House tells FCC to drop net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#21

Post by ck2 » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 5:09 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #13

ck2 wrote: post #7

I know on HN this is the part we focus on (the net) but based on the republican plans for the future of the federal government (which do have a real chance of happening) this would be the least you have to worry about. It's pretty much going to be every person for themselves because government is going to be a fraction of what it was and states, therefore residents will receive a fraction of the funding you are used…

Is there any possible response to this comment that will produce a thread we'd be happy to have on HN?

Net neutrality is politics. I'm just saying this is the least of our political worries right now. When the president and half the democrats are also anti-net neutrality, basically it's gone.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#22

Post by _delirium » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 5:10 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #19

_delirium wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does have an interesting psychological effect, though, possibly on both the recipients of orders, and on the general public. Reminds me a bit of the similar accident of jurisdiction that led to 1980s teenage hax0rz being raided by the Secret Service, rather than by more normal-sounding police.

Is there some controversy about the Secret Service involvement during Sun Devil? Those were interstate crimes, not to mention the fact that no local police force was in any way equipped to deal with the problem.

Not political controversy, just the psychological aspect that it was The Secret Service, the dramatic earpiece-wearing folks in movies who keep the president from being shot, not to mention a police agency with the conspiracy-driving word "secret" in their name. If we instead had the U.S. Government Computer Crime Agency, it'd be a lot more pedestrian.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#23

Post by intended » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 5:10 PM UTC

johngalt wrote: post #5

Getting the FCC to make carriers play fair is a slow road to improvement and it's filled with potholes. I'd be more inclined to support regulation changes intended to make starting a new carrier easier. Mark my words: Any net neutrality bill will benefit the existing carriers, and stifle telecom startups.

If I am not mistaken, setting up a working telecom startup is quite capital intensive, and has high running costs on top of it, just in terms of handling Marketing and competitive pressures.

How would a new startup survive and scale by any change in rules? The market would still serve the incumbents more than the startups - since their scale would make them stronger bets.

I'm curious to know what type of regulation would help circumvent the high startup cost and create genuine competition.

Edit: I am genuinely interested to know what regulation the original poster had in mind, or any other regulation that would help achieve his stated goal.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#24

Post by ascendant » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 5:11 PM UTC

teoruiz wrote: post #6

From the outside it looks like the US political scene is a complete and ridiculous mess right now, led by the Republican Congress.

It's been a mess for a long time. And it's not just the Republicans. Anyone with a brain can look back over the past 20-30 years and see the fingerprints of both parties all over the collective disaster that is the current situation politically, financially and militarily.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#25

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 5:12 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #20

[deleted] wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#26

Post by ascendant » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 5:13 PM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #21

tptacek wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any possible response to this comment that will produce a thread we'd be happy to have on HN?

Net neutrality is politics. I'm just saying this is the least of our political worries right now. When the president and half the democrats are also anti-net neutrality, basically it's gone.

I thought I read that if the current bill passes the president would veto it. Is it because he's pro-net-neutrality or anti-anything-republican? The last question isn't partisan, it's a perfectly valid reason for a democrat president to veto a republican-led bill. Happens the other way, too.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#27

Post by waterlesscloud » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 5:13 PM UTC

samt wrote: post #11

teoruiz wrote: post #6

From the outside it looks like the US political scene is a complete and ridiculous mess right now, led by the Republican Congress.

Which begs the question, WTF does it look like from the inside?

Like a functioning government, why do you ask?

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#28

Post by geoffw8 » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 5:15 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #13

ck2 wrote: post #7

I know on HN this is the part we focus on (the net) but based on the republican plans for the future of the federal government (which do have a real chance of happening) this would be the least you have to worry about. It's pretty much going to be every person for themselves because government is going to be a fraction of what it was and states, therefore residents will receive a fraction of the funding you are used…

Is there any possible response to this comment that will produce a thread we'd be happy to have on HN?

maybe?

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#29

Post by tptacek » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 5:16 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #22

tptacek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there some controversy about the Secret Service involvement during Sun Devil? Those were interstate crimes, not to mention the fact that no local police force was in any way equipped to deal with the problem.

Not political controversy, just the psychological aspect that it was The Secret Service, the dramatic earpiece-wearing folks in movies who keep the president from being shot, not to mention a police agency with the conspiracy-driving word "secret" in their name. If we instead had the U.S. Government Computer Crime Agency, it'd be a lot more pedestrian.

It probably has more to do with how few people understood that the Secret Service is was really more like the Treasury Police, and protecting the President was only a small part of what they did. The protective details are the only thing interesting enough to make movies about, hence the mystique.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#30

Post by tptacek » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 5:21 PM UTC

ascendant wrote: post #24

teoruiz wrote: post #6

From the outside it looks like the US political scene is a complete and ridiculous mess right now, led by the Republican Congress.

It's been a mess for a long time. And it's not just the Republicans. Anyone with a brain can look back over the past 20-30 years and see the fingerprints of both parties all over the collective disaster that is the current situation politically, financially and militarily.

Every time someone says this I think back to the politics of the 19th century, or the early 20th. It's probably true that we're at a depressing ebb of productivity and good faith in national politics, but politics 'twas ever thus. You think Fox News is bad? Try Hearst's papers in the 1890s.

There are 307 million people in the United States. That the three million? people of in the original colonies managed to agree on a system of government that scaled this far and this well over so many diverse interests and conflicting worldviews is astonishing.