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

FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 202 posts

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#191

Post by arghnoname »

hn_acker wrote: post #158
arghnoname wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me which party is more supportive of a 'free' internet. During the Trump and COVID era Democrats became much more aggressive in advocating for and explicitly pushing censorship regimes against what they consider to be misinformation. Probably any political faction on earth is going to want to control information flows to their advantage. Whoever you vote for will probably want to censor or limit the…

While you bring up important points, they take away nothing from the merits of restoring the FCC's authority to restore net neutrality rules, and the FCC's authority as a whole has nothing to do with misinformation on the internet. Moreover, I think that courts will strike down Democrats' unconstitutional speech laws (such as [1], should it ever pass) at least as reliably as they strike down Republicans' book bans [2…

I agree with you and should have been more clear on this point: net neutrality is something I support and anything in that direction is a good thing. It's almost hard not to be a cynic now, but kudos are in order here. I just am sufficiently disillusioned with the political parties that I'm a bit knee-jerk against anything I perceive as tribalist there.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#192

Post by arghnoname »

mptest wrote: post #172
quitit wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's people trying their absolute best to be opaque while holding completely obvious political views.

Yeah, I know and agree, but I've had (my only) two comments flagged for being more direct in accosting enlightened centrism. Disgusting to me to see people on this forum of normally highly intelligent people comparing in any degree the side that tried to over throw democracy, denies basic science from vaccines to climate, is against voter rights like mail in ballots/accessible polling stations, against women's and ga…

fwiw, I'm not a centrist. I am to the left of both major political parties in the United States on issues of political economy. I worked on democratic political campaigns and grew disillusioned with that party many years ago, largely (but not solely) due to their ties to Wall Street / etc.

I am more centrist on social issues, in that I share mainstream opinions on gay rights, etc (I've always supported gay marriage). It's not great if you think I'm the big evil supremely ignorant person that you think is an enemy in sheep's clothing. Brandishing people with whom you presumably have much in common as evil makes it difficult to build a majoritarian political coalition.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#193

Post by bigstrat2003 »

pyuser583 wrote: post #189
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, while I detest that California's laws become de facto national laws, it doesn't seem appropriate to use the commerce clause there. California isn't trying to regulate interstate commerce, it's not their fault that manufacturers are too cheap to have different models that meet California's standards while having a normal model for the rest of the country.

We use the commerce clause everywhere.

I know. And we shouldn't.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#194

Post by MerManMaid »

slaymaker1907 wrote: post #153
rich_sasha wrote: post #82

Not an American: what is the non-libertarian public-facing argument against net neutrality? I'm sure its opponents say it's bad for the general public for some reason, and one of them might be some kind of "let market competition work it out" etc. If you discard that, what is left? There is probably also the argument that various businesses want this repealed, this is kind of clear.

Some applications want extremely low latency compared to pretty much anything else such as cloud gaming. Net neutrality rules might get in the way of a cloud gaming service negotiating with an ISP to route their traffic more efficiently. It's kind of like how when ordering stuff online, sometimes you don't care if it takes 3 weeks to arrive but other times you want same day shipping. It would be a bad experience if U…

> Net neutrality rules might get in the way of a cloud gaming service negotiating with an ISP to route their traffic more efficiently.

Could you provide an example of how net neutrality might impact a companies ability to form peering relationships and/or raise the difficultly of securing reasonable/enforceable SLAs with service providers?

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#195

Post by MerManMaid »

axus wrote: post #88
rich_sasha wrote: post #82

Not an American: what is the non-libertarian public-facing argument against net neutrality? I'm sure its opponents say it's bad for the general public for some reason, and one of them might be some kind of "let market competition work it out" etc. If you discard that, what is left? There is probably also the argument that various businesses want this repealed, this is kind of clear.

Data traffic goes up to the physical limit, and everyone's services get sluggish with "no way" to fix it. Of course they could spend more money to fix it/compete but wanted an alternative.

I really wish more of my fellow network engineers contributed to these conversations but alas.

As weird as it might sound, net neutrality really doesn't present any meaningful technical challenges. As a network engineer working for one of the big service providers, the only major change I foresee would be the person telling me which/whose traffic they want me to prioritize/throttle...

