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

491–500 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#491

Post by graycat »

ModernMech wrote: post #404
graycat wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I watched your video -- it's media personalities babbling. Yup, but maybe it and related media stuff is responsible for much of the anti-Trump opinions there are. I thought the collection was outrageous, insulting, and dirty politics but settled on it being entertaining. > rape A NY jury found Trump guilty of WHAT with his fingers? If Trump entered Carroll's dressing room, she was supposed to scream loudly enough t…

> A NY jury found Trump guilty of WHAT with his fingers? Rape. I linked to the court's opinion stating this. What the judge makes clear is that "rape" as a matter of law in NY is with a penis only. That Trump raped was with his fingers does not make his rape any less rape. The jury’s unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was wh…

I'm still trying to evaluate Trump and understand the anti-Trump people.

Thanks for your references and remarks.

Okay, from some of the news, I concluded that the J6 issues were from what Trump did on J6 and some role for him in the disturbance that day at the Capitol building. But your claim is that, instead, the issue is about some things Trump did in 11/5/2020 to 1/6/2021 as claimed by the J6 committee and that constitute an attempted "coup". (A) I can't trust the J6 committee even for the time of day. (B) If Trump did something illegal (jay walking doesn't count) in 11/5/2020 to 1/6/2021, then we should have some actual credible legal actions instead of just the J6 committee of Congress. (C) Just from common sense, tough for me to believe that Trump intended anything like a "coup", but is dreaming of a "coup" itself actually illegal?

Trump may have strongly suspected that (a) he actually won the the 2020 election, (b) the election was stolen by illegal means, and (c) he wanted to defend himself. Sounds reasonable, okay, and not surprising or at all illegal. He has a right to defend himself? Right?

For the DC lawsuit, the PDF file seems to make clear that (A) Trump said some things that were well within his rights of freedom of speech but (B) as in the first actual charge in the PDF, Trump was still being charged with some consequences of that free speech? Looks like law-fare.

For Carroll, if Trump did something she didn't like, she should have, was supposed to, scream in which case there would be lots of objective, credible witnesses from that department store.

As I understand the legal results, Trump was convicted of "sexual abuse". Inserting fingers, sure, would be a case of sexual abuse, but just breast fondling may also be. All we have from the jury is "sexual abuse" and that's not necessarily "rape". That Trump is a convicted rapist seems to have poor support; seems to be false.

Also a porn star who did not scream is not credible; that is, if not consensual, then scream. That Trump, married, running for POTUS, and not stupid did anything wrong with Carroll is not credible.

NY AG Letitia James, out to "get Trump", and Judge Engoron and his 1/2 $billion fine are not credible and instead, just obvious via common sense, look like Democrat Party law-fare. Trump's loan application had a disclaimer, and the loan companies are all happy. The area in square feet of part of Trump Tower or the value of Mar-a-Lago seem irrelevant; claiming that those two are relevant looks like more law-fare.

(A) NY DA Bragg's many felony charges based on some goofy issue about some tiny accounting issue past statute of limitations and some goofy accusation about Federal campaign law and (B) Judge Juan Merchan and his efforts to keep Trump in court and quiet look like kangaroo court, election interference law-fare.

In Georgia, Fulton DA Fani Willis and her boyfriend got, what, $600,000 reasons to go after Trump? Looks like more Democrat Party law-fare.

There is a pattern here: Democrat Party law-fare against Trump.

Sorry, so far I don't see anything seriously wrong with Trump and don't understand the anti-Trump people.

We will have to agree to disagree and look forward to the election.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#492

Post by itopaloglu83 »

snailmailman wrote: post #476
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…

Many plans do throttle. On my “unlimited data” cell phone plan, YouTube, Netflix, etc all can only really load at 480p, even in areas where speeds are fast enough for hd video. In those areas, I can use a vpn and easily get hd video. Although, the cell network is pretty terrible where I am, and more often than not there is no hope for streaming hd video.

It’s really infuriating when T-Mobile forces YouTube down to 420p and then says (roughly) “you can get 720p with only $10 a month” condescendingly.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#493

Post by diordiderot »

xondono wrote: post #487

The amount of pro-net neutrality in here is a clear demonstration of the opinion forming power of John Oliver, by dressing the issue as affecting users instead of companies. A lot of people seem very confused about what “neutrality” means, and it’s consequences. As an analogy, VAT is an equal tax (everyone pays the same VAT) but it’s a very non-progressive tax (it burdens poor people more than rich people. Your ISP d…

ISPs don't want to charge they want to extort.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#494

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

codewiz wrote: post #485
euroderf wrote: post #481

While they're at it they could restore the FCC fairness doctrine, repealed in 1987.

As a United States immigrant, I had never heard of the fairness doctrine before. My first thought is: how would it be compatible with the freedom of the press granted by the First Amendment?

There's a ton of precedence for fraud protection law blocking perverse applications of the first amendment. The right to free speech is not a right to commit fraud or slander against another. If it were, society would fall into catastrophic disarray. I can say what I want, but if I lie to you or try to trick or swindle you there are allowed to be consequences.

It should be obvious here that even the most succinctly and universally stated rights have certain correct limits needed to protect society from individual selfishness.

