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

F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 452 posts

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#431

Post by thoughtpolice »

shmerl wrote: post #413
thoughtpolice wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL, it's even better than that, AFAIK. ARPANET was a (D)ARPA project that to my knowledge was started to have computers start interoperating with each other so researchers at universities could easily and generally transfer data and information with each other, e.g. research papers. You may have noticed the 'start' bit. The reason it was 'starting' is because prior to that, corporations did NOT want you to have comp…

> Of course, good luck explaining this shit to a libertarian-infested hellhole like HN: they all believe they're on the cusp of Gettin' Big Bucks, so they don't want a market that allows competition, I'm not sure where you get this idea. Libertarians are pro competition, not anti. So they are actually quite negative towards monopolies and support their prevention.

You say this, but most Libertarians do not really give a fuck about competition, only that the government does not interfere with corporations in any way, and they get theirs (no matter the cost to anyone else). Despite the fact there is boundless amounts of evidence of companies using their influence to force monopolies or crush competition.

Oh, but Libertarians don't like that (allegedly). Well then, their answer is simple: But if you don't like that, just move! Don't support that company! Bootstrap harder! Externalities don't real! That'll show those big mean old companies (nevermind the fact you don't have the money or ability to move or go without services like the internet, making the point moot).

At the end of the day, having dealt with many of them here in Texas, most libertarians are just dumbass 20 something white male Republicans who want to smoke weed and end the Fed. They're a joke, but they're a joke that exist on this site in quite a plentiful manner, as you can see. They don't care about the monopolistic control most ISPs have over their customers in plenty of places in the US. They only care that Obama doesn't get all up in their internet; everything else be damned.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#432

Post by minikites »

droopybuns wrote: post #223
minikites wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good, personal income and corporate taxes have never been lower and we're long overdue for a tax hike.

No, bad. The federal government is no where near its smallest size and no one is happy with how they're executing. The last thing we need is to give them more money and power.

People are unhappy with partisan gridlock, not with the services government provides (i.e. people hate politicians but friggin' love Social Security and Medicare).

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#433

Post by shmerl »

thoughtpolice wrote: post #431
shmerl wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, good luck explaining this shit to a libertarian-infested hellhole like HN: they all believe they're on the cusp of Gettin' Big Bucks, so they don't want a market that allows competition, I'm not sure where you get this idea. Libertarians are pro competition, not anti. So they are actually quite negative towards monopolies and support their prevention.

You say this, but most Libertarians do not really give a fuck about competition, only that the government does not interfere with corporations in any way, and they get theirs (no matter the cost to anyone else). Despite the fact there is boundless amounts of evidence of companies using their influence to force monopolies or crush competition. Oh, but Libertarians don't like that (allegedly). Well then, their answer i…

> but most Libertarians do not really give a fuck about competition, only that the government does not interfere with corporations in any way

No, libertarians are against excessive control over society, not necessarily corporations. I.e. if corporation is a monopoly, it itself gets excessive control over society, so as such libertarians support preventing monopolies. That's the logic behind it. I've never seen a libertarian who is supporting monopoly. It simply sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#434

Post by pekk »

shmerl wrote: post #426
pekk wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. I'm being downvoted presumably because I sound partisan or something, butyou don't have to assume that the people posting here are paid shills because their view is politically mainstream, lots of normal people have these views without being paid. That's all I'm saying. You don't have to assume that one view is astroturfed when there are plenty of people who will line up to defend it for free.

> you don't have to assume that the people posting here are paid shills because their view is politically mainstream That's exactly my point. No mainstream (even partisan) view is supporting monopoly. Such views are normally expressed by corrupted politicians and paid shills. Or you are suggesting that supporting corruption is now mainstream or that some party now is officially against free market even without being…

There is definitely a mainstream view supporting the media companies, and consistently angry about all regulation. This isn't even disputable.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#435

Post by greggyb »

obsurveyor wrote: post #427
greggyb wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Edit: Oh, and as long as censorship never becomes a thing. It is literally illegal to say certain words on television....

It is literally NOT illegal. There are no laws censoring certain words on television in the United States, free air or otherwise. It is against FCC regulations and you can be fined though. All of the laws and rulings have to do with the FCC being able to enforce these regulations and levy fines for breaking them.

"It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent or profane programming during certain hours."[0]

" In addition, a federal district court may impose fines and/or imprisonment for up to two years on those who are convicted of criminal violations of the law."[0] (Emphasis mine)

[0]http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/oip/

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#436

Post by greggyb »

cypher543 wrote: post #337
greggyb wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Edit: Oh, and as long as censorship never becomes a thing. It is literally illegal to say certain words on television....

It is literally illegal to say certain words on free-to-air television between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

So, are we disagreeing about the degree to which there is censorship on a media platform regulated by the government or the existence?

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#437

Post by shmerl »

pekk wrote: post #434
shmerl wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you don't have to assume that the people posting here are paid shills because their view is politically mainstream That's exactly my point. No mainstream (even partisan) view is supporting monopoly. Such views are normally expressed by corrupted politicians and paid shills. Or you are suggesting that supporting corruption is now mainstream or that some party now is officially against free market even without being…

There is definitely a mainstream view supporting the media companies, and consistently angry about all regulation. This isn't even disputable.

> There is definitely a mainstream view supporting the media companies

Supporting companies against excessive regulations in general and supporting monopolies (i.e. preventing antitrust restrictions and supporting aticompetitive market capture) is not the same thing. The first should serve freeing the market. The second serves only reducing its freedom, nothing else.

Also, consider that exactly the same companies who are against enforcing Net neutrality are perfectly fine with the politicians which write for them state laws which ban competition. I.e. blatant excessive regulation, and very unhealthy one with that. Those are the same companies and politicians which at the same time scream about how bad regulation will be if Net neutrality will be enforced. Hypocrisy much? Or may be they simply are against regulation which weakens their monopoly and pro regulation which strengthens it?

As you can see it has nothing to do with partisan or "mainstream" views on regulation in general. It's about greedy monopolists and their bought corrupted bureaucrats. Who in their normal mind would voluntarily support such a thing?

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#438

Post by dmfdmf »

warfangle wrote: post #412
dmfdmf wrote: post #408

I am concerned about the implications for free speech. And I don't mean the freedom to say whatever I want as long as the FCC approves or that I don't piss off a large enough political constituency. If I start a blog to post pictures of Alah am I going to be shut down? What about forums that discuss illegal drug use? How long till the FBI, DEA, etc. petition the FCC to shut these sites down? What about sites like red…

Huh? Which part of the telecommunications act gives the FCC that power, that has not been struck down by the courts?

You can't see past your nose I guess.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#439

Post by WillPostForFood »

dd36 wrote: post #396
WillPostForFood wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Choice means more providers to choose from. Net neutrality is about the content on the wire. If it reduces congestion between Netflix and Comcast, great. But it still means people choose between slow DSL and expensive Cable. What will help is a third, fourth, and fifth options, and this doesn't help. You don't need to be angry about it, no one is astroturfing, and no one spat on your mom. - grab a cold danish beer an…

Why do you want to turn the internet into cable TV?

I don't. Watching TV on the internet is a waste of time. However, for some reason, Netflix congestion is perceived as such big problem that the government is taking over the internet.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#440

Post by dd36 »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #439
dd36 wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you want to turn the internet into cable TV?

I don't. Watching TV on the internet is a waste of time. However, for some reason, Netflix congestion is perceived as such big problem that the government is taking over the internet.

What is the government taking over?
Post reply on HN