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

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

#741

Post by paulhauggis » Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 12:58 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #721

paulhauggis wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> Now you aren't even admitting that there are regulations. No, I'm asking for support for your claim that there are 700 new regulations . That the as-yet unpublished order contains regulations is a different claim than that it contains 700 new regulations. > I don't want to hear one person coming on HN complaining about worse conditions after these new laws are passed. What new laws?

I'm tired of you playing semantics to try to win the argument. I would rather discuss this with someone that has some actual substance.

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

#742

Post by simonh » Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 4:06 PM UTC

rlion wrote: post #736

simonh wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll let that great promoter of free trade and market forces Adam Smith weigh in here: “People of the same trade seldom meet together... but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public,...” Corporations have vast resources and capabilities far beyond those of the individual and frequently use them against us for their own benefit. Tobacco companies faked and suppressed research and knowingly lied in thei…

"They regulate markets on our behalf..." That would be awesome if it were true, but it's not. It's very naive to believe politicians and bureaucrats work for anything other than their own self-interest. Now that the FCC runs the Internet who do you think is going to influence them more- Comcast's lobbyists or you?

Some cynicism can be healthy, but just because there are issues, some of them serious, with American democratic processes doesn't mean the whole system is corrupt and run purely for the benefit of the ruling elite. I know what that looks like. My wife is Chinese.

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

#743

Post by copsarebastards » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 3:59 PM UTC

meragrin wrote: post #692

Karunamon wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We disagree on your characterization of the posters.

How would you characterize them then? I'll give you that one person easily fits the bill. The rest I'm just not seeing it. I'm not sure how you can get anything out of 'time will tell'. Two where just arguing against the blanket labeling of green members as astroturfers. One of the parents wasn't even arguing against NN, but the way this decision acheives it. Other than that one person where is the astroturfing from…

> Do you consider me an anti-NN astroturfer even though I have yet to comment on the decision?

You're defending people who have commented on the decision. So, it seems pretty likely you're an anti-NN astroturfer, yes.

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

#744

Post by Karunamon » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 7:13 PM UTC

cubano wrote: post #487

ebbv wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I repeat your attitude sucks. That's not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is an attack directed at your person, I'm attacking the nature and premise of your comments; they come from a place of useless negativity. Your attitude is basically "This means nothing because only the implementation and enforcement means anything." Which is just absurd. Of course the implementation and enforcement matter, but the re…

Yes, but of course, my attitude is a part of my "person". Perhaps it is you who should lighten up a bit, my friend.

"Your attitude sucks" is not an ad hominem argument, "Your argument is incorrect because your attitude sucks" is.

The first is an observation and has no bearing on the facts.

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

#745

Post by stox » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 1:20 AM UTC

72deluxe wrote: post #698

vidarh wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was almost that bad in pretty much all European countries too. Including the UK. Prior to the start of deregulation in 1981 you could only rent your phone from BT, and BT/the Post Office had sole authority to decide what could be attached to the network. Starting from 1981, standardized sockets were introduced to allow people to buy and attach third party equipment, and BSI took over the responsibility for setting…

Ah I was born mid80s so grew up after the deregulation. My brother once moved into a flat where the previous tenant had rented their phone from BT but moved without telling them, leading to many threatening letters from BT regarding the phone. One thing I am surprised about these days is how RUBBISH home phones are. Given the advances in cheap mobile phone technology and the finishes/quality even on cheap devices, ho…

The opposite use case is covered. They do make base stations you can pair with your cell phone as a bluetooth headset.