The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by jeremyt » Thu, May 10, 2018, 4:24 AM UTC

duxup wrote: post #18

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. Do you really think that? Do you really think nobody knows what it means? The previous policy... was it words someone might understand... or not?

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 square peg into a round hole with all kinds of promises not to enforce certain parts, etc.

I'll bet 90% of the people reading this comment don't even know what that means.

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

#22

Post by matchbok » Thu, May 10, 2018, 4:29 AM UTC

jeremyt wrote: post #21

duxup wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Net Neutrality" is nothing more than an Orwellian named, amorphous and vague idea that nobody really knows what it means. Do you really think that? Do you really think nobody knows what it means? The previous policy... was it words someone might understand... or not?

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…

Stop pretending that you are smarter than everyone here.

There is a reason why only the telcos want to get rid of NN.

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

#23

Post by matchbok » Thu, May 10, 2018, 4:32 AM UTC

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)…

Healthcare?

Name me one country with free-market healthcare.

I'll wait.

Also, your friend chose to live in that house, along with all the regulations that came with it. Spare us the sob story.

You clearly don't understand why NN was put in place. All the telcos were prioritizing content, taking advantage of their monopoly power. Starting a telco is serious work, and that isn't simply due to government regulation.

Try again.

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

#24

Post by duxup » Thu, May 10, 2018, 4:35 AM UTC

jeremyt wrote: post #21

duxup wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Net Neutrality" is nothing more than an Orwellian named, amorphous and vague idea that nobody really knows what it means. Do you really think that? Do you really think nobody knows what it means? The previous policy... was it words someone might understand... or not?

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…

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 .... and the rest honestly seem like handed out talking points about things like "couldn't get it through congress" in an article about congressional action.

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

#25

Post by ryanpcmcquen » Thu, May 10, 2018, 4:43 AM UTC

I find it funny that some people still see Net Neutrality as 'government controlling the internet'. They should take a look at FOSTA if they want to know what government controlling the internet really looks like.

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

#26

Post by mattrick » Thu, May 10, 2018, 4:48 AM UTC

FellowTraveler wrote: post #3

What a scam. "Net Neutrality" is just a euphemism for "forcing all ISPs to submit to federal licensing to make it easier to coerce them into doing stuff".

ISPs already have to submit to federal licensing. They still seem to be doing well for themselves.

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

#27

Post by praneshp » Thu, May 10, 2018, 4:51 AM UTC

jeremyt wrote: post #19

jdpigeon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, man. You cherry-pick some examples of government inefficiency, but our society benefits greatly from all the rules that the government enforces in order to benefit citizens (e.g. the FDA approving new food products).

First of all, the government has its hands in almost everything, so any list small enough to fit into a hacker news comment is necessarily going to be "cherry picked". I'm not one of those people who thinks we don't need any regulations. I think they need to be a last-resort when everything else has been tried. Everything else has not been tried here. I mean, 5G and the SpaceX satellite internet plan are right around…

> I mean, 5G and the SpaceX satellite internet plan are right around the corner.

Woah, your corner must be awesome.

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

#28

Post by _asummers » Thu, May 10, 2018, 4:57 AM UTC

craftyguy wrote: post #2

> Reddit, Tumblr, Etsy and other sites have put up Red Alert banners as part of a day of action to drive petitions in support of the resolution. I get the feeling that these sites are just 'preaching to the choir' (i.e. their customers already support these things, and most likely have let their 'representative' know). Is anyone doing anything to give the 50 senators who are against this a taste of what is to come? I…

Those sites are a huge portion of overall internet traffic. While on e.g. Reddit, people may subscribe to tech subreddits, there are many people who don't and are unaware of anything to do with net neutrality. If they can convince a nonzero amount of people to contact their representatives, that's worth the hour or two of some intern's time to put up a banner. Who knows, some of those people might be in states represented by those 50 senators.

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

#29

Post by Lurker397412 » Thu, May 10, 2018, 5:22 AM UTC

jeremyt wrote: post #21

duxup wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Net Neutrality" is nothing more than an Orwellian named, amorphous and vague idea that nobody really knows what it means. Do you really think that? Do you really think nobody knows what it means? The previous policy... was it words someone might understand... or not?

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…

I appreciate your posts -- and the few others that voice their ideas that are astray of whatever the current YC-manipulated ethos is.

For one, I have little fucking clue what any of those statements mean. However, from the understanding I have gleaned, I've found to be more close to the metal, than what either, heavily-lobbied side, can offer.

Back to lurking. No place is safe from manipulation. Not [0-9(a-z){0,3}]chan, neither HackerNews. Meritocracy of ideas is dying, etc. etc. ad captandum vulgus.

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

#30

Post by WheelsAtLarge » Thu, May 10, 2018, 5:30 AM UTC

Wishful thinking, the president would not sign the bill and there's not a supermajority in the Senate and the house to overrule him. This is going nowhere.