31–40 of 275 posts
I consider everybody here very smart. In many cases smarter than myself. Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality? Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide. Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch s…
I consider everybody here very smart. In many cases smarter than myself. Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality? Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide. Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch s…
In situations like this, one role of government is to regulate these natural monopolies to protect citizens.
One such regulation, for instance, is that the power company cannot shut off your power in the middle of winter in Minnesota without fulfilling some pretty stringent criteria.
I find it amusing that those in favor of net neutrality consider themselves on the side of freedom.
Freedom of telcos to do as they wish with their pipes vs freedom of users to use the pipes that they pay for access to as they see fit.
Instead of having everyone continue to be pissed off at the shitty monopolistic telcos, and having the telcos continue to be pissed off because we keep demanding that the government squash the telcos' rights to provide a shitty service, let's work to change the situation so that telcos don't get exclusive rights to public resources like land and spectrum.
I consider everybody here very smart. In many cases smarter than myself. Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality? Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide. Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch s…
edit: typos.
I consider everybody here very smart. In many cases smarter than myself. Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality? Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide. Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch s…
Ehm, but Google Fiber doesn't respect net neutrality, see multiple posts on HN about them forbidding servers on the network...
Forbidding servers on their network is a completely rational stance for them to take.
Do you also get upset at "all-you-can-eat" buffets when they don't let you fill a barrel full of food to take home and eat later?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most rights are a balancing act. In this case, the freedom of the ISP is contrary to the freedom of the subscriber, so whose freedom is supreme? I could understand opposition to net neutrality if there were competition in the ISP market. However, I have no choice but to use Comcast, so the idea that they can decide what sites I visit and how fast they are is very scary.
>In this case, the freedom of the ISP is contrary to the freedom of the subscriber, so whose freedom is supreme? No, there is no conflict. This is black and white. I know that HN doesn't want to hear it. The subscribers freedom is to leave for another provider. The provider's freedom is to charge what it wants for whatever service it wants to provide. Only one's freedom is being infringed upon here.
For example, Verizon struck a deal to provide fiber access a few years ago with my parents' hometown. Part of this deal was that no other provider could do the same.
This impinges on the subscriber's freedom to leave for another provider, so your argument falls flat, unless you are ready to invalidate all such agreements with local governments.
I consider everybody here very smart. In many cases smarter than myself. Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality? Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide. Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch s…
I'm very against government regulation, but something it's necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most rights are a balancing act. In this case, the freedom of the ISP is contrary to the freedom of the subscriber, so whose freedom is supreme? I could understand opposition to net neutrality if there were competition in the ISP market. However, I have no choice but to use Comcast, so the idea that they can decide what sites I visit and how fast they are is very scary.
Bullshit. The "freedom" of the subscriber is not on the line. The subscriber can do as they wish. I can't go into a hotel and claim I have the "freedom" to use my room as a distillery just because I paid for the room. The ISP can also regulate bandwidth as they wish. They're a company, not a public organization (depending on where you live). If you don't like it, choose another ISP. If you can't choose another ISP, w…
I consider everybody here very smart. In many cases smarter than myself. Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality? Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide. Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch s…
Setting up telecommunications networks is expensive and legally complex, and the resources involved are extremely limited. The likelihood of a functioning free market in this space is essentially nil. In the absence of a functioning free market, the government is the only entity with the authority to apply regulations for the benefit of the citizenry.