The other aspect I wanted to mention is when we're talking about service provider networks QoS ought to be viewed as a short-term answer rather than a permanent solution. (which is almost always more bandwidth) Think of it like taking a pain med when you have a cavity... Great way to alleviate some of pain in the moment, the problem is only get worse if you don't see the dentist.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#196

Post by behringer »

bradleybuda wrote: post #124
wmf wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. When Netflix pays extortion to ISPs that money comes from your pocket, not Netflix's profits.

And when Netflix stops paying money to ISPs, the ISPs will get that money from... your pocket. All of this is fungible and companies compete for the marginal dollar of revenue. Despite the wishcasting of central planners, there's no magic way to manifest money out of the pockets of one class of corporations without the system shifting to a new equilibrium.

The issue is that now smaller ISPs or honest ISPs have to raise their advertised prices compared to Comcast.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#197

Post by mptest »

arghnoname wrote: post #192
mptest wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I know and agree, but I've had (my only) two comments flagged for being more direct in accosting enlightened centrism. Disgusting to me to see people on this forum of normally highly intelligent people comparing in any degree the side that tried to over throw democracy, denies basic science from vaccines to climate, is against voter rights like mail in ballots/accessible polling stations, against women's and ga…

fwiw, I'm not a centrist. I am to the left of both major political parties in the United States on issues of political economy. I worked on democratic political campaigns and grew disillusioned with that party many years ago, largely (but not solely) due to their ties to Wall Street / etc. I am more centrist on social issues, in that I share mainstream opinions on gay rights, etc (I've always supported gay marriage).…

>grew disillusioned with that party many years ago, largely (but not solely) due to their ties to Wall Street / etc.

The first issue I take with your comment. Politics is not a religion you need be fervently impassioned about, it's making a pragmatic choice.

Especially in the US, that means choosing between two corporatists, agreed. But this gives me very big "a lefty was mean to me on twitter and THAT'S why i vote for fascists now" vibes. I don't care what their ties to wall street are. I care which party is the better option for the working class. Which support things like a stronger NLRB? When you stop with the religious purity bs you can ask material questions about who is better for X. And the answer is always democrats if the X is anything but "the .1%".

>I am more centrist on social issues, in that I share mainstream opinions on gay rights, etc (I've always supported gay marriage)

Ok, you must be longggg out of politics or playing glib here. Supporting gay rights is NOT centrist. One party supports gay rights, the other is burning and banning books that mention gay people existing and calling trans people groomers. This is what i mean when I call centrism fucking evil. The sides are NOT comparable.

Saying "durrr but dey both take money so samsies???" is so ignorant and vacuous a statement as to be malicious from someone who has SEEN a college, which I presume most people here have.

>It's not great if you think I'm the big evil supremely ignorant person that you think is an enemy in sheep's clothing

Big evil? Nah, probably not.

>supremely ignorant

Yeah. Much more likely you are. If you think supporting gay rights is a "centrist" position, you are not paying attention.

>Brandishing people with whom you presumably have much in common as evil makes it difficult to build a majoritarian political coalition.

No, the literal fucking fascists in our midst gutting the voting rights act, removing polling stations in democratic counties (look up harris county voting), gerrymandering to the point 65% votes gets you 35% of the legislature, trying to literally stage a fucking coup, deny vaccines, climate science, etc etc etc, are the f'ing problem. If you are a centrist comparing them, you are complicit in their fascism, or supremely ignorant. Which are you?

