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

441–450 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#441

Post by pseudalopex »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #357
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The rule making process takes time! It really didn't have to in this case. It would have been perfectly acceptable to crib California's NN law, ctrl-r "California" "United States of America" and call it a day.

They couldn’t seat the fifth person (democrat) because the GOP was blocking it. As soon as the person was seated, they moved forward with restoring net neutrality. Hands were tied until then because they couldn’t get the 3-2 vote. They didn’t have 5 until September 2023 so it’s been just over half a year

Republicans and Manchin.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#442

Post by pseudalopex »

int_19h wrote: post #412
komali2 wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American libertarian dream confuses me because unlike libertarians abroad (where it's a synonym with "anarchist") they stop with political authority, and seem to have no issue with corporate authority. The ISP business in the USA is very clearly an oligopoly with the top players colluding. Not sure how a rugged individual is supposed to fight back against that.

The usual claim in right libertarian circles is that monopolies only arise because they can bribe the government into passing laws that enable them to exist.

Or everyone is happy with the monopoly.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#443

Post by komali2 »

bko wrote: post #435
komali2 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd genuinely like to understand why you think corporations, whose success is measured by profit and basically nothing else, are more likely to do things that are good for people than governments, whose success is measured at least a little bit by the wellbeing of their constituents. I really want to better understand the thinking of people who hold opinions like yours.

It’s easier for me to switch which business I give my money to than it is for me to move or change governments. Most of the services I use are provided by private industry and I have choices. Everything from food, clothing, shelter. All private corporations I choose to buy from. I guess I can go get my food from a government soup kitchen or apply for government housing but my experience is these services are not comp…

Interesting. Personally I believe people should have total freedom to change governments, but I'm a utopian thinker so /shrug though I wonder in such a world whether you'd feel the same way. "Too Like the Lightning" explored this if you enjoy sci-fi.

I'm hung up on something though - in this specific subject, there's been massive market capture in the USA by one to four ISPs, depending on region. For most of rural america (something insane like 80% of the geography) there's only one provider. In these situations, the provider provides subpar service, often asking for handouts from the government before being willing to build more infrastructure (hm.. is that still "private?").

On the other hand, some local governments have simply built their own broadband networks, with far better results: https://communitynets.org/content/community-network-map and they have some of the highest satisfaction ratings in the nation https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/teleco...

If the private market is better, why does Comcast, which routinely wins "worst company in america" awards, still exist, despite providing abysmal service to its customers? Surely a private enterprise could have eaten their lunch by now?

If the private market is better, why are local governments providing the highest rated internet services in America?

So basically, your feeling rests in the belief that you have more choice when it comes to private options - but in telecom, that doesn't seem to be the case, and of the options available, they're all widely considered to suck. Perhaps this isn't true for every industry, Stalin and Mao certainly showed us that it doesn't work for food, but does that mean the private option is better for everything we use? What does it mean to have a "private highway" system, or a "private fire department?"

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#444

Post by lenerdenator »

cal5k wrote: post #37
tatelax wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Election coming up

All of the new "rules" being proposed by executive agencies will be subject to court challenge, and some of them (like the FTC's non-compete "rule") will likely be subject to a preliminary injunction. The goal is to get people to think "Yeah! Taking action on non-competes is great! Darn politicized courts!", when in reality this is not something an executive agency should be doing without an act of congress, or it ma…

People with this viewpoint seem to forget that Congress often granted these agencies these powers, or at least, were vague enough in their definition to allow it to plausibly happen.

It's also worth noting that many of the people who demand that Congress do these things instead of bureaucrats are saying that in bad faith; that is, they don't want it done at all and know Congress can't possibly come to an agreement on it because they're the same people funding the campaigns of representatives who go out of their way to sink the legislative process.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#445

Post by School-Cotton »

komali2 wrote: post #397
bko wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vo…

I'd genuinely like to understand why you think corporations, whose success is measured by profit and basically nothing else, are more likely to do things that are good for people than governments, whose success is measured at least a little bit by the wellbeing of their constituents. I really want to better understand the thinking of people who hold opinions like yours.

