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

231–240 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#231

Post by the_gastropod »

lolinder wrote: post #218
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…

This comment isn't directed at OP, it's directed at anyone reading this who might be tempted to get swept up in OP's stereotypes without thinking critically about them. I'm writing this as a left-leaning moderate who grew up among staunch conservatives and understands their philosophy very well. Conservatives sincerely believe that government bureaucracies are less efficient than a free market economy. That's not a c…

I hate to tell you this, but if you can believe it, they're for the second time now, electing the most sadistic candidate to represent their party. This guy has promised to deport millions of people, put them in "camps", use the military to quell "woke" protests, etc.

The sincere Conservative electorate had every opportunity to choose a less-sadistic option. They chose. OP's characterization is perfectly valid.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#232

Post by s3r3nity »

feoren wrote: post #200
s3r3nity wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Homogeneity also comes with its own problems -- smaller, more homogenous governments are much more likely to discriminate against the "out group", for instance. Government grows because what we do grows. We didn't need legislation on airspace and radio waves and net neutrality and cyber bullying when our Constitution was written. In many cases, powers simply come into existence, and I'd rather the government have tho…

> Homogeneity also comes with its own problems -- smaller, more homogenous governments are much more likely to discriminate against the "out group", for instance.

I discriminately support my family more than my neighbors. You probably do too.

I also discriminately support my circle of friends more than the random stranger. You probably do too.

I also don't think a random stranger can come into my home and get equal footing with myself as the homeowner simply because the other person was "out". You probably do too.

Hell, even at the broad government level, US citizens are prioritized over non-citizens - like literally every single country that has ever existed.

This isn't a real problem.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#233

Post by hathawsh »

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…

Don't you think that is a very cynical view? The party or parties you disagree with may not share your views, but they do have many things in common with you. In order to build bridges with other parties, it's important to believe that the majority of people who get involved in government, regardless of party, are motivated primarily by the desire to serve their neighbors and their country; otherwise they would find better ways to spend their time. Without that belief, it will be near impossible to form agreements across the aisle.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#234

Post by Auracle »

al_borland wrote: post #208
s3r3nity wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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. I wish more people had this perspective. The topic of packing the Supreme Court comes to mind. There are people who want Biden to do this, but if does it, what’s stopping the next Republican from doing it too… back and forth until the court is so big it can’t function. These easily won “vict…

Congress had decades to make actual abortion laws, and both sides had times where they were fully in power - not that they shouldn’t have compromised on something like 12 or 15 weeks instead like most European countries.

As far as people’s opinions of the court goes, it really grinds my gears how most people assume the Supreme Court is there to essentially make or strike down laws on their own whims. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. I’m no judicial scholar but it seems to me the current court is doing the best job of what they’re actually supposed to do than they have in a long time.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#235

Post by richwater »

kaibee wrote: post #177
richwater wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

ISPs don't exist in a vacuum. Why would Comcast spend millions of dollars implementing some anti-NN consumer ratfuckery when they'd have to revert it once the next administration came into power? If Comcast knew that it wasn't going to get overturned, then they would take advantage.

> If Comcast knew that it wasn't going to get overturned, then they would take advantage.

So now our logic is based on a crystal ball? Do the goalposts ever stop moving?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#236

Post by bko »

karaterobot wrote: post #29

I'm fully in support of net neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the first place. From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, there weren't major protests, news about it even largely disappeared from the front page of HN (!).…

The proponents of net neutrality thought without it ISPs would just arbitrarily block data and require bribes from data providers to even serve up their data. In reality, no net neutrality would mean things like Netflix not counting as data on your mobile plan through some kind of sponsorship, or free basic internet like Wikipedia and news at a lower cost.

I don't support legislation that bans something undertaken voluntarily unless it proves to be very harmful and the last few years have proven that we don't need this legislation.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#237

Post by [deleted] »

karaterobot wrote: post #29

I'm fully in support of net neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the first place. From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, there weren't major protests, news about it even largely disappeared from the front page of HN (!).…

[deleted]

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#238

Post by whatshisface »

the_gastropod wrote: post #231
lolinder wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment isn't directed at OP, it's directed at anyone reading this who might be tempted to get swept up in OP's stereotypes without thinking critically about them. I'm writing this as a left-leaning moderate who grew up among staunch conservatives and understands their philosophy very well. Conservatives sincerely believe that government bureaucracies are less efficient than a free market economy. That's not a c…

I hate to tell you this, but if you can believe it, they're for the second time now, electing the most sadistic candidate to represent their party. This guy has promised to deport millions of people, put them in "camps", use the military to quell "woke" protests, etc. The sincere Conservative electorate had every opportunity to choose a less-sadistic option. They chose. OP's characterization is perfectly valid.

Trump supporters resonate with that rhetoric because the rent is too high, groceries are too expensive, and inflation doesn't seem to apply to wages. The causes of unrest haven't changed in thousands of years, but they can be convenient to forget.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#239

Post by tivert »

pseudalopex wrote: post #169
tivert wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The rule making process takes time! No, it doesn't take this much time. It's just that net neutrality wasn't a priority for the Biden administration, so they dragged their feet until the very last minute. IIRC, there's been a flurry of rule-making just now because they are running up against a Congressional Review Act deadline.

> It's just that net neutrality wasn't a priority for the Biden administration, so they dragged their feet until the very last minute. The FCC was deadlocked until September 2023 and started this process a few days later. Maybe they could have started in 2022 if Biden had nominated someone else after Republicans blocked his 1st choice. But Democrats believed Republicans would block anyone who would restore net neutra…

> The FCC was deadlocked until September 2023 and started this process a few days later.

I am aware of that.

> Maybe they could have started in 2022 if Biden had nominated someone else after Republicans blocked his 1st choice. But Democrats believed Republicans would block anyone who would restore net neutrality.

And they were proven wrong, and didn't even try to test their theory until half his term was over. That counts as "not a priority" in my book.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#240

Post by s3r3nity »

whaleofatw2022 wrote: post #203
s3r3nity wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Sounds good in theory, but we are more intertwined on private sector levels. As an example, the cost of natgas on the east coast after California's rules limiting coal for power generation. People in nearby states with different COL pick up part of the tab.

> after California's rules limiting coal for power generation.

Great example & case study for the beauty of the US Constitution's "interstate commerce" clause, and one of the areas the federal government _SHOULD_ focus its attention.

Post reply on HN