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

FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 745 posts

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

#711

Post by paulhauggis »

anigbrowl wrote: post #656
paulhauggis wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Most of us find significant qualitative differences between using a radio and a web browser or even an app." Even from this statement, I can tell you don't know what I am even talking about. Using is much different than broadcasting. "Yes, it is. People are freely expressing their disagreement with your fallacy-laden arguments." Down voting is not disagreeing. It's silencing. Disagreeing would be actually having a p…

I understand perfectly well what you are talking about. I just think your ideas are foolish. Also, I have no difficulty in reading your posts despite the downvotes they have received, so I'm not sure why you feel you're being silenced. Clearly, this conversation isn't going anywhere, though.

"I understand perfectly well what you are talking about. I just think your ideas are foolish. "

I suppose you sign contracts before looking at them? If so, let's do business!

This is essentially what has happened with the American people and you have nothing to say about it..except personally attacking me. I find this suspect.

Everything I have said is fact: There are 700 regulations, which will control the state of Internet in the US, which absolutely have not been seen by the American public before being passed into law.

This is scary. I'm still unsure why there are so many people that just don't care. We can have Net Neutrality in less than 700 regulations.

The foolishness of the American people is why I have lots of money saved to get out of the country when it finally implodes due to pure laziness.

I have no sympathy going forward..and yes, if there are undesirable consequences, it is your fault.

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

#712

Post by dragonwriter »

paulhauggis wrote: post #711
anigbrowl wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand perfectly well what you are talking about. I just think your ideas are foolish. Also, I have no difficulty in reading your posts despite the downvotes they have received, so I'm not sure why you feel you're being silenced. Clearly, this conversation isn't going anywhere, though.

"I understand perfectly well what you are talking about. I just think your ideas are foolish. " I suppose you sign contracts before looking at them? If so, let's do business! This is essentially what has happened with the American people and you have nothing to say about it..except personally attacking me. I find this suspect. Everything I have said is fact: There are 700 regulations, which will control the state of…

> Everything I have said is fact:

Then you should be able to provide the evidence supporting the claims. Lets start with this one:

> There are 700 regulations

Really? Where is the evidence for this "fact".

> which absolutely have not been seen by the American public before being passed into law.

They are adopted as regulation (under the law, not as law) and will be published before they become effective, and may be changed (e.g., by legislative action) if the American people are sufficiently unhappy with them to compel their Congressional representatives to act.

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

#713

Post by wtbob »

pnut wrote: post #221
covzzire wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ars has been playing on the 'Republicans are against it so it must be good' emotion card for awhile now. That's almost all I see on this issue in the tech media. What's been happening is that all objections are being dismissed as "Republicans lol" and "Fox News reporting so must be wrong". Our national discussion is literally at the level of Jon Stewart's mockery of things that warrant serious discussion.

When was the last time you heard a Republican politician on the national stage raise an issue that was not obviously directed at their base, or donors? A comment that plainly stated a fact in a noninflammatory way? Or proposed a course of action that was not designed to be punitive to some group, or alternately, designed to disproportionately benefit the powerful? Republicans inhabit a carefully-crafted parallel real…

> When was the last time you heard a Republican politician on the national stage raise an issue that was not obviously directed at their base, or donors?

What would you expect a politician to do—raise an issue his supporters don't care about? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

All of your points apply to every politician, and to every talking head.

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

#714

Post by paulhauggis »

dragonwriter wrote: post #712
paulhauggis wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I understand perfectly well what you are talking about. I just think your ideas are foolish. " I suppose you sign contracts before looking at them? If so, let's do business! This is essentially what has happened with the American people and you have nothing to say about it..except personally attacking me. I find this suspect. Everything I have said is fact: There are 700 regulations, which will control the state of…

> Everything I have said is fact: Then you should be able to provide the evidence supporting the claims. Lets start with this one: > There are 700 regulations Really? Where is the evidence for this "fact". > which absolutely have not been seen by the American public before being passed into law. They are adopted as regulation (under the law, not as law) and will be published before they become effective, and may be c…

"Really? Where is the evidence for this "fact"."

Okay. Now you aren't even admitting that there are regulations. Wow. Just Wow.

"They are adopted as regulation (under the law, not as law) and will be published before they become effective, and may be changed (e.g., by legislative action) if the American people are sufficiently unhappy with them to compel their Congressional representatives to act."

Have fun with that. Like I said. I don't want to hear one person coming on HN complaining about worse conditions after these new laws are passed.