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#198

Post by figgro »

mptest wrote: post #197
arghnoname wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fwiw, I'm not a centrist. I am to the left of both major political parties in the United States on issues of political economy. I worked on democratic political campaigns and grew disillusioned with that party many years ago, largely (but not solely) due to their ties to Wall Street / etc. I am more centrist on social issues, in that I share mainstream opinions on gay rights, etc (I've always supported gay marriage).…

>grew disillusioned with that party many years ago, largely (but not solely) due to their ties to Wall Street / etc. The first issue I take with your comment. Politics is not a religion you need be fervently impassioned about, it's making a pragmatic choice. Especially in the US, that means choosing between two corporatists, agreed. But this gives me very big "a lefty was mean to me on twitter and THAT'S why i vote f…

[flagged]

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#199

Post by arghnoname »

mptest wrote: post #197
arghnoname wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fwiw, I'm not a centrist. I am to the left of both major political parties in the United States on issues of political economy. I worked on democratic political campaigns and grew disillusioned with that party many years ago, largely (but not solely) due to their ties to Wall Street / etc. I am more centrist on social issues, in that I share mainstream opinions on gay rights, etc (I've always supported gay marriage).…

>grew disillusioned with that party many years ago, largely (but not solely) due to their ties to Wall Street / etc. The first issue I take with your comment. Politics is not a religion you need be fervently impassioned about, it's making a pragmatic choice. Especially in the US, that means choosing between two corporatists, agreed. But this gives me very big "a lefty was mean to me on twitter and THAT'S why i vote f…

I don't define centrism as some middle point between the two parties. Polling on same sex marriage and relationships is highly supportive, I'm among the great bulk of people on this. At one point my position was relatively radical, but it is now a mainstream view.

My view on political parties in general is they all have a constituency, they work to serve that constituency to the extent they must to continue being voted in, and morality beyond doesn't have much to do with their behavior. To the extent parties can maintain the vote of their constituencies / coalitions by demonizing the other instead of actually delivering, all the better. I've watched things quite closely for many years and all I conclude is parties are amoral entities. I don't pay as much attention to the theater now as I used to, but I know what's going on.

I don't have loyalty to any party, but I do make the pragmatic choice you're speaking of when elections come around and even donate to candidates, usually in Democratic primaries. I've voted for green or other candidates in the general elections for the past few cycles, though it doesn't matter in my district.

As for lefties being mean to me, trying to impute that I'm stupid, ignorant or fascist or complicit in this or that, I don't really care. My feeling is it reflects worse on them than me. I don't have to reduce all of reality to some Manichean conflict between good and evil. I find I like living in the world more without having to view roughly 50% of the population as horrible monster people who are voting for evil.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#200

Post by mptest »

arghnoname wrote: post #199
mptest wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>grew disillusioned with that party many years ago, largely (but not solely) due to their ties to Wall Street / etc. The first issue I take with your comment. Politics is not a religion you need be fervently impassioned about, it's making a pragmatic choice. Especially in the US, that means choosing between two corporatists, agreed. But this gives me very big "a lefty was mean to me on twitter and THAT'S why i vote f…

I don't define centrism as some middle point between the two parties. Polling on same sex marriage and relationships is highly supportive, I'm among the great bulk of people on this. At one point my position was relatively radical, but it is now a mainstream view. My view on political parties in general is they all have a constituency, they work to serve that constituency to the extent they must to continue being vot…

>Polling on same sex marriage and relationships is highly supportive

So is support for abortion, but what party is passing anti choice laws?? Don't make the mistake of excusing those who vote for fascists because they claim not to support the things republicans do in office... That is the issue of centrists.

Missing the only important bit because of some polls. What they do. The laws they pass. I do not care what republican voters say they support in a poll. If you vote for republicans you vote for evil, for death. From ectopic pregnancies of those who can't access medical care to excessive covid deaths, eg medical workers who got it from the maskless hog who ended up in their ER. Republican voters are not excusable people because they say they support some less than evil shit sometimes in polls.

If you can recognize the need to at the end of the day be pragmatic why do you give a fuck what the polls say they support? The only thing that matters is what those in power do. And republicans are going after something ~70% of the public support in birth control access. So i don't care what they say they support. The fascists they vote for do evil.

>I don't have to reduce all of reality to some Manichean conflict between good and evil.

Again this hand wavey platitude acts like I'm not talking about a material reality. A real political party. One that empowers climate change denial, vaccine denial, voting rights restrictions, bans on women's medical autonomy, trans discrimination, book bans, etc etc etc I could go on. This is not some philosophical exercise on good vs evil this is a cold hard recognition of the material evil that the conservatives are in the US. That said to be clear I make no statement on any conservative s/ism outside of the US.

Post reply on HN