Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#181

Post by OkayPhysicist »

paulddraper wrote: post #148
Cody-99 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ISP customers already paid for that. The ISP customer already paid for the bandwidth, hardware, and all other costs. Not sure why this is confusing for you. The ISP isn't paying more because Bob next door decides to watch netflix for a few hours a night. >Who do you think is paying? The customer..? Are you really confused about this?

> already paid In some cases. In other cases, it hasn't even happened yet. > Are you really confused about this? I'm not at all confused. The ISP spends $X to build and maintain infrastructure for Y Gbps internet. Mobile carriers do the same.

Yes, and then they charge $Z dollars for a certain bandwidth allotment to each of their customers. It does not cost the ISP more money to route a MB/s to Netflix than it does to route a MB/s to Reddit.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#182

Post by lolinder »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #153
lolinder wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the republicans have changed a lot more than the democrats on that front. Only if you're looking at it from the Democratic perspective. From the Republican side they look at Democratic policies from the last decade and see a group that suddenly decided to throw all previous social norms out the window and upend social order. They see themselves as reacting to that change in the Democratic Party. I think the tru…

> a group that suddenly decided to throw all previous social norms out the window and upend social order That's a different front, though. Even if it's a response to those things, the level of "don't cooperate even on issues where you agree/used to agree" has not been the same between parties.

Well, OP was responding to this:

> when half the populations entire political identity is “whatever we think will make the other side angry”?

The idea here is that Republicans are somehow out to spite the Democrats more than vice versa, and I frankly don't see it. Both sides believe the other to be acting in bad faith, and honestly from my perspective it certainly looks like both sides are acting in bad faith.

We've had more than our fair share of close calls to government shutdowns the past four years, but let's not forget that Congress actually did fail to fund the government twice during Trump's presidency. The current Congress flirts with the line but has always ended up actually finding something that can pass.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#183

Post by packetlost »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #107
Cody-99 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they shouldn't. I don't think that logic makes any sense at all. No one is paying increased costs because their neighbor is watching netflix, youtube, or browsing reddit. Users already pay for internet service they shouldn't have to pay again because the ISP wants to be greedy and double dip from fees to avoid throttling.

They should be able to throttle across the board to load balance. They sell an IP protocol service. They should honor the customer's wishes by delivering those packets fairly, not necessarily reliably.

They can, and they do. It's called QoS and it's not effected by net neutrality.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#184

Post by rascul »

backtoyoujim wrote: post #143
redserk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that these agencies and their powers did not spring up out of thin air. Various elected Congress sessions wrote the laws that created and empowered these agencies to create rules. This is a reasonable implementation of a "democratic republic" as Congress still has oversight.

Agencies are not beholden to Congress; they are beholden to the executive branch that creates them. That is why Nixon created the EPA so that there would not be a Department of the Environment that was out of the hands of executive power.

> Nixon created the EPA

Only because Congress allowed it.

https://www.epa.gov/history/origins-epa

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#185

Post by D13Fd »

dmorgan81 wrote: post #160
SeanAnderson wrote: post #13

I'm happy this reversal occurred, but I am exhausted by the continuous flip-flopping of legislation depending on which party is in charge. Feels like we're stagnating as a nation by going in a circle rather than finding commonality to go forward. Maybe it's always been this way though and I'm just getting old enough to be bothered by it?

Congress was destined to this fate when they eliminated earmarks. Earmarks, or pork barrel spending, were derided as gov't waste, but in reality they were the grease that kept legislation moving. A representative could go back to their voters and say, "I voted for this thing you might not like, but I did it to ensure this crucial local project got done." Without earmarks there is no incentive to compromise. Compromis…

You're absolutely right IMO. When there is no reason to compromise and compromise can only hurt you, no one compromises and nothing gets done. Earmarks shift those incentives in the right direction, and their cost is a small price to pay to have a government that governs.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#186

Post by graycat »

gmueckl wrote: post #123
pavlov wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Congress avoided two government shutdowns” is like saying “I avoided pooping in my pants twice today.” It’s factually true and objectively a positive thing, but there’s nothing really commendable about it. The debt ceiling is Congress’s own creation, and Congress itself approves the budgets that cause the increase in debt. There isn’t another parliament on the planet that behaves so absurdly, fighting shadow puppets…

There are plenty of dysfunctional/autocratic/kleptocratic governments based on constitutions that are somewhat democratic in nature. The US is just a high profile example of government structure slowly sliding into one of these failed states (faster if Trump gets another term).

> (faster if Trump gets another term).

