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

FCC won’t delay vote, says net neutrality supporters are “desperate”

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 206 posts

Re: FCC won’t delay vote, says net neutrality supporters are “desperate”

#181

Post by boomboomsubban »

Delmania wrote: post #177
boomboomsubban wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lie, supported third parties for my voting life as it's clear the system is a broken joke. Voting Hillary in wouldn't have created a liberal paradise, just changed the details of the mess we are in.

Electing Clinton would have given us 4 more years of Obama. That means Congress would be busy wasting time, but as I said, we wouldn’t be dealing with any of the issues of healthcare, taxes, or net neutrality we are now.

So my poor friend would still be struggling to choose between healthcare or slightly more money, our taxes would still be used to indiscriminately kill thousands of innocents worldwide, and we might have the government spying on all our internet traffic for slightly less money. Huge improvement, I can see why I should support a party promising that.

Re: FCC won’t delay vote, says net neutrality supporters are “desperate”

#183

Post by nasredin »

Clubber wrote: post #33
adamnemecek wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with anti-Trump protests is that they will never get physical.

Not sure why this is downvoted. It's an uncomfortable thought but very little change has been brought forth in the US (and the world, historically) with peaceful protest. Too easy to ignore when politicians get paid millions to ignore it. Think the abolitionist movement (pre-Civil War) was peaceful? Nope. Think women's suffrage was peaceful? Nope. Think Vietnam protests were peaceful? Nope. Think civil rights movemen…

BLM?

Black Lives Matter or that Bureau of Land Management standoff?

I wouldn't categorize BLM (Black Lives) as NOT peaceful (or at least in the same category as Vietnam protests). If you mean riots, IMHO it's a separate issue.

Re: FCC won’t delay vote, says net neutrality supporters are “desperate”

#184

Post by crisdux »

shmerl wrote: post #4

His smug attitude of showing how he doesn't care about the public he is supposed to serve, will be his downfall in court.

Bureaucrats don't serve the public. They serve their institution to implement policy. Policy which is ambiguous. If any lawmakers cared they would have clarified this through law.

Re: FCC won’t delay vote, says net neutrality supporters are “desperate”

#185

Post by pdonis »

legoforte wrote: post #77
artursapek wrote: post #34

Honest question, what changes can we expect as ISP consumers if this happens? A follow up, if all it is is them charging customers more for using more bandwidth, how is that any different from any other fundamental resource like water, electricity, etc? Why should I pay as much money for my SSH and Hacker News as the guy down the street streaming Netflix all day?

That's a good question. Net Neutrality is not about whether an ISP can charge you more for using more bandwidth. It's about whether an ISP can charge your more (or restrict your usage) based on which websites you communicate with . One way to think of it is that we already have "electric neutrality" (not a real term), which is to say, you pay for the amount of electricity you use, but you're free to plug in any appli…

Your comparison with "electric neutrality" is a great analogy. Another one I've used is "road neutrality": you can be charged a toll for using a road, but what if your toll depended on what model of car you drove? Or what if you had to have a certain model of car to use the road at all?

Re: FCC won’t delay vote, says net neutrality supporters are “desperate”

#186

Post by khedoros1 »

tw04 wrote: post #174
khedoros1 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because I've literally not run into a single person, democrat or republican, who thinks net neutrality should go away. My father. In his opinion, businesses should be allowed to manage themselves as they see fit, without outside interference. Various people I've had 1-on-1 conversations with online. Often some variation on the regulations being difficult to enforce, and pointless because companies weren't doing thi…

>My father. In his opinion, businesses should be allowed to manage themselves as they see fit, without outside interference. So consumers are just at the mercy of the corporate monopolies then? I'm curious how he expects a democracy to survive in the face of monopolies owning the media and controlling our "free" press. History has shown that's basically impossible, but I assume he's got a solution given you've said h…

The argument I'd expect him to make: You're making the assumption that monopolies are inherently bad, and that alternatives wouldn't spring up out of the American spirit of entrepreneurship if they were actually required. Clearly, alternatives haven't arisen because we're doing well enough with what we have. Oh, the government grants exclusive franchise to specific companies? Just another example of the evils of government interference in the market.

Re: FCC won’t delay vote, says net neutrality supporters are “desperate”

#187

Post by banku_brougham »

paulmd wrote: post #110
grokas wrote: post #2

After reading about Pai, it seems like he was hand selected to be the figure head with which the ISPs would finally take down Net Neutrality. This whole situation sucks, and no matter how much noise we make and activism we take part in, if Pai has the legal footing to ruin the internet, he will.

> After reading about Pai, it seems like he was hand selected to be the figure head with which the ISPs would finally take down Net Neutrality. He's not. He's a generic Republican, appointed by Obama (since the commission is obligated by Congress to have no more than a simple majority of appointees from any one party). The problem is, this is what all Republicans are like nowadays. Any other person that Obama could h…

Thank you for the bluntness, after taking a minute I cannot refute anything you said.

There are many complaints these days about the increasing level of political discourse on HN. But the way things are going, we’ll come to the point where we have to talk about things with the people next to us in the grocery store line. This is a dangerous road we are on.

The country in control of some deeply unhappy few that never queue for a checkout counter.

Re: FCC won’t delay vote, says net neutrality supporters are “desperate”

#188

Post by banku_brougham »

rhino369 wrote: post #137
paulmd wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After reading about Pai, it seems like he was hand selected to be the figure head with which the ISPs would finally take down Net Neutrality. He's not. He's a generic Republican, appointed by Obama (since the commission is obligated by Congress to have no more than a simple majority of appointees from any one party). The problem is, this is what all Republicans are like nowadays. Any other person that Obama could h…

>They are un-interested in any semblance of reasonable governance, it's siphoning your money to their backers in the most direct and aggressive fashion, plain and simple. They are uninterested in your view of reasonable governance. Reasonable people can and do disagree with things like net neutrality.

I’m making an inference here: you consider the current state of affairs to be reasonable governance.

Re: FCC won’t delay vote, says net neutrality supporters are “desperate”

#189

Post by boomboomsubban »

Delmania wrote: post #178
gt_ wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be careful who you call “intellectually lazy.”

Anyone who claims both parties are the same after the past year is intellectually lazy.

Intellectual laziness is reading "both parties are a joke" as "both parties are the same."

Re: FCC won’t delay vote, says net neutrality supporters are “desperate”

#190

Post by Tloewald »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #168
Tloewald wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Democrats were pretty much unable to pass any legislation worth a damn after 2010, which is why everything done afterwards is so easily undone. One party is for dealing with climate change, privacy, net neutrality, healthcare, etc. It may be bad, but it's definitely _less_ bad.

One of my examples was before 2010, the other was introduced by a Democrat and signed into law by one. They didn't consider universal health care an option, saying they cared about privacy is a sick joke, they didn't make net neutrality a law. They may be slightly less bad but voting for them is still a terrible choice.

The thing about the lesser of two evils is that it’s the lesser of two evils and picking it over the greater of two evils is a good choice. That said, the most important issue of our time is climate change and the difference there is utterly clear.
Post reply on HN