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

Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 167 posts

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#151

Post by boomboomsubban »

root_axis wrote: post #143
boomboomsubban wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correct thing to do is to support politicians who work to ensure net neutrality. That does not describe the Democrats, at best they worked to ensure the courts would decide the fate of net neutrality.

> The correct thing to do is to support politicians who work to ensure net neutrality. I agree... we should support politicians based on their policies not based on their party, but it just so happens that the republican party is ideologically opposed to net-neutrality while the democratic party is, at a minimum, friendly towards the notion of net-neutrality, so democrats are really the only option if net-neutrality…

If it's "my issue," the Democrats haven't shown themselves to be an option worth supporting. If my only other option is the Republicans, then I have no option worth supporting.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#152

Post by rayiner »

mrguyorama wrote: post #150
rayiner wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its an improvement but Comcast has been delaying real improvements for years but collect insane profits (afaik). Comcast has raised speeds from about 16 mbps to gigabit in the last ten years, through multiple rounds of DOCSIS upgrades. As to access to the last mile: that’s already the law. Pole and conduit owners are required to lease out access at non-discriminatory rates. Comcast owns few if any poles. They lease…

They've only done that in very specific areas

It's widespread: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r30960001-Speed-Report-DOCSI.... Anecdotally, I've lived in five cities in Comcast territory, and four of the five show gigabit cable for $80 and multi-gig fiber for $150 at my former address.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#153

Post by sctb »

mankash666 wrote: post #146
Kequc wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't Democrats pass NN through congress and get it enshrined into law? Instead of trying to block that from happening, since it's Republicans who are trying to do that. Why was NN so easy to repeal in the first place? Why didn't Obama do a proper job if it's such an important issue? I still don't agree with the accepted wisdom about what NN is in the first place. Seems to me to suggest companies that are using u…

LOL - you're obviously joking right? You seem to be stating as fact a fictitious opinion perpetrated by the far right press. Oh, and Obama wasn't born in Kenya

No matter what you're replying to, comments like this just make it worse. Please post civilly and substantively.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#154

Post by behringer »

danjayh wrote: post #65
behringer wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Net Neutrality and competition are two completely separate issues.

Not really. In a competitive market, ISPs couldn't pull the kind of anti-consumer shenanigans that NN is meant to prevent, but wouldn't be hamstrung from reducing costs by forced compliance to regulations. The closest analogy that I can think of was Ma Bell, followed by the breakup of ma bell, followed by open access to long distance lines. The best and cheapest long distance service came after the regulations were l…

Nobody benefits without net neutrality except the telecoms. It shouldn't be allowed.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#155

Post by landryraccoon »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #151
root_axis wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The correct thing to do is to support politicians who work to ensure net neutrality. I agree... we should support politicians based on their policies not based on their party, but it just so happens that the republican party is ideologically opposed to net-neutrality while the democratic party is, at a minimum, friendly towards the notion of net-neutrality, so democrats are really the only option if net-neutrality…

If it's "my issue," the Democrats haven't shown themselves to be an option worth supporting. If my only other option is the Republicans, then I have no option worth supporting.

> the Democrats haven't shown themselves to be an option worth supporting.

What is your goal? Your goal clearly isn't actually maximizing the chances that Net Neutrality is adopted, since your strategy doesn't do that. I can only guess what your actual goal is; it seems to me it's maximizing some sort of ideological purity or set of other moral values?

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#156

Post by cmurf »

wooter wrote: post #133
cmurf wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Case in point, Trump suggests killing the traitor, it's what we used to do in the good old days after all. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/2/donald-trump...

and Obama droned a 15 year-old American citizen without due process.

The 16 year old was not explicitly targeted. And I find the response by Gibbs in this piece to be unconvincing and also idiotic. But the more convincing argument isn't appeals about a 16 year old, it's about the negative efficacy of that program. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-tea...

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#157

Post by boomboomsubban »

landryraccoon wrote: post #155
boomboomsubban wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's "my issue," the Democrats haven't shown themselves to be an option worth supporting. If my only other option is the Republicans, then I have no option worth supporting.

> the Democrats haven't shown themselves to be an option worth supporting. What is your goal? Your goal clearly isn't actually maximizing the chances that Net Neutrality is adopted, since your strategy doesn't do that. I can only guess what your actual goal is; it seems to me it's maximizing some sort of ideological purity or set of other moral values?

Very few congressional seats actually have just two options. A third party win seems like the only chance that anyone will pass a bill, so I see it as the best chance of ensuring net neutrality.

The official platform of the Democrats last election on net neutrality was roughly "we will not overturn the FCC ruling on net neutrality," while the Republicans ran on overturning that decision. Both platforms have the same result, a lengthy series of court cases deciding how broadband should be classified under the 1934 Communications act.

There's a nugget of truth to the idea that voting for the party pretending to support net neutrality will lead to more favorable judges, but I don't suspect the Democrats would seek out judges based on their view on the issue. And, shockingly, I care about more than one issue. For example, the Democrats record on online privacy is atrocious. A chance at better judges on one issue isn't enough.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#158

Post by root_axis »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #157
landryraccoon wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Democrats haven't shown themselves to be an option worth supporting. What is your goal? Your goal clearly isn't actually maximizing the chances that Net Neutrality is adopted, since your strategy doesn't do that. I can only guess what your actual goal is; it seems to me it's maximizing some sort of ideological purity or set of other moral values?

Very few congressional seats actually have just two options. A third party win seems like the only chance that anyone will pass a bill, so I see it as the best chance of ensuring net neutrality. The official platform of the Democrats last election on net neutrality was roughly "we will not overturn the FCC ruling on net neutrality," while the Republicans ran on overturning that decision. Both platforms have the same…

I think your criticism of the dems is totally fair and that simply giving lip-service to a policy doesn't actually solve a problem. With that stated, the third party option is demonstrably pointless with regard to advancing policy goals, so unless your third party candidate is a liberal independent that has a positive working relationship with the dems, they'll never be able to make any progress towards NN.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#159

Post by dang »

chriscappuccio wrote: post #26
CydeWeys wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care if it's optimal, I care that it works, which it does. That makes it good. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. I'm gonna say this flat out: Do you believe in net neutrality? Because this argument that you're concern trolling with leads me to believe that you don't actually believe in it. Trying to give supposed "advice" to advance a goal—that doesn't actually do so—is deceptive.

Works for what, exactly? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#160

Post by dang »

CydeWeys wrote: post #21
jnordwick wrote: post #7

Title II was never meant to be a good solution to net neutrality. It was used because it was the only level that the FCC had. Congress can actually craft internet specific legislation and should. It seems like Title II has become the end game for many because of pure politics, not because it is a good solution. Remember, parts of Title II had to be ignored to get this square peg to fit. No, don't vote for this. Devel…

I don't care if it's optimal, I care that it works, which it does. That makes it good. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. I'm gonna say this flat out: Do you believe in net neutrality? Because this argument that you're concern trolling with leads me to believe that you don't actually believe in it. Trying to give supposed "advice" to advance a goal—that doesn't actually do so—is deceptive.

This comment crosses into personal swiping and name calling, which are not allowed here. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do this again.
Post reply on HN