In theory, if people don’t perceive corporations as improving their well-being, they will stop being customers. Also in theory, if people don’t perceive governments as doing so, they will vote in different politicians.

In practice, both effects exist, but are not perfectly efficient for lots of different reasons. That’s why neither Stalinist planned economies nor right-libertarian total lack of regulation work well overall, and the correct approach is somewhere in the middle and different for different sectors (and different countries).

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#446

Post by 4RealFreedom »

EasyMark wrote: post #423
dantheman wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is keeping the government away from roads a good thing? From helping poor people with basic necessities of life? Keeping children out of workhouses?

Where did anyone say that?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#447

Post by clarkdale »

pyuser583 wrote: post #421

I thought Net Neutrality was a “has been” idea … Opponents have been doing a victory lap for some time. COVID especially showed how much better the US Internet expands and contracts based on demands. As far as I know, nobody has accused ISPs of throtteling Netflix. The whole idea behind CDNs is we should stop treating all Internet users as equals, and connect based on geography. Not dystopian censorship, but the sort…

This is why Netflix built fast.com

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#448

Post by ohdannyboy »

vampiresdoexist wrote: post #439
ohdannyboy wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably because none of the hysterics or doomsday propaganda actually came to pass.

Hm. I would encourage a different, less intense angle here. It’s possible the doomsday didn’t come to pass because a lot of passionate people worked very hard to make sure we avoided it.

Possible, but is there any reason to believe so? I'm open to hear it.

The whole point was that companies like Comcast don't give a crap what we think and will engage in this anti competitive behavior unless the FCC stops them. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt they would if it was in their financial interest.

But can we agree that it is also possible that market incentives aligned and the infographics depicting tv-bundle-like internet packages weren't actually around the corner? To me it seems like the easier explanation. The incentive could be as simple as Comcast not wanting a new monopoly court case or to start being classified as a utility in areas where they have no real competition.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#449

Post by wmf »

pyuser583 wrote: post #421

I thought Net Neutrality was a “has been” idea … Opponents have been doing a victory lap for some time. COVID especially showed how much better the US Internet expands and contracts based on demands. As far as I know, nobody has accused ISPs of throtteling Netflix. The whole idea behind CDNs is we should stop treating all Internet users as equals, and connect based on geography. Not dystopian censorship, but the sort…

Several ISPs used intentional congestion to extort Netflix into paying peering fees they shouldn't have to pay. AFAIK Netflix is still paying.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#450

Post by sophacles »

cal5k wrote: post #414
sophacles wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: Is it less democratic because unlike laws, there's an open comment period for the public to make their voice heard? (unlike laws or executive orders) Is it less democratic because it's policy being implemented by people who spend a lot of time thinking about the policy and its effects, rather than by some blowhard trying to score culture war points on twitter than making a policy?

I'm confused by your questions. Are you suggesting that ignoring the structure of government carefully laid out in the constitution and agreed upon by every state in the union is more democratic because you like the outcome? This is happening in an election year, so the office of the presidency is driving this for political reasons. I sincerely doubt you'd be comfortable having someone you disagree with politically w…

I was building on what the comment i replied to said. The concept of "more democratic" is kind of strange. So i comment on things that have elements of democracy.

My first question merely pointed out that the process that exists, with a public comment period etc, is in some ways more democratic than congress passing laws. That is - this is a place where the rulemaking is more inclusive of the public than some having some trash that got themselves elected passing laws on behalf of people they don't actually talk to or consult about those laws.

The second is actually a statement about how it's shockingly responsble for the selfish idiots that get themselves into congress to have somewhat knowledgable, focused people do the work instead of just randomly passing laws based on their twitter feed.

The end of the process initated by executive order in 2021 is happening this year, yes. I've seen people I like and dislike wield that power. Witha ll of them I've agreed with some of the policies they had and disagreed with others. I'm comfortable with it happening generally, but i wish congress would be a little more involved and representative of the people when they set up those powers and issue the directional laws that these people administer. That is not an issue with methodology though, just political opinion about the specific policies.

Post reply on HN