FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote • Hacker News Board

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#141

Post by unprepare » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:09 PM UTC

smtddr wrote: post #112

travie7273 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. IBM, Intel, and Cisco are against it. My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations. It's odd that people like you can't fathom that there are two sides to this issue.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/jostling-begins-as-fccs-net-neut... """Google has grown. And strong net neutrality rules are now no longer a top company priority. They could even be a hindrance. Officially, Google hasn’t taken a formal position on the president’s net neutrality proposal.""" I fail to understand how this could hurt Google. If ISPs start modifying speed and/or access to certain domains I can only see that…

I think you are on the right track

If you are google with billions in the bank, what does it matter to you if Comcast wants to charge you a little bit more? The real effect is that entrenched powers get further entrenched because of less access to alternatives.

Lets say Comcast wanted to charge search providers 500million dollars. Thats not a lot of money from Googles search engine profits. But how much is 500 million of Bings budget? Yahoos? DuckDuckGo? I would be surprised if every search provider was willing and able to pay fees like this.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#142

Post by wpietri » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:09 PM UTC

CzechsMix wrote: post #116

Selfcommit wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your account was created 15 min ago and has 6 Karma - Can you back up who you are at all?

That's a little Ad hom for my taste. If he's making bad points, attack and refute those. Not him.

As another brand new account, I could see why you'd say that. But in practice, our understanding of what people say is rooted in who they are.

If somebody wants to write a book making a formal, evidence backed argument on something, I'm less concerned with who they are. But when somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentences, asking who they are and what their motivations are is much more reasonable. Especially on a topic where, as with this one, billions of dollars are on the line.

There are now plenty of people whose whole job is to argue a party line that may have no relation to the truth or to what the speaker believes. There's literally no point in having a serious discussion with, say, a tobacco company PR rep, because they are paid to mislead people forever, to never be convinced, and to distort the dialog as long as possible. With somebody like that, treating them like an honest interlocutor is not only a waste of time, but I believe it actively harms the discussion.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#143

Post by ForHackernews » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:09 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #97

supergeek133 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what scares me, what was there to hide?

There isn't. Everything gets published. The vote on the rule change came after a public comment period. This thread is just full of HN's intellectually-challenged users waving their hands and saying "ooooOOOOoooo GOVERNMENT! SCARY GOVERNMENT! BE AFRAID OF SCARY GOVERNMENT! ooooOOOOoooo!"

I don't even think it's HN users. There's a bunch of zero-day accounts in here parroting anti-NN talking points.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#144

Post by FireBeyond » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:09 PM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #45

ForHackernews wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulating the internet like a utility is quite possibly the worst thing you can imagine, and now its come to reality. Why? My electricity and water work a hell of a lot better than my cable internet.

Yes, but both electricity and water don't really require innovation in the future. I can't remember the last time I wanted higher speed water in my house.

Right. We have zero issues with water availability in the world. I guess those billions being poured into desalination, water recycling and alternatives are all, forgive the pun, money down the drain?

And you're absolutely right - we have zero need for alternative energy sources (although on that, it's kinda true - I've no particular issue with nuclear fission per se, though we need to figure out something better in regards to storage, and nuclear fusion is something that merits a huge deal of research into commercial viability).

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#145

Post by copsarebastards » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:09 PM UTC

travie7273 wrote: post #91

chetanahuja wrote: post #76

Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Reading commen…

Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. IBM, Intel, and Cisco are against it. My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations. It's odd that people like you can't fathom that there are two sides to this issue.

    user:	travie7273
    created:	27 minutes ago

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#146

Post by stellar678 » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:10 PM UTC

CzechsMix wrote: post #116

Selfcommit wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your account was created 15 min ago and has 6 Karma - Can you back up who you are at all?

That's a little Ad hom for my taste. If he's making bad points, attack and refute those. Not him.

Given the accusation that this thread is full of astroturfing, the account karma and age of posters seem like very relevant information.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#147

Post by cratermoon » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:10 PM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #132

chetanahuja wrote: post #76

Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Reading commen…

"This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates" It's disingenuous to call an opposing opinion "astro-turfing" in an attempt to discredit them. There are 700 total rules to the regulation. We haven't been able to see one of them. This doesn't concern you in any way? "and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US." Tell…

> We haven't been able to see one of them

How is that different from the other FCC policies? It's only the opposition echo chamber repeating the "secret Obama plan to control the Internet" spin.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#148

Post by gregwtmtno » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:10 PM UTC

chetanahuja wrote: post #76

Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Reading commen…

If you'll notice, the lines of attack closely mirror the anti-Obamacare lines.

"700 regulations and no one has even read it!" is very close to the "No one — not one single member of Congress — has read the bill" Michael Steel was using in 2009.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#149

Post by mwsherman » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:10 PM UTC

chetanahuja wrote: post #76

Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Reading commen…

This argument is the essence of ad hominem. First, that disagreement is unreasonable. Second, that those who disagree have ulterior motives.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#150

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:10 PM UTC

product50 wrote: post #68

strictnein wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you've read all the new regulations? Which one is the best?

Stop being so cynical. Not sure what is up with this community. When FCC was reluctant to do anything on net neutrality everyone here was up in arms. Now that FCC has passed something, you are still up in arms. So much cynicism - for all you know most of the regulations passed might be pro-consumer. At least I would like to believe that it is better than the current model - which in itself is a good step forward.

[deleted]