new competitors to come in.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#24

Post by blueben »

jacoblyles wrote: post #8
jlv wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's considering the basic freedoms of service providers to restrict access as they see fit - not the right of the consumers.

That's seldom an argument that I've never seen featured prominently on blogs that oppose network neutrality legislation, but on this little slice of reddit inside HN I suppose painting the worst possible picture of people you disagree with is all that matters. Most people who oppose regulation of the internet use utilitarian arguments, claiming that the quality and neutrality of the internet will be biased by governm…

You're right. The blogs that oppose network neutrality are far less coherent than that.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#25

Post by jlv »

jacoblyles wrote: post #8
jlv wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's considering the basic freedoms of service providers to restrict access as they see fit - not the right of the consumers.

That's seldom an argument that I've never seen featured prominently on blogs that oppose network neutrality legislation, but on this little slice of reddit inside HN I suppose painting the worst possible picture of people you disagree with is all that matters. Most people who oppose regulation of the internet use utilitarian arguments, claiming that the quality and neutrality of the internet will be biased by governm…

I'm not trying to paint a prejudiced picture though. Hell - I'm not even trying to twist words. The core of the cognitive dissonance can be explained away by understanding for whom Boehner is speaking out for - the providers and their 'basic freedom' to regulate a service as they see fit. Obviously, net neutrality proponents understand the issue differently.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#26

Post by [deleted] »

mcantor wrote: post #4

I'm not sure how to post this without seeming like a troll, but... is this guy campaigning for or against net neutrality? I can't tell from the article. He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? So... he wants net neutrality? But then he says "no taxpayer dollars [should be] used to fund these net neutrality rules." I'm sure I'm being either naive, stupid or both right now, but I'm honestly confused.

[deleted]

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#27

Post by jshen »

reedlaw wrote: post #14
mcantor wrote: post #4

I'm not sure how to post this without seeming like a troll, but... is this guy campaigning for or against net neutrality? I can't tell from the article. He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? So... he wants net neutrality? But then he says "no taxpayer dollars [should be] used to fund these net neutrality rules." I'm sure I'm being either naive, stupid or both right now, but I'm honestly confused.

As a libertarian, I would interpret protecting "our most basic freedoms" meaning the right to freely enter into agreements with whichever service providers we choose. If a service provider chooses to limit bandwidth to certain sites I would be free to buy Internet service elsewhere. But, as a libertarian, I also recognize the fact that this will never work as long as government continues to regulate these services in…

in a libertarian world who owns the cables to your house? How does someone with a better idea/business model get new cables out to everyones house?

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#29

Post by DanielBMarkham »

reedlaw wrote: post #14
mcantor wrote: post #4

I'm not sure how to post this without seeming like a troll, but... is this guy campaigning for or against net neutrality? I can't tell from the article. He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? So... he wants net neutrality? But then he says "no taxpayer dollars [should be] used to fund these net neutrality rules." I'm sure I'm being either naive, stupid or both right now, but I'm honestly confused.

As a libertarian, I would interpret protecting "our most basic freedoms" meaning the right to freely enter into agreements with whichever service providers we choose. If a service provider chooses to limit bandwidth to certain sites I would be free to buy Internet service elsewhere. But, as a libertarian, I also recognize the fact that this will never work as long as government continues to regulate these services in…

There's a third way that works for everybody: defining the market.

So government could simply say there are seven different types of internet service. Perhaps the lowest would be free service that forces you to watch ads. The highest service could be a SLA -- guaranteed bandwidth.

That way there is no regulation, _and_ the market is free to operate, _and_ you can have net neutrality, you only have to pay extra for it. What we have instead is problematic in many ways: the FCC taking control where it was not intended to go, and internet providers purposely obfuscating the issue with individual rights jargon.

This entire boondoggle is because of Congress not acting and the bureaucracy acting in its stead. The blame for inaction goes to both parties, not just one or the other. I doubt very many Congressmen could talk to net neutrality at the level of an average HN'er. They just get donations, pick sides, then spin the issue to conform to whichever principle their base could support.

I'm in favor of Net Neutrality, but it's a devil's bargain. The individual will lose more in the long run than they will gain. Why? Because the forces at work here trying to confuse the market to maximize profits will still exist after a net neutrality law is signed. They'll just go underground and start manipulating the regulators instead of the Congressmen. Then you get the same shitty deal except there's nobody you can kick out of office when it doesn't work. Oh yeah, and you get more government control over the net. We should all remember that the next time we rant about internet kill switches.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#30

Post by mbateman »

Bud wrote: post #18
jacoblyles wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who oppose net neutrality don't trust the FCC to be a benevolent regulator of the internet. For example, this blog post has links to a number of longer form pieces that make the case against it: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-fcc-should-not-regulate-t... And here's a post refuting the "money" argument: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/siding-with-the-geeks-on-netw...

Of course, once the right-wing gets its way on net neutrality, insuring that corporations can do whatever they want, they will then ALSO argue, as soon as Republicans hold the White House again, that the government has to be able to regulate the Internet as well, in order to make the world safe for Jesus and protect us from the terrorists. This BS about opposing government control really just means they oppose govern…

I upvoted you because I agree that this true of many/most conservatives, especially those with an actual political career. But it's sad that this is the case. And it's certainly not by itself a very good argument for net neutrality or government control.
Post reply on HN