I didn't keep track and don't have a good list, but a guess is that Trump did push through a lot of regulatory changes. If the media would publish a well documented list ...!!

From all I've seen, I like Trump, but apparently a lot of people don't. I wonder where am I going wrong.

Why do some people not like him? A guess is the now old collection of video clips from the MSM (mainstream media) still at

https://youtu.be/f1ab6uxg908

Sooo, recently I watched several videos (still at YouTube) of episodes of Trump's old TV show The Apprentice. (1) From the business world I've seen, this guy was definitely, uh, different! In a way, tough to criticize since apparently he was very successful. (2) A surprise was the propensity of mess ups, in fighting of the apparently carefully selected candidates. When I think back, yup, I did see a lot of that but guessed it was incidental and would go away and wasn't too bad -- I was wrong, and Trump's TV show was closer to right. How Trump handled (2) was good to see, although maybe some of it was just "TV".

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#187

Post by OkayPhysicist »

richwater wrote: post #162
amelius wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit like removing a traffic light from an intersection and then after a day saying "see, nothing happened, we don't need regulation from traffic lights". Laissez faire, everything will be alright.

> and then after a day It's been ~5.5 years since "the internet was doomed" by the FTC[0] How long are we supposed to wait for your doom prophecy to realize? [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-exclusive/ex...

California stepped up and passed its own net neutrality law, which effectively killed any widespread adoption of anti-net neutrality practices.

It's not unreasonable for the federal government to step back in to regulate an issue that is firmly within their purview.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#188

Post by s3r3nity »

feoren wrote: post #167

This flip-flopping happens because there is no commonality to find. One of the only (effectively) two major political parties of the United States is completely uninterested in governing. They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. Their only goal is the piecemeal selloff of government powers to the highest bidder, and they convince their stalwart followers of this by making sure…

> They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing.

This is an unfair analysis, and is either naive at best or disingenuous at worst.

I'm not a registered Republican, but I AM strongly against an all-powerful centralized body of government that continues to expand exponentially. I would rather focus powers in a more decentralized direction closer to the individuals and the States themselves. e.g. "Think globally - act locally."

The parent's comment is the EXACT problem that comes with a central government that is too powerful: you have to be mindful that "your party" will not be in "charge" about ~50% of the time.

For a concrete example, I don't like expanding Presidential powers nor extensive use of Executive Orders because likely there will be a president I don't support in that position, and I'd rather her/him NOT have that type of power.

States and local communities are more knowledgable about what their constituents need, and the more local you go, the more homogeneous that group becomes - leading to a higher degree of success for those policies. For example, I have never lived on a farm, nor have every lived remotely _near_ a farm...so how can I properly empathize with their needs or considerations in a fair way?

States and more local forms of government also provide solid grounds for the greatest real-life A/B test of policies in the world: if you are living in an area that doesn't align with your values and/or needs, you have _so many_ other options to consider settling. e.g. if you like living in California where virtually all the policies and politicians are left of center, then great! You can live there and it doesn't impact me in any way over in where I live.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#189

Post by freedomben »

tootie wrote: post #125
SeanAnderson wrote: post #13

I'm happy this reversal occurred, but I am exhausted by the continuous flip-flopping of legislation depending on which party is in charge. Feels like we're stagnating as a nation by going in a circle rather than finding commonality to go forward. Maybe it's always been this way though and I'm just getting old enough to be bothered by it?

[flagged]

ah yes, the good old binary worldview. Such a delightfully simple algorithm.

    def decide_position(position)
      case position.party do
      when GOOD_PARTY
        cheer()
        return true
      when BAD_PARTY
        boo()
        return false
      else
        shutdown()
        raise InvalidPartyError.new "Warning: Logically impossible situation detected. There are only two parties, and one is good and the other is bad.  System shutdown initiated to avoid potential memory corruption"
      end
    end

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#190

Post by slantedview »

s3r3nity wrote: post #188
feoren wrote: post #167

This flip-flopping happens because there is no commonality to find. One of the only (effectively) two major political parties of the United States is completely uninterested in governing. They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. Their only goal is the piecemeal selloff of government powers to the highest bidder, and they convince their stalwart followers of this by making sure…

> They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. This is an unfair analysis, and is either naive at best or disingenuous at worst. I'm not a registered Republican, but I AM strongly against an all-powerful centralized body of government that continues to expand exponentially. I would rather focus powers in a more decentralized direction closer to the individuals and the States themse…

> They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing.

> This is an unfair analysis, and is either naive at best or disingenuous at worst.

It's fair given that the party literally produced no platform ahead of the last presidential election.

Post reply on HN