Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 286 posts

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#191

Post by lucb1e »

kevando wrote: post #131
raverbashing wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google, Apple and Netflix just have to bribe harder

I'm not sure. Google is very aware that 100% of their userbase (and revenue) are one click away from using another search engine. If this decision makes it more difficult for a start up to create a better way for people to search the internet, you can see why Google might not put up a fight..

> Google is very aware that 100% of their userbase (and revenue) are one click away from using another search engine.

Actually, google outperforms all other search engines. It seems some people prefer duckduckgo (as search engine i mean, not just for the other features), but most i heard people couldn't get the same results (including myself).

Secondly, Google is much more than search nowadays. 100% of their income isn't gone just like that.

And they have the means to make a stance against paying extra by informing the public. Not to mention Google Fiber.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#193

Post by dredmorbius »

The Edge in one of its recent "Question" issues ran a piece by Charles Seife on capture, in response to the question "what should we be worried about".

It's a tremendous problem, and not just of government (principle-agent problems in management and business are also rampant). Recommended reading:

http://edge.org/response-detail/23674

And the answer isn't "don't regulate". It's "regulate appropriately and effectively". Just realize that this is an eternal challenge.

NB: Sadly the formatting of the questions and responses is horrible. In particular, navigating the full list by title is all but impossible. I've highlighted the specific essay in question.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#194

Post by kevando »

lucb1e wrote: post #191
kevando wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure. Google is very aware that 100% of their userbase (and revenue) are one click away from using another search engine. If this decision makes it more difficult for a start up to create a better way for people to search the internet, you can see why Google might not put up a fight..

> Google is very aware that 100% of their userbase (and revenue) are one click away from using another search engine. Actually, google outperforms all other search engines. It seems some people prefer duckduckgo (as search engine i mean, not just for the other features), but most i heard people couldn't get the same results (including myself). Secondly, Google is much more than search nowadays. 100% of their income i…

You're right, Google is by far the best. I tried using bing,duck,yahoo and none of them even come close, but that doesn't mean everyone else who uses Google values the same features that I do. Pretty soon people might want to search based on what their friends like, and suddenly Facebook becomes the new discovery engine. It's not too far fetched.

And yeah, not 100% of revenue, but it's like 95%

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#195

Post by vxNsr »

sjtrny wrote: post #107
Selfcommit wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a 100mbps connection.. I live in NJ. It costs me $80 a month (Which is robbery IMO). But still, I have it.

Here in Australia with the most mainstream ISP it costs $90/month for 200GB and a theoretical max speed of 24 Mbits/s via ADSL2 (I only get 10). By global standards you are not being robbed.

throwaway2048 really hit the crux of the argument but let me be a little more specific: you too are being robbed.

And I understand that Australia is a HUGE country with a tiny population/sqmi so at least for the next few years they kinda have to "steal" from you to make it profitable in the long run (same thing happened/is happening with our wireless services here) but still it's not really a fair rate to charge you and you should be always lobbying for less.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#196

Post by rtpg »

seehafer wrote: post #153
dsr_ wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money. There are 100 senators. 34 or so come up for election every two years. Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. The most expensive campaigns spend about $20M; the tenth most expensive campaign spends about $5M. The margin between D and R in the Senate is 8. Form a SuperPAC and fund it with about $75M. Ensure the election of a crop of senators who know what the key issue…

> Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. Source? Tell that to Meg Whitman. The biggest problem I have with the argument about limiting the amount of money that can be spent in elections is that it essentially implies that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. So shouldn't the solution be a more informed (however you want to do accomplish that) electorate?

A big problem is candidates with little cash might have problems getting their existence out there. More than limiting spending, providing more airtime for registered candidates might go a long way.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#197

Post by seehafer »

turing wrote: post #167
seehafer wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. Source? Tell that to Meg Whitman. The biggest problem I have with the argument about limiting the amount of money that can be spent in elections is that it essentially implies that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. So shouldn't the solution be a more informed (however you want to do accomplish that) electorate?

I imagine it's a whole lot easier to pass campaign finance regulation than it is to transform a population of hundreds of millions of people into an intelligent, knowledgeable, rational group.

That's not the only way of making a more educated electorate. Another method would be to limit the electorate.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#199

Post by seehafer »

chc wrote: post #171
seehafer wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. Source? Tell that to Meg Whitman. The biggest problem I have with the argument about limiting the amount of money that can be spent in elections is that it essentially implies that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. So shouldn't the solution be a more informed (however you want to do accomplish that) electorate?

> The biggest problem I have with the argument about limiting the amount of money that can be spent in elections is that it essentially implies that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. So shouldn't the solution be a more informed (however you want to do accomplish that) electorate? This is true in somewhat the same way that the solution to teenage pregnancy is just to get all the teens to practice abstine…

I grant there are problems that are relatively more tractable or intractable, but I challenge the notion that limiting how much money can be spent on political campaigns is the solution to a problem of an uniformed electorate. Why does limiting every candidate to some level n of spending necessarily lead us to better governance?

Further, in your analogy, I'd argue that the equivalent to teaching abstinence is the idea that we can somehow legislate political contributions and then large political contributions will disappear from the surface of the earth.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#200

Post by seehafer »

LandoCalrissian wrote: post #168
seehafer wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. Source? Tell that to Meg Whitman. The biggest problem I have with the argument about limiting the amount of money that can be spent in elections is that it essentially implies that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. So shouldn't the solution be a more informed (however you want to do accomplish that) electorate?

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-ho... Here are quite a few numbers that back his claim. There are of course exceptions, but for the most part the candidate with the most money wins.

This is useful, thanks. Though I wonder if the connection is causal.
Post reply on HN