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

101–110 of 148 posts

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#101

Post by leot »

viggity wrote: post #97
isleyaardvark wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is Boehner's position is so contrary to reality it's hard not to conclude that AT&T is influencing his position. Otherwise we'd have to believe that AT&T was lucky enough to stumble upon a Senator who misunderstands an issue in the exact way that benefits them.

Excuse me, but calling his position so contrary to "reality" is asinine. The internet has thrived and flourished for the past 20 years specifically because of a lack of government regulation - I don't know why it is so hard to believe that some people want to keep it that way.

Vinton Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee claim the internet flourished because of the maintenance of a common carriage agreement, which net neutrality advocates want to cement.

I can understand how common carriage rules lead to great things on the internet. I have a lot more trouble understanding how cementing these rules would stunt the internet's development, and by contrast, I can easily see how the dismantlement of these rules could lead to Bad Things.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#102

Post by webXL »

Oh, Republicans are against net neutrality, so we should be for it, right?

If there's one dominant theme I've seen over the years when politics rears its ugly head in an online discussion, it's that

  Republicans = Corporations (Evil)
  Democrats = Workers (Wholesome goodness)
Now, it's entirely possible that those statements are true 100% of the time, but isn't it much more likely that there are exceptions to them, and if you're intellectually honest, you can acknowledge them? I'm not sure if Google results are a trustworthy source, but look up "corporate donations by party" and you'll see countless examples of corporations taking advantage of whatever party is in power. So you must acknowledge that neither party is completely beholden to "wholesome goodness".

Whichever side wins in the net neutrality debate, some corporations will lose, and others will win. If net neutrality needs to be enforced, it means that politicians will hold more power. Do we really want to keep giving those people more power, especially over something that's pretty free at the moment? Give more power to the same people who just renewed the Patriot Act?!

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#103

Post by spenrose »

webXL wrote: post #96
spenrose wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cato supports its corporate masters: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries#C...

And Sourcewatch (AKA Center for Media and Democracy, AKA PRWatch) supports its union masters: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/02/10080/koch-denies-intere... What's your point?

My point is that Cato's professed ideology is contrary to the fights it actually undertakes, while the fights it undertakes are in service of those who pay its bills. Cato's corporate funders are opposed to free markets, and so is Cato. Cato uses the rhetoric of free markets to advance the interests of its funders in keeping control of their markets.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#104

Post by webXL »

spenrose wrote: post #103
webXL wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Sourcewatch (AKA Center for Media and Democracy, AKA PRWatch) supports its union masters: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/02/10080/koch-denies-intere... What's your point?

My point is that Cato's professed ideology is contrary to the fights it actually undertakes, while the fights it undertakes are in service of those who pay its bills. Cato's corporate funders are opposed to free markets, and so is Cato. Cato uses the rhetoric of free markets to advance the interests of its funders in keeping control of their markets.

How exactly is preventing the government from regulating the internet anti-free market? I agree with Cato most of the time. I haven't given them any money. Isn't it possible that they get financial support from the Kochs and vocal support from myself because of their support of freedom (i.e. limited government)?

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#105

Post by bootload »

ars wrote: post #83
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.

"... Corporation are MADE of individuals. ^A corporation is not a person^ and does not think. ..."

Yes they are.

"... In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. ..." ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation#United_States

A dubious outcome in what was meant in spirit to uphold a person's (black or white) civil and political rights being interfered by any state. cf: 14th amendment ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni...

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#106

Post by kevin_morrill »

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.

ummm I'd just prefer neither. I cringe to think of net neutrality in place next time there is a Republican majority.

