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

191–200 of 206 posts

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

#191

Post by tw04 »

khedoros1 wrote: post #186
tw04 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 gove…

I mean... In my lifetime we have had literally this exact thing. AT&T was a monopoly. It was inherently bad for literally everyone that wasn't employed by AT&T, and even most of them. The government didn't grant them exclusive rights, but they did step in to fix the situation. Assuming he doesn't have Alzheimers (literally), that would be a really, really bad argument given we've lived it and seen the results.

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

#192

Post by boomboomsubban »

Tloewald wrote: post #190
boomboomsubban wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The idea that it is a binary choice is a false one. The two parties will drone on about how other candidates are "spoilers" who only benefit who you see as the worse choice. That's nonsense, your vote should go towards who you think represents your interests best.

Yes, that vision ultimately needs more than just a third party win. The system itself is broken. It's still a better choice.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about various industrial wastes to comment on environmental issues. If that's what you see as the most important issue, why would you vote anything but Green? That's been a core of their platform for fourty years.

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

#193

Post by khedoros1 »

tw04 wrote: post #191
khedoros1 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gove…

I mean... In my lifetime we have had literally this exact thing. AT&T was a monopoly. It was inherently bad for literally everyone that wasn't employed by AT&T, and even most of them. The government didn't grant them exclusive rights, but they did step in to fix the situation. Assuming he doesn't have Alzheimers (literally), that would be a really, really bad argument given we've lived it and seen the results.

No idea how he'd connect it to the Bells. He's not an easy person to discuss politics with.

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

#194

Post by thisacctforreal »

cr0sh wrote: post #142
colordrops wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every last bit of the spectrum will be privatized and they will eventually make it illegal to use the Mesh.

Including light (ie - free space optical networks, which are usually commercial, but the Ronja project shows they can be DIY'd too)? I've often thought that mesh networks are where things need to move, but they suffer from a larger problem here in the States: Chokepoints Essentially, there are large gaps between cities where there isn't enough population, or there are geographic features in the way (or both) that pre…

Routing from LA to Pheonix via volunteered (albeit crippled) home/business lines seems like a fine solution. ie The mesh network connects cities through small slices of shared lines.

In that case censoring P2P connerilns would be ISPs next step, which would hamper a ton of progress, especially in regards to privacy.

Managing the functionality/thoroughput/UX of that kind of network sounds like a big challenge.

Having a good UX for rate limititing clients on volunteered lines, and good UX on how routes are temporarily "leased", might be places to start brainstorming.

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

#195

Post by thisacctforreal »

carry_bit wrote: post #159
artursapek wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...but it wouldn't be fair to charge people using the same car more or less depending on where they are driving.

Some roads have weight limits, so you're actually banned from driving certain places depending on the car you have.

Right, so they'll have to split it up into vans instead of semis, like a 5Mb/s plan versus a 1Gb/s plan. But you pay for access to x vans/second--and potentially y vans/month.

Netflix shouldn't be charged more on the basis that they gave people a reason to use their vans.

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

#196

Post by arca_vorago »

redler wrote: post #150
maxerickson wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would an organic Trump pick be if not based on some sort of quid pro quo?

Exactly so. While he often adopts the mien of those for whom he is a vehicle, Trump himself has no real political philosophy; every pick is entirely transactional.

That's a good but saddening point. I guess its hella naive of me to imagine a lotus might someday make picks based off who actually is best qualified for the job.

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

#197

Post by Tloewald »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #192
Tloewald wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The idea that it is a binary choice is a false one. The two parties will drone on about how other candidates are "spoilers" who only benefit who you see as the worse choice. That's nonsense, your vote should go towards who you think represents your interests best. Yes, that vision ultimately needs more than just a third party win. The system itself is broken. It's still a better choice. I'm not knowledgeable enough a…

> The two parties will drone on about how other candidates are "spoilers" who only benefit who you see as the worse choice. That's nonsense, your vote should go towards who you think represents your interests best.

You need to learn Civics. I could write in my own name since my opinions are closer to my opinions than the Green candidate. What would that accomplish?

If, one day, the US introduces proportional or preferred representation then the calculations will change. In Australia, for example, you can vote (1) Green, (2) Labor (say) and then if the Green candidate is eliminated your vote is counted for your second choice. But if the Green candidate gets enough support then you get your first choice.

Even then, Democracy is difficult. In proportional systems, small parties can have disproportionate influence.

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

#198

Post by Can_Not »

wwweston wrote: post #129
tzs wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Metered usage is not a violation of neutrality According to the document the FCC released trying to justify this stuff, ISPs can't always figure out how do that, so they need paid prioritization: "Without paid prioritization, ISPs must recover these costs solely from end users, but ISPs cannot always set prices targeted at the relevant end user". See paragraph 252, which starts on page 142, of this document: http:/…

> Without paid prioritization, ISPs must recover these costs solely from end users, but ISPs cannot always set prices targeted at the relevant end users. Is there any way this statement is not a straight up pants-on-fire lie? Why wouldn't an ISP have metering built into its infrastructure? And the only other thing you'd need in order to make it happen is the freedom to set your price -- are there places in the US whe…

I've never seen an ISP that didn't have an extremely accurate measurement of my usage in MB, so it's a bold face lie.

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

#199

Post by tripzilch »

caseydurfee wrote: post #152
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…

Point of clarification: Pai was appointed to the 5 person FCC commission by Obama. He was named chairman by Trump. FWIW, the previous chairman, Tom Wheeler (ostensibly a Democrat), probably would've dismantled net neutrality if Obama hadn't come out strongly in favor of it. I find it incredibly frustrating that people clearly see the need for referees in sports, but not in business. Nobody's saying that the NFL or th…

You must be unfamiliar with laissez-fare soccer. Technically there's still referees, but they're worth triple points.

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

#200

Post by Can_Not »

carry_bit wrote: post #159
artursapek wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...but it wouldn't be fair to charge people using the same car more or less depending on where they are driving.

Some roads have weight limits, so you're actually banned from driving certain places depending on the car you have.

But it's based on the weight of your car, not whether or not you're spending money at establishments the toll road owner also owns or based on the toll road owner's financial relationship to your car's specific manufacture.
Post reply on HN