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

31–40 of 148 posts

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#31

Post by clistctrl »

sp332 wrote: post #21
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…

Perhaps 4G wireless is the answer?

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#32

Post by warrenwilkinson »

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.

'Net neutrality' is a plan for government to regulate ISPs. Ostensibly, the government will only regulate in the consumers interest --- but the egyptian gov showed the other side of regulation (censorship).

He says he is against net neutrality; he is against government regulation of ISPs.

More interesting than anything he said, is the quote "No man can serve two masters". Currently ISPs serve you, but after net neutrality passes they will serve the government.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#33

Post by jellicle »

sp332 wrote: post #21
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…

> 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.

No, he doesn't. John Boehner is an intelligent individual. His number one campaign contributor is AT&T.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N0000...

He damn well understands the issues. He understands that AT&T wants something, and AT&T pays him a lot of money and AT&T wants a return on that payment. This is not rocket science.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#34

Post by warrenwilkinson »

jlv wrote: post #7
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's considering the basic freedoms of service providers to restrict access as they see fit - not the right of the consumers.

Perhaps so, but the ISPs must serve the consumers; they have no other path to profit.

The alternative is the freedom of government to restrict access as they see fit. And governments money comes from taxes (or inflation), they have no incentive to improve access or quality.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#35

Post by Bud »

mbateman wrote: post #30
Bud wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree that corporate rapaciousness and Republicans' pattern of serial lying is not a reason to support net neutrality. Net neutrality must stand on its own merits. I feel it does; others obviously will disagree. :) My only point was, it's laughable to think that Republicans are telling the truth about this, or to believe they will keep their hands off the Internet once they have enough power to mess with it again. I believe the recent historical record provides incontrovertible proof of this.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#36

Post by Judson »

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…

>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.

I don't agree with the political "back and forth" that is prevalent on both sides of the spectrum, but certainly this could have been rephrased to be a bit more objective.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#37

Post by davidmathers »

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 wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right?

Matt Yglesias explains: Freedom’s Just Another Word for "I’m An Orthodox Conservative With Orthodox Conservative Views": http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/?p=41091

He also provides an example in: The Freedom to Build: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/the-freedom-to-bui...

Where freedom means the freedom to prevent a real estate developer from building what they want, on property they own, because you don't like it.

Also somewhat apropos: Freedom-Talk in Colonial Georgia: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/freedom-talk-in-co...

The Georgia dissidents rallied behind the revealing slogan “Liberty and Property without restrictions”—which explicitly linked the liberty of white men to their right to hold blacks as property. Until they could own slaves, the white Georgians considered themselves unfree.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#38

Post by warrenwilkinson »

jshen wrote: post #27
reedlaw wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Who needs to own cables? You could rent cable in some areas, rent satallite for others, build short range wireless towers in others, use laser transmission here, build above ground infrastructure there, channel packets through power cables here, and phone lines there, and speed it up with local caching here, here and here.

Technology changes, don't expect the ISP killer to look like an ISP. Just as the land-line phone killer in no way looked like a better land line phone provider.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#39

Post by jonknee »

clistctrl wrote: post #31
sp332 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Perhaps 4G wireless is the answer?

Ironically that's the mode of access most likely to be affected by not having net neutrality laws passed. Google was even willing to give wireless a pass in their pact with Verizon.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#40

Post by warrenwilkinson »

maxxxxx wrote: post #23
reedlaw wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Technological barriers mean high profits for existing players. This in turn brings more and more entrepreneurs looking to bypass the barrier (either through new technology, capital intensive partnerships, or other avenues) and reach the gold.
Post reply on HN