The energy being applied advocating net neutrality could be a lot better spent lobbying for real freedom in the telecom space and undo'ing the legally enforced monopolies there.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#107

Post by sp332 »

tygorius wrote: post #62
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…

When FairPoint doesn't perform its obligations under contract, that's presumably something for the New Hampshire authorities to pursue, as they were the other party in the contract. How is that a federal responsibility? since we're not a desirable market, there's no chance of getting any other companies to deploy to those areas Again, is that really a problem the FCC should address? It seems you're extending the idea…

The FCC already makes sure that absolutely everyone who can have access to a phone line does have access to a phone line. They've more recently announced their intention to extend this mandate to broadband internet access. The reason the feds are getting involved is because the states want them to. Anyway, the FP deal involved Maine, New Hampsire and Vermont. Vermont is considering banning FP from the state, Maine and NH have launched investigations already, and since Verizon investors lost $1B due to lies FP told, I think the feds should be getting involved on several levels. This is a bigger deal than just FP vs NH, and it fits right in with what the FCC is already moving toward.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#108

Post by jellicle »

leot wrote: post #101
viggity wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excuse me, but calling his position so contrary to "reality" is asinine. The internet has thrived and flourished for the past 20 years specifically because of a lack of government regulation - I don't know why it is so hard to believe that some people want to keep it that way.

Vinton Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee claim the internet flourished because of the maintenance of a common carriage agreement, which net neutrality advocates want to cement. I can understand how common carriage rules lead to great things on the internet. I have a lot more trouble understanding how cementing these rules would stunt the internet's development, and by contrast, I can easily see how the dismantlement of these…

Indeed, the clear truth (as numerous luminaries have also said) is that internet would never have existed without massive government intervention to require local telephone companies to allow data to be transmitted over "their" phone lines, which otherwise they would have prevented.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#109

Post by spenrose »

webXL wrote: post #104
spenrose wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that Cato's professed ideology is contrary to the fights it actually undertakes, while the fights it undertakes are in service of those who pay its bills. Cato's corporate funders are opposed to free markets, and so is Cato. Cato uses the rhetoric of free markets to advance the interests of its funders in keeping control of their markets.

How exactly is preventing the government from regulating the internet anti-free market? I agree with Cato most of the time. I haven't given them any money. Isn't it possible that they get financial support from the Kochs and vocal support from myself because of their support of freedom (i.e. limited government)?

"Preventing the government from regulating the Internet" is not on offer by anyone. Existing government regulations give certain companies oligopoly power, whose rents they are using to finance (via Boehner) opposition to further regulations intended to reduce those rents. "limited government" is Orwellian language. Again, I don't doubt your sincerity; I question your understanding of the motives behind the appealing rhetoric you quote.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#110

Post by webXL »

spenrose wrote: post #109
webXL wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly is preventing the government from regulating the internet anti-free market? I agree with Cato most of the time. I haven't given them any money. Isn't it possible that they get financial support from the Kochs and vocal support from myself because of their support of freedom (i.e. limited government)?

"Preventing the government from regulating the Internet" is not on offer by anyone. Existing government regulations give certain companies oligopoly power, whose rents they are using to finance (via Boehner) opposition to further regulations intended to reduce those rents. "limited government" is Orwellian language. Again, I don't doubt your sincerity; I question your understanding of the motives behind the appealing…

"Existing government regulations give certain companies oligopoly power"

So your answer is additional regulations? Cato's solution for a more efficient and freer internet should be more regulation? I am not using "Orwellian language". Neither is Cato. When they say they want less regulation, they mean less regulation. Cato has always been opposed to Federal power not explicitly granted in the Constitution. Can you site me an example where they haven't been?

What supernatural power do you have to know the true motives of the Kochs and Cato? Just because their interests are aligned with AT&T's in this instance do not mean they work for AT&T. But I'm pretty confident if Net Neutrality wins, AT&T will still win. They have so many protections (laws and sympathetic politicians) in the government that they can only lose if the government loses power. The consumer and citizen who has benefited so much from an unregulated Internet will suffer with more regulation. Big companies don't mind regulation, because compliance and lobbying are so much more costly for their smaller competitors, mostly due to economies of scale.

Post reply on HN