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

The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 150 posts

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#141

Post by duxup »

jeremyt wrote: post #116
duxup wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most folks here (and who care elsewhere) get the gist and impact of net neutrality. There's quite a few discussions that seem to illustrate their knowledge pretty clearly. You just have to read them. I mean can you honestly recite the regulations? Would that disqualify your opposition to it? The gist of your position seems to be the supporters are dumb and you generally don't like government regulation .... a…

No, my position is that supporters are naive and uninformed, not dumb.

I'm not sure that really changes anything.

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#142

Post by sudoke »

mch82 wrote: post #36
jeremyt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that anyone here, without looking it up, could explain what exactly "net neutrality" means, without falling back on talking points and vague aspirational language, rather than what actually is written in the regulations. For starters, the FCC did an end run around Congress because they couldn't get Congress to pass it, so they had to take previous regulations intended for telephone service and cram a…

How is internet traffic meaningfully different from phone network traffic? It's all signals carrying data over transmission cables...

First look up analog and digital. Then look up bandwidth and latency.

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#143

Post by sudoke »

danShumway wrote: post #47
jeremyt wrote: post #16

I am firmly opposed to "Net Neutrality". Literally everything the government regulates becomes a mess and a boondoggle. Health care, housing, and pensions all the way down to city building codes (I have a friend who needs to replace her windows in San Francisco, and the city government has decreed that they can only use wooden frame windows because of the aesthetics, even though they are more than twice as expensive)…

> "Net Neutrality" is nothing more than an Orwellian named, amorphous and vague idea that nobody really knows what it means. What are you talking about? Net Neutrality isn't complicated at all, it's just saying that Internet providers need to deliver Internet connections without prioritizing or blocking certain sites/connections. The only complication is that telcos and businesses have different ideas about how far i…

>Net neutrality decreases government control over the Interne

WOW, this might be the most flawed thinking in all of HN.

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#145

Post by Jaymoon85 »

craftyguy wrote: post #137
esaym wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is anyone doing anything to give the 50 senators who are against this a taste of what is to come? No, because I am fine with the way things are, ie unregulated.

It's not currently 'unregulated.' Consumers are being regulated by ISPs, who are driven by profits and literally nothing else.

> 'unregulated'

In the sense of 'government regulation'. They are the ones who can arbitrarily enforce rules, pick and choose winners, and complicate the barrier to entry so much to discourage competition ...all within the law mind you.

> ...ISPs, who are driven by profits and literally nothing else

They live by the profits, and die by them too. That's how free market works.

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#146

Post by cdancette »

fallingfrog wrote: post #118
cdancette wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we can summarize saying it's customers freedom against ISP freedom.

The only freedom that nobody should have is the freedom to take away somebody else's freedom.

"my freedom ends where yours begins"

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#147

Post by boomboomsubban »

enknamel wrote: post #144

Why do we need NN? I have yet to hear any valid argument for it. Everything that people complain about is already illegal under multiple laws.

Without it, ISPs can stop offering internet access and start offering YouTube access. Here's an example of a plan in a country with weak net neutrality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Screenshot-2017-10-28_MEO...

If you believe some other law already prohibits this, please tell me.

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#149

Post by Tyr42 »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #147
enknamel wrote: post #144

Why do we need NN? I have yet to hear any valid argument for it. Everything that people complain about is already illegal under multiple laws.

Without it, ISPs can stop offering internet access and start offering YouTube access. Here's an example of a plan in a country with weak net neutrality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Screenshot-2017-10-28_MEO... If you believe some other law already prohibits this, please tell me.

Just to be 100% clear with the packages shown, they offer the benefit that those apps don't count towards your mobile data, rather than just being available.

Still not great though, since it just increases the moat for existing companies. Also companies in the states have tried exactly the same thing before with their video streaming service not counting towards you data cap.

Re: The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

#150

Post by tzs »

tzs wrote: post #56
jeremyt wrote: post #16

I am firmly opposed to "Net Neutrality". Literally everything the government regulates becomes a mess and a boondoggle. Health care, housing, and pensions all the way down to city building codes (I have a friend who needs to replace her windows in San Francisco, and the city government has decreed that they can only use wooden frame windows because of the aesthetics, even though they are more than twice as expensive)…

> "Net Neutrality" is nothing more than an Orwellian named, amorphous and vague idea that nobody really knows what it means. The 2015 Open Internet order's rules take up all of 8 pages. You could know what it means if you actually wanted to and were willing to put in a little effort.

(This is a response to a response to my comment by @ppf. That comment is dead, so I cannot reply directly to it)

Sure. Take that document you linked to, and take out the hundreds of pages that are summaries of the rules, recounts of the history of net neutrality regulation, explanations of why we need net neutrality, analysis of the legal authority for the rules, discussion of past court cases on net neutrality, the Commissioner's comments, and all the other extra things in there that are not the rules, and you'll be left with 8 pages that are the actual rules.

To save you some time, the authors of that document have already done that for you, and put the results in APPENDIX A -- FINAL RULES, which starts at page 283 of that particular version [1] of the document.

[1] I've seen other versions that are the same content, but are paginated differently.

Post reply on HN