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

71–80 of 148 posts

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#71

Post by leot »

warrenwilkinson wrote: post #40
maxxxxx wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fallacy here is the engagement of "long-run" reasoning, which assumes that market inefficiencies are static long enough for entrepreneurs to overcome the various barriers to entry (the long-run requires an assumption of stationarity).

It's an empirical question whether entrepreneurs can reach the gold when it's constantly moving, and whether the economic cost of doing so is less than the cost of some smart regulation.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#72

Post by davidmathers »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #68
davidmathers wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

Very true - those Koch Brothers, often discussing freedom, really are just pushing orthodox conservative views. Like decriminalizing drugs, legalizing gay marriage, and ending the patriot act (their #1 political position, based on money spent). http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/frrth/stop_the_koc...

The Koch brothers are libertarians, not conservatives. See "Why I am not a Conservative" by F. A. Hayek.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#73

Post by davidsiems »

gyardley wrote: post #48
jellicle wrote: post #33

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. 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…

That link tells you absolutely nothing, since there is no way to distinguish between 'John Boehner has this stance because AT&T is his biggest contributor' and 'AT&T is John Boehner's biggest contributor because he has this stance.' I certainly contribute to causes I support, and if I were an American, I'd contribute to politicians whose causes I support. I would happily contribute money on behalf of my business to a…

This is exactly why we need campaign reform.

If you're business X, who's product is something that is provably not in the people's best interest you can ram through its legality with enough money thrown at the policy makers who are supposed to be serving the people who elected them.

AT&T did not elect John Boehner. John Boehner should not share _any_ ties with AT&T.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#75

Post by barry-cotter »

davidmathers wrote: post #72
yummyfajitas wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very true - those Koch Brothers, often discussing freedom, really are just pushing orthodox conservative views. Like decriminalizing drugs, legalizing gay marriage, and ending the patriot act (their #1 political position, based on money spent). http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/frrth/stop_the_koc...

The Koch brothers are libertarians, not conservatives. See "Why I am not a Conservative" by F. A. Hayek.

That was sarcasm.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#76

Post by gloob »

davidmathers wrote: post #69
jokermatt999 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Orwell's Politics and the English Language (which should be required reading for everyone) has a section titled "Meaningless words" which contains this wonderful sentence: "The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another." I try to keep it in mind whenever I see someone mentioning freedom, openness,…

There is of course some truth to that, but in this case I think it's a bit unfair to conservatives. The words "freedom" and "liberty" do have reasonably consistent and coherent conservative meanings. They're just different than what libertarians, classical liberals, etc. mean when they use those words (negative liberty) and what liberals, social democrats, etc mean (positive liberty). But I do agree that Politics and…

"Negative liberty" and "positive liberty" are at least as much a matter of phrasing as they are anything real.

For instance, do I have the positive liberty to compel others not to point loaded firearms at me? Do government officials have the negative liberty to not be compelled to hold elections if they don't want to?

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#77

Post by sorbus »

protomyth wrote: post #54

I still want a technical definition of what Net Neutrality is. No using words like "freedom", given me something that is not open to interpretation.

As I define it: No packet shaping based on what service users are accessing; all packets are created equal.

Wikipedia also has a quite good definition. A key line from it: "The principle advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication."

Sadly, it's a term which is used to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. Political language does horrible things to words.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#78

Post by protomyth »

sorbus wrote: post #77
protomyth wrote: post #54

I still want a technical definition of what Net Neutrality is. No using words like "freedom", given me something that is not open to interpretation.

As I define it: No packet shaping based on what service users are accessing; all packets are created equal. Wikipedia also has a quite good definition. A key line from it: "The principle advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication." Sadly, it's a term which is used to mean whatever the…

Actually, I want packet shaping as long as its under my control (my netflix is more important than the download of software updates).

"Sadly, it's a term which is used to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. Political language does horrible things to words."

You nailed the words to my biggest problem. I see how bills are named, and really won't say I support something unless I have a real definition.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#79

Post by enjo »

Yzupnick wrote: post #59
Judson wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

It's not without cause.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#80

Post by davidmathers »

barry-cotter wrote: post #75
davidmathers wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Koch brothers are libertarians, not conservatives. See "Why I am not a Conservative" by F. A. Hayek.

That was sarcasm.

I know it was sarcasm. Why are you pointing that out? And what does it have to do with my response?
Post reply on HN