I'm going to say this now: I told you so.

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

#715

Post by vcarl »

webXL wrote: post #707
belorn wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Restaurants can't prioritize white customers over black customers. They can't provide more flavorful, healthier food for white customers only, while giving rotten, old, bad food to black customers while charging the same price. ISP's can however charge a higher price for faster speeds, same as a restaurant can charge a higher price for more flavorful and healthier food. competition solve problems when every actor act…

Your discrimination example is a straw man. Not applicable. I'm talking about the menu a restaurant puts together based on the deals and choice they get from suppliers. One supplier may undercut the other. The restaurant may sign a long term deal with a supplier that isn't beneficial to the patrons. Competition is a check on that scenario, just as it is with any market where there is at least a handful of non-colludi…

I think an apt analogy would be if GFS[0] opened a chain of restaurants and started restricting deliveries to other restaurants, unless those restaurants paid an extra fee that the GFS restaurants weren't subject to.

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Food_Service

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

#716

Post by slowmovintarget »

innguest wrote: post #703
mehwoot wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think at least part of it is because the people on HN enjoy solving problems so much. Or we're all cynical assholes. Just possibly.

> Or we're all cynical assholes. Just possibly. Unlikely. HNers are wide-eyed Utopians in the Platonic fashion of believing in virtue through central planning. There is no cynicism here to be found, but in the downvoted comments.

Not a fan of centralized control... I much prefer distributed, concurrent, fault-tolerant, scalable systems. You'd think most HN readership would too.

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

#717

Post by webXL »

vcarl wrote: post #715
webXL wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your discrimination example is a straw man. Not applicable. I'm talking about the menu a restaurant puts together based on the deals and choice they get from suppliers. One supplier may undercut the other. The restaurant may sign a long term deal with a supplier that isn't beneficial to the patrons. Competition is a check on that scenario, just as it is with any market where there is at least a handful of non-colludi…

I think an apt analogy would be if GFS[0] opened a chain of restaurants and started restricting deliveries to other restaurants, unless those restaurants paid an extra fee that the GFS restaurants weren't subject to. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Food_Service

Again, they could only do that if they had monopolistic control of the market. That would be a symptom of problem 2.

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

#718

Post by webXL »

nitrogen wrote: post #650
amikula wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I think that solving problem 2 is the most important, and problem 1, if it is truly a problem, could be solved by a competitive free market. If it's truly possible for new competitors to enter the market, then if problem 1 really matters, market forces will handle it.

if problem 1 really matters, market forces will handle it. Market forces didn't handle seat belts, air bags, fuel efficiency, racial discrimination, taxation without representation, etc. We cannot rely on the market to solve all problems.

Market forces didn't handle those problems because either 1) there was no established market or 2) the problem was institutionalized by government (last 2).

Cars and highways were novel. People wanted them more than they wanted to be sufficiently safe, or fuel-efficient. Volvo is not touting their ultra safe cars because of regulation. The market wants it now. There is a market for that now. It's impossible to prove there would be no market if not for the government regulation. Just look at what we elect to spend on health care. Just look at Tesla and the success of the Prius.

With enough information, people will pay for well-being regardless of government mandates.

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

#719

Post by LLWM »

lmm wrote: post #676
jsprogrammer wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the world of government regulation, is is absolutely the norm for regulations to be voted on before being made public. It's mostly irrelevant what the 'norm' is. Either the process is actually transparent or it's not. Dropping xxx pages after passage is not really transparent. In fact, the 'norm' is usually what we want to be moving away from. The problems that we are trying to solve exist in the 'norm'. It used…

We don't have to fix everything at once. And if someone is making a big fuss about the transparency of this particular regulation, while ignoring the hundreds of regulations that are passed every year in the same way, then it's right to ask whether they have ulterior motives.

Which of those other regulations got this much discussion on HN?

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

#720

Post by steamer25 »

nitrogen wrote: post #650
amikula wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I think that solving problem 2 is the most important, and problem 1, if it is truly a problem, could be solved by a competitive free market. If it's truly possible for new competitors to enter the market, then if problem 1 really matters, market forces will handle it.

if problem 1 really matters, market forces will handle it. Market forces didn't handle seat belts, air bags, fuel efficiency, racial discrimination, taxation without representation, etc. We cannot rely on the market to solve all problems.

Market forces would have handled racial discrimination if the government had done the one job it had to do of equally protecting businesses that were owned by or catered to racial minorities.
Post reply on HN