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

51–60 of 148 posts

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#51

Post by bane »

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 really sure how net-neutrality (status quo) is supposed to be a "heavy-handed regulation". While a bunch of new regulation that ensures a heavily controlled and regulated and multi-tiered internet is not.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#52

Post by zachrose »

warrenwilkinson wrote: post #38
jshen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 phon…

s/cables/infrastructure/g

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#53

Post by bane »

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?

libertarianism is often a placeholder for "a world where everybody has virtually unlimited piles of money for which they can pay for basic services like clean water or a functioning local road system"

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#55

Post by sp332 »

jellicle wrote: post #33
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…

> 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…

His main source of info is probably also AT&T. He doesn't have to be evil, just misinformed. If you thought spear-phishing attacks were effective, just imagine having a multi-million dollar budget for the lobbyists to construct an alternate reality for this one guy.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#56

Post by spenrose »

jacoblyles wrote: post #6
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.

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...

Cato supports its corporate masters:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries#C...

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#57

Post by khafra »

warrenwilkinson wrote: post #32
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 neutr…

> Currently ISPs serve you

I'm not a board member of Comcast. I don't even hold any voting shares in CMCSA.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#58

Post by sdizdar »

runjake wrote: post #15

Summary: Do you want corporations to act as unregulated "traffic controllers"? Then you're against net neutrality. Do you want an accountable government agency with a lackluster track record for citizens' digital rights to act as a "traffic controller"? Then you're for net neutrality. * Before voting me down, look at the actions the federal government has already taken in regards to traffic control (ala exempting wir…

But we vote and elect our government. Don't we?

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#59

Post by Yzupnick »

Judson wrote: post #36
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…

>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.

Unfortunately on the Internet, Republican has become synonymous with racist radical Christian.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#60

Post by spenrose »

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…

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it requires a starting point of free actors entering into commerce with each other. If "government" were not involved here, none of these service providers would exist at all. They have been given legal monopolies / oligopolies over markets created by government investment. It is superficially plausible to think that "free market" reasoning might still be useful in sorting out how things should work, but as a practical matter the voices arguing loudest for libertarian ideology are paid for by rent-seeking oligopolists. (None of this is meant to challenge your sincerity, BTW.)
Post reply on HN