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

511–520 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#511

Post by iwontberude »

MiguelHudnandez wrote: post #347
chriscappuccio wrote: post #340

What a huge waste of time, effort and resources

Remember when Comcast throttled Netflix to ISDN speeds because... hey... no net neutrality? Those were good times. Comcast's perspective was that Netflix was using "their pipes" for free. Those "pipes" are what their paying customers are paying for. Not to mention the hefty government subsidies that go to cable companies to establish internet service in the first place. A google search today reveals plenty of VPN pro…

In my eyes, we will see a resurgence of P2P and home-hosted services. The reason is that without net neutrality, only companies like Akamai, Netflix, Google, and Meta are able to consistently deliver their bits to customers with low latency and high bandwidth. We have to pay a premium to the VPNs in order to connect to our friends and not get packet loss and jitter. It's one of the main reasons game servers have become so centralized in my opinion.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#512

Post by iwontberude »

richwater wrote: post #60

Remember when the Internet freaked out and "when dark" to protest how the lack of NN would ruin the internet?....and then nothing changed? The boy who cried wolf...again.

Do you remember when we used to self host content and now we have to use a central provider and/or pay a premium to a VPN/CDN?

Net neutrality fucked the internet and its really actually upsetting to me how quickly we as a society had become complacent with the enshittification.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#513

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #501
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> For example, 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. Fraud and slander are not illegal purely on the basis of content of the speech used to conduct the activities. A sufficiently culpable and provable malicious intent must also exist. It's not fraud or slander to state an opinion one sincerely believes in, and obt…

> Fraud and slander are not illegal purely on the basis of content of the speech used to conduct the activities. A sufficiently culpable and provable malicious intent must also exist.

Now point me to where the first amendment says "except in cases where a sufficiently culpable and provable malicious intent also exists". It doesn't say that. It makes no concessions and imposes no bounds itself on the right to declare things freely at all. It states the complete and universal right without any caveats whatsoever. And yet here we are anyway with protection laws imposing caveats, and nobody can faithfully claim that product truthful labeling regulations should be declared unconstitutional, because there is no contradiction between the two if read with a clear mind toward building society rather than destroying it.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#514

Post by tootie »

freedomben wrote: post #189
tootie wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 corrupt…

It's funny that this is the exact opposite of what I said. I said "vote for policy". As it stands one party is at least on the right side of most major policies and one is on the wrong side. You'll never get 100% alignment but the two main parties are generally pretty good and aligning with the sensibilities of major blocs.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#516

Post by cal5k »

sophacles wrote: post #450
cal5k wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> knowledgable, focused people do the work instead of just randomly passing laws based on their twitter feed.

That's not what happens, though. Agency heads are political appointees who take their marching orders from the executive (president). They engage in poor-quality rule-making all the time when it's politically advantageous for the president and/or his party.

Coming from a country with a Westminster system where federal legislation is relatively easy to pass, I strongly believe it's a feature of the US system of government that it's a herculean task for congress to pass new laws and that the executive is very limited in its powers.

The more power that can be devolved to the state and local level, the better - there's no reason to think a small group of people in Washington are capable of making considered decisions on behalf of 330M+ Americans in the majority of circumstances, and that extends to the myriad of federal agencies engaged in the rule-making process.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#517

Post by cal5k »

lenerdenator wrote: post #444
cal5k wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The supreme court has been very clear that congress can't delegate lawmaking to executive agencies. So no, I haven't forgotten that at all.

As for it being a feature, you're right - I think the vast majority of legislating should be done at the state and local level. This isn't a secret, it was covered in the Federalist Papers in the 18th century.

What's your argument in favor of federalizing all aspects of law in a large and heterogenous country? Why does the federal government need to force Texas to ban non-competes when Texas has decided not to do so but California has?

What if the next government decides to force California to un-ban non-competes with a new rule issued by Executive Order? Do you not see why this is an unworkable and brittle approach?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#519

Post by LastTrain »

mindslight wrote: post #460
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.

It's just another system of control. Temporarily embarrassed millionaires and all that. And once the desire for freedom has been transmuted into support for corporate authoritarianism, the money flows and the political hacks get to work shoring up the platform for the sponsors. I don't think 'libertarian' has to be synonymous with 'anarchist', but US libertarianism desperately needs an analog of anarchism-without-adj…

If you made a Venn diagram of self-proclaimed libertarian’s beliefs, the center would be empty. That is the practical definition of libertarian in today’s world.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#520

Post by chrisfinazzo »

jonathankoren wrote: post #332
chrisfinazzo wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm well aware of the procedural votes that occur before something goes before the entire House or Senate...which serve no other practical purpose than to slow things down. It should not be possible under any circumstances for a single vote -- in an instance where that vote would not make or break a tie among the majority -- to doom a bill that a majority of the caucus supports.

Glares in the direction of the Freedom Caucus, many of whom should have been expelled from Congress after 1/6

In addition, the shitshow that is the amendment process demonstrates that our representatives have long forgotten how to craft comprehensive legislation that has even a chance of addressing all potential concerns.

Again, if I had a magic wand for a day to fix Congress, I'd dissolve it and reconstitute the chambers as a parliament...but how exactly to do that is an argument for another day.

Post reply on HN