Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#81

Post by Bud » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 10:27 PM UTC

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 their shareholders. If net neutrality or anything similar to it ever does pass, ISPs will still largely serve their shareholders, but will have slightly less freedom to gouge consumers, and to censor content they don't like.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#82

Post by enjo » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 10:27 PM UTC

warrenwilkinson wrote: post #34

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.

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.

Who are their customers? It seems that the crux of the issue is that the ISP's want to extend their reach to include websites owners as customers as well.

I'll never understand the ideology that all regulation is bad. It's not only laughable, but demonstrably false.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#83

Post by ars » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 10:31 PM UTC

DanI-S wrote: post #28

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing America that freedom for corporations equates to freedom for individuals.

Corporation are MADE of individuals.

A corporation is not a person and does not think. There is an actual human on the other end, and it is that human to whom you are giving that freedom.

People have a tendency to anthropomorphize corporations. A corporation did this, wants that, etc.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#84

Post by ars » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 10:37 PM UTC

blueben wrote: post #16

There are a number of disturbing aspects of this news, but I find the new "no discussion, no consideration, no compromise" attitude of the Republican party to be extremely frightening.

Until the mid term elections that's exactly what President Obama did. (He would claim he wants ideas from Republicans, but mention a few things that were no compromise, and it was exactly those things that the Republicans actually wanted a compromise on.)

Basically whoever has a majority talks that way - both parties.

I wish we could have at least 3 (very different) parties so that no one party could ever get an automatic majority.

Failing that I like the current situation where each house has a different party in the majority.

It's just not good for politicians to have too much power, forcing them to compromise and negotiate is very good for them.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#85

Post by jbooth » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 10:46 PM UTC

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...

Based on money spent, they gave an awful lot of money in 2010 to people who not only disagree with those positions, but disagree with them LOUDLY and will call you a godless heathen, communist, terrorist, muslim or all of the above if the subject comes up. Just saying.

Maybe the Koch brothers don't watch Fox News. Someone should write them a letter and tell them where their money's going. After all, they helped finance the guy who beat Russ Feingold, the lone vote in the senate against the Patriot act in 2001 (99-1).

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#86

Post by alexqgb » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 10:46 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #55

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…

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.

It's evil when you know that AT&T's "information" is really an instruction, and disregarding it is likely to produce a sudden downturn in the donations they just "happen" to make, while producing an upturn in donations to anyone who "happens" to "agree with their perspective".

In truth, none of these guys are living in bubbles. They all know that what they're being told to do is anti-citizen. And they also know that if they don't pass it into law, they'll be replaced with someone even less ethical and more mercenary.

I mean, how do you think this guy got his job in the first place?

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#87

Post by shpxnvz » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 10:49 PM UTC

davidsiems wrote: post #73

gyardley wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

This argument would apply as much to individual campaign contributions. Individuals have agendas just as corporations (and non-profits, and PAC's) do. If that were the rule then wouldn't electability just be based on the politician's personal wealth rather than the wealth of their supporters?

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#88

Post by gyardley » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 10:53 PM UTC

davidsiems wrote: post #73

gyardley wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nothing is provable in politics. You're not going to get consensus on 'the people's best interest'. You're not even going to get consensus on 'the people'. (Apparently the stockholders of AT&T aren't invited.)

Given that, 'campaign reform' just sounds like another way to keep participants out that you don't agree with. Businesses shouldn't participate. Unions shouldn't participate. Churches shouldn't participate. Non-profits shouldn't participate. Rich people can participate - as long as they aren't allowed to participate too much, and can't have any privacy when they do it.

If people who don't pay taxes are allowed to vote themselves benefits, I don't see how anyone can argue that a business owner can't donate whatever they want to whatever cause or candidate they like. Everyone participates and things shake out how they shake out.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#89

Post by gnosis » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 10:56 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #20

blueben wrote: post #16

There are a number of disturbing aspects of this news, but I find the new "no discussion, no consideration, no compromise" attitude of the Republican party to be extremely frightening.

It works pretty well though. Every issue is framed as a decision whether the country as we know it will be destroyed. Seems a lot of voters like this style.

Just a few years ago all the news was about how the American public was sick of this sort of "polarizing" style of politics, and wanted a kinder, gentler style epitomized by "compromise".

Of course, that was when the Democrats were coming in to power.

Now that the Republicans seem to be coming back in to power, it seems that "compromise" is off the table. Not that it ever was on the table for Republicans.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#90

Post by smokeyj » Mon, Feb 28, 2011, 10:56 PM UTC

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?

Why not just use a different ISP over the same cables? The cables could be maintained by a "home owner association" type license that connects you to a main tower or something similar.

Is the only possible way to connect to the internet by a State granted monopoly? I don't think so, but I feel our creativity has been shot because this is how it's worked for years.