So the fairness doctrine can be seen as compatible with the first amendment in exactly the same way that consumer protection laws against false advertising are compatible with the first amendment, because it is observably the case that a media institution selectively using its platform to attempt to control and direct the public mindset in a particular direction is itself a form of intentional public harm for selfish interests.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#495

Post by bko »

acdha wrote: post #389
bko wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is something I found. Seems like "unfair" since they're favoring their videos but as a user its okay by me since I get something for free and preventing them from not counting their content doesn't mean they'll necessarily just drop their data cap. If ISPs just behave because it's always just a ruling away, then I'm fine with that status quo. I don't want unintended consequences from invasive legislation that co…

> invasive legislation that could eventually be used to control what ISPs can show us What specific legal principle do you think would lead to this? Network neutrality is the polar opposite of that - it’s like arguing that we shouldn’t have restaurant health codes because the government could start requiring us to eat peas.

It's a precedent that government can tell ISPs and others what they can provide you. Once they have that in place, it's not a stretch to imagine them furthering that power for political purposes.

Think about surveillance legislation after 9/11. None of it applied to domestic population originally

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#496

Post by bko »

throw10920 wrote: post #437
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…

> 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. You seem pretty pro-free-market, so here's the free-market angle: things like zero-rated Netflix on your mobile plan and free "basic" internet are market distortions . Companies are abusing the lack of net neutrality t…

What's wrong with bundling or discounting?

There's two ways to make money: bundling and unbundling. Zoom and slack unbundled video chat from places like Google workspace and similar software suites. A company like clickup tries to bundle all that stuff as a one stop shop (tagline is one app to replace them all)

If anything more offers would increase competitiom as it's a bigger vector to make a sale.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#497

Post by redeeman »

ModernMech wrote: post #431
redeeman wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

did they actually reinstate? isnt it just that newer legislation was made illegal, and it DEFAULTED back to this, where there is proposals by republicans to make legislation that in many ways mirrors most EU countries, but that is unacceptable to the democrats?

"just that".... the newer legislation was made illegal by Republicans, and Republicans decided the 1864 law is still valid. This is how you roll back the country 160 years. And it's not just that this particular law is literally from 1864, it's that even new laws are mirroring these 160 year old laws. Many have no exception for rape, incest, or the life of the mother [1]. That's barbaric. The reason that Democrats fi…

its very obvious that you are grossly misrepresenting things. If you have an old law that for whatever reason was there, and a newer one is removed, this is how it works. And to suggest that the republicans decided to roll back to 1864 is simply dishonest and intentional misrepresentation. This is the exact sort of thing that makes compromises less likely to happen. One side will GROSSLY misrepresent what the other side does, making conversation and compromise impossible.

Also, you are wrong. The week-number cutoff for abortion for example can EASILY be used as a benchmark for what should be allowed, regardless of what other healthcare is available. I am not from the US, nor am I a supporter of the republican OR democratic party, but it is blindingly obvious that the democrats are WAY less willing to compromise on anything than the republicans, and attempts to use emotion and misrepresent to extreme levels, and on this particular issue, its very obvious that democrats are the obstructionists and extremists, and 100% unwilling to go out of their reality distortion field. On other issues, republicans are insane, but it is a different insane (and different does NOT mean less). And more importantly, NONE of these parties are good for the people, both are abominations that only serve their own agenda

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#498

Post by bko »

komali2 wrote: post #443
bko wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 am…

I dont there's anything inherently different about Internet delivery. There's some last mile problems and some services no market exists because the cost would be higher than people are willing to pay. Internet service is expensive and maybe the high fixed cost makes it so only a few people can deliver and they can charge monopoly prices. There are also regulations that could make this expensive to provide too

But you can't just look at final price with a lower price being good. If some municipal service costs half the price but it costs taxpayers the other half, is that better? Maybe if you think they have a right to this service and you're okay with subsidizing it. But there is no free lunch, someone is paying.

I think ultimately you want it to be provided by private market if possible. So leaving it open at a high price encourages others to try and innovate. Think about starlink. If government was providing Internet to everyone for below market prices, no innovation would happen because they essentially crowded out private industry. So in the long run it would be much more expensive and opaque. You lose a market signal through artificially low prices

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#499

Post by fingerlocks »

snailmailman wrote: post #476
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…

Many plans do throttle. On my “unlimited data” cell phone plan, YouTube, Netflix, etc all can only really load at 480p, even in areas where speeds are fast enough for hd video. In those areas, I can use a vpn and easily get hd video. Although, the cell network is pretty terrible where I am, and more often than not there is no hope for streaming hd video.

Mobile carriers have always been excluded from net neutrality, but even so, this doesn’t apply anyway. NN regulates the L3 peering agreements

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#500

Post by xav0989 »

bko wrote: post #496
throw10920 wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You seem pretty pro-free-market, so here's the free-market angle: things like zero-rated Netflix on your mobile plan and free "basic" internet are market distortions . Companies are abusing the lack of net neutrality t…

What's wrong with bundling or discounting? There's two ways to make money: bundling and unbundling. Zoom and slack unbundled video chat from places like Google workspace and similar software suites. A company like clickup tries to bundle all that stuff as a one stop shop (tagline is one app to replace them all) If anything more offers would increase competitiom as it's a bigger vector to make a sale.

Another hypothetical: your isp zero rates the news sites with a given political leaning, but not yours. Reading the news that they want you to costs nothing, whereas reading the news that you want, or getting an alternative perspective on a story costs you something.
Post reply on HN