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

331–340 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#331

Post by sircastor »

struant wrote: post #209
slantedview wrote: post #190

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

I would say that is unfair because their actual platform is deliberately sabotaging any kind of functional governance and refusing to change any government policy that is clearly broken and in desperate need of change. Obviously they won't admit that. But that is what they have been doing for decades. They wouldn't want to accidentally make things better for people because then they can't campaign on fixing the probl…

I recall reading or hearing that a bunch of senior GOP leadership got together immediately after Barack Obama’s election and agreed explicitly that their approach was going to be obstruction.

And that worked, but then the next generation of elected party members seemed to be obstructionist only. So much so that in 2017 when they held the executive branch and both houses of congress, they couldn’t get anything done.

We’re all sleeping in that bed that they made.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#332

Post by jonathankoren »

chrisfinazzo wrote: post #77
jonathankoren wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not realize it, but this is exactly how it works in the House of Representatives today, and is the exact cause of dysfunction.

I should have been more precise - the Senate's rules are garbage and should be hurled into the Sun. More generally, my comments come from watching PMQ's in the House of Commons and seeing that the party out of power really doesn't have many tools to slow down the opposite sides agenda. If such a system was implemented in the US, it would force politicians to more carefully consider their positions -- no confidence vo…

You’re fundamentally misunderstanding what is going on. There are a majority number of votes to support popular legislation. These bills are simply not brought to a vote BY THE MAJORITY PARTY due to internal majority party politics.

Nothing in your facile proposal would remedy this. What would fix the problem would be change to the rules so that simple majority could bring legislation to a vote. This does not exist in any functional way.

And we haven’t even touched on the fact that the majority of seats are often controlled by a minority of voters due to gerrymandering and the constitutional structure of the senate.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#333

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

bedhead wrote: post #288
skyfaller wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree that the Republicans do not have a plan. They have a very clear and public plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 Yes, they spend a lot of energy on obstructing the government from functioning, and creating a naked kleptocracy to use the government to funnel money into their own pockets. But they are also moving openly towards a fascist dictatorship with very specific ideas about how soci…

Remember when there was no net neutrality and everything...worked great?

ISPs knew this would happen if Trump lost in '20, they never acted on it's repeal in the first place. We'll almost certainly get to see what the no-neutrality internet really looks like if Trump wins this year...

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#334

Post by dantheman »

notatoad wrote: post #45
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 (!).…

>What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? there's usually some principled people in the government, and every now an then when an issue is obscure enough they can manage to get something done without the other side caring too much. what's the impetus for blocking this?

it's not needed, the fcc doesnt have the authority, keeping the government away from internet is a good thing

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#335

Post by electrondood »

ModernMech wrote: post #320
bityard wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poor state of democracy in the US is not a one-party problem, it's a two-party problem. My proof is the fact that each party holds almost exactly 50% of the mindshare of the US. As far as I can tell, this was achieved through gerrymandering, one party automatically and consistency taking the opposite view of a contentious issue the moment the other adopts any particular stance, and backroom deals among congress a…

> I predict that if one of the parties fails and dissolves due to severe missteps, there will be a period of severe democratic instability, followed by a split of the surviving party into two major factions, each of which settles out at around exactly 50% of voter mindshare again. I actually see this too. The Republican party is on the verge of collapse not because of anything Democrats have done, but because of what…

Me too. At least we'd have people on the playing field who agree to the fundamental rules of democracy. Rules like "when you lose an election, you concede and transfer power."

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#336

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

paulddraper wrote: post #116
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.

> No one is paying increased costs because their neighbor is watching netflix, youtube, or browsing reddit Increased bandwidth = Increased costs Who do you think is paying?

I already paid for my bandwidth.

I bought a 1 gigabit connection. If the 10-20 mbps data stream from Netflix is overloading my ISP, then my ISP is not providing me with what I paid for.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#337

Post by mastre_ »

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 (!).…

This reminds me when I got a “survey” email from ERCOT, the entity that oversees Texas’ “deregulated” energy provider racket. I was ready to lay into them hard, but starting with the second or third questions, it was clear that all they were concerned about was to _sell_ new products — ZERO interest in hearing feedback of how terrible the system for end users, they just want to sell some sort of outage insurance product (“would you pay $5 to be protected from a 30 minute or less outage one time?”).

I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t a less than noble ulterior motive behind this push, although I’m hoping for the best. Sounds like the main reason it may actually make sense to bring it back from their PoV is because ISPs have to deal with individual state laws.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#338

Post by dang »

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…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40160755.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#339

Post by dang »

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…

Please don't start tedious political flamewars on HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN