Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#21

Post by randyrand » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 4:00 PM UTC

this is one of the main reasons why states rights is important. Here are the big ones:

1. each state can be tailored to its population 2. each state acts an an incubator for new ideas and other states can follow 3. usa citizens have more choice in who governs then and can easily move between them

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#22

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 4:01 PM UTC

Be careful what you wish for. A significant portion of the general population see Twitter, Google, and Facebook as infrastructure companies. If a large enough portion of the population is convinced that net neutrality is important and legislation must be written to accomplish it, the three companies and likely CloudFlare will likely fall under its umbrella. If you ask people to recall an incident of Internet censorship, if they recall anything, it will most likely be something done by one of those 3 and not by an ISP.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#23

Post by eksemplar » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 4:01 PM UTC

javagram wrote: post #8

EpiphanyMachine wrote: post #2

The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that much backing it should be done through the legislative branch. I'm concerned about the growing use of courts to try to decide policies because our legislative bodies can't work together and instead just try to force one sided issues through or block each other.…

The House of Representatives majority, which is held by the GOP and is anti - net neutrality, also represents more than 50% of the US population by this method of counting (which says the state AGs “represent” people who didn’t vote for them). Under the constitutional system of the US something like net neutrality could be passed as a law by the congress, but there hasn’t been a congress that chose to do so.

Maybe the way you calculate representation is wrong when 30% of the population gets 50% of the vote.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#24

Post by kovek » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 4:02 PM UTC

corerius wrote: post #11

I'm still trying to grok why ISPs are supposed to treat all customers equally while PayPal, eBay, youtube, GoDaddy, Twitter, etc. are allowed to pick and choose. I'd be more comfortable with the arguments if people were consistent in them.

I think of the internet as a communication technology. It's not simply a product. I think we all agree that everyone should have reasonable access to water (cleaned and distributed), because it is very important, it satisfies very primitive needs. You could see electricity as another one of these technologies we think most people should have reasonable access to, but whose primitive importance situates itself between the importance of access to water technology and the importance of access to information communication technology (the internet). It's great how individuals' humane aspects can develop from access to information and communication technology. It's certainly not a need for a human being, but it's important for helping people grow. I can continue but I think this answers the difference between the importance of information communication technology and the importance of products or services found on the internet.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#25

Post by cirgue » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 4:02 PM UTC

corerius wrote: post #11

I'm still trying to grok why ISPs are supposed to treat all customers equally while PayPal, eBay, youtube, GoDaddy, Twitter, etc. are allowed to pick and choose. I'd be more comfortable with the arguments if people were consistent in them.

Those services all have vibrant competition, your ISP definitely doesn't.

The whole point of common carrier regulation is to make sure that industries that are essential to the economy, inherently non-competitive, and impossible to implement effectively as a government service can exist and serve their purpose in society. Youtube/google/fb doesn't fit that definition. There is absolutely competition in that space, and there's little switching cost for individual actors.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#26

Post by IronWolve » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 4:02 PM UTC

>US Internet Speed Has Gone From 12th To 6th Fastest Since End Of Net Neutrality

I see this being tossed around as a counter to the main point of NN being slow down of speed.

Also, why do the state dem AG's always suing to enforce new laws instead of the legislation process, it seems like the new way to pass laws is to get a judge to give it to you. We have legal weed from legislation now.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#27

Post by _bxg1 » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 4:05 PM UTC

corerius wrote: post #11

I'm still trying to grok why ISPs are supposed to treat all customers equally while PayPal, eBay, youtube, GoDaddy, Twitter, etc. are allowed to pick and choose. I'd be more comfortable with the arguments if people were consistent in them.

The ISP's are more important because of their physical locality. It's infinitely easier to create a competitor for Facebook than a competitor for Time Warner (Google, one of the world's most powerful companies, tried and failed).

That said, with the amount of ubiquity and sway on society that self-proclaimed platforms like Facebook and Google have started to have, I would not be opposed to regulating some of those as utilities too. But that's a more nuanced issue. The ISP issue is so black and white as to be hilarious, if it weren't so disheartening.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#28

Post by seorphates » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 4:06 PM UTC

titusjohnson wrote: post #15

corerius wrote: post #11

I'm still trying to grok why ISPs are supposed to treat all customers equally while PayPal, eBay, youtube, GoDaddy, Twitter, etc. are allowed to pick and choose. I'd be more comfortable with the arguments if people were consistent in them.

I know you're just trolling, but one this is clearly apples and oranges.

But the trolling is a serious problem and more effort needs to go into addressing it directly. This is the stuff that righteous idiots grab a hold of - it's basically an iron buoy thrown to people that can't swim.

To top poster: these two things are not the same. They are wholly different classes where at the very base level one cannot exist without the other, literally. One is a utility provisioning and the other an appliance, figuratively.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#29

Post by fivre » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 4:07 PM UTC

corerius wrote: post #11

I'm still trying to grok why ISPs are supposed to treat all customers equally while PayPal, eBay, youtube, GoDaddy, Twitter, etc. are allowed to pick and choose. I'd be more comfortable with the arguments if people were consistent in them.

For consumer-facing eyeball ISPs, in almost all US markets, consumers have an extremely limited set of ISPs to choose from, typically a traditional telephone provider like AT&T or Verizon and a traditional cable provider like Comcast or Cox (if they're lucky enough to have both). As such, those eyeball providers have an effective monopoly, and if I don't like the network policies of my ISP, I have almost no recourse to change them. Those monopoly providers have also consistently lobbied against any challenges to their position: attempts to start a municipal ISP offering services to residents will be strongly challenged by incumbent providers, often to the point of outlawing municipal ISPs entirely at the state level.

In contrast, I can very much choose alternate providers for everything else you've listed--I don't like GoDaddy and don't use them for domain registration or hosting, and I had thousands of options to choose from. Twitter is by no means the only social network in town, and has challengers within its specific microblogging niche.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#30

Post by ataturk » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 4:08 PM UTC

schnable wrote: post #17

EpiphanyMachine wrote: post #2

The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that much backing it should be done through the legislative branch. I'm concerned about the growing use of courts to try to decide policies because our legislative bodies can't work together and instead just try to force one sided issues through or block each other.…

The executive branch being in control of this is how we ended up in this mess. It should be done through legislation so it won't change with the White House.

I know the foregone conclusion is "net neutrality good, White House evil" but I'm unconvinced, honestly. I feel like if leftists/statists support something, it's probably generally bad for me, at least that's how it has always worked out for me. Also, I generally like the EFF, but I feel like EFF is controlled oppposition. Barlow was working with the CIA before he died.

Which side is trying to eliminate free speech on the Internet circa 2018? The corporatists have this unholy alliance with the leftists is what I see going on there. Censorship on private services is at an all time high.

I look across to Europe with their laws that criminalize speech and wonder if we really want that here in the states. I don't. I don't see how that is a defensible liberal position to even have. As a liberal, I welcome disagreement. Censorship is the health of the state, along with propaganda. But the only antidote for propaganda is more speech, not less.