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

Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 242 posts

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#221

Post by dhimes »

moduspol wrote: post #182
drawkbox wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internet is a utility now though and only the FCC can make network / internet a utility / common carrier. ISPs want it at the FTC for that reason, so it isn't seen as a utility, it is. Internet is as required as radio, phone, tv, water, electricity etc, it makes more sense under Title II and 80%+ of people support that. [1] > Americans embrace a Title II vision of internet service. A strong majority (88 percent, 48 p…

This kind of polling really bothers me. > when I buy internet service, I am paying to transmit information between my computer and the websites I visit, free from interference. Of course they'll agree with that. Now ask them if they think their VoIP landline phone calls should be required to be treated with equal priority to their neighbor's cat videos or bittorrent traffic. Ask them if their provider should be able…

You have to dumb your questions down to terms "everybody" can understand, or else they won't know what the question is. The first question most people will understand.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#222

Post by dhimes »

mac01021 wrote: post #197
dhimes wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3. Require all meetings with lobbyists to be public- with video and transcript documentation. Mandatory jail time for those who don't comply.

What constitutes a lobbyist? Must a congressman record every discussion he has with every person he meets, just in case the topic of conversation turns to public policy?

Here's a start:

https://www.tripsavvy.com/faqs-about-lobbying-1039165

Example: https://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/register.html

There will certainly be attempts to end-run the disclosure, but in principle it's a regulated industry.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#223

Post by tmaly »

komali2 wrote: post #86
Lionsion wrote: post #3

Time to call your Congressmen. I live in a purple district, and I'm going to make it clear to my Republican representative that: 1) I'm going to vote in November, 2) I will vote for him if he votes to keep the pre-existing title II net neutrality regulations, and against them if he does not, and 3) Net neutrality is even supported by a majority of Republican voters [1], so if he votes against it's clear he's voting a…

For everyone's amusement, can you let us know what he says? When I lived in Texas, the responses I got from my representatives were comically evil. Straight up bond villain.

My friend use to intern in a Senators office. All the responses are written by staff and not the member of congress.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#224

Post by moduspol »

dhimes wrote: post #221
moduspol wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of polling really bothers me. > when I buy internet service, I am paying to transmit information between my computer and the websites I visit, free from interference. Of course they'll agree with that. Now ask them if they think their VoIP landline phone calls should be required to be treated with equal priority to their neighbor's cat videos or bittorrent traffic. Ask them if their provider should be able…

You have to dumb your questions down to terms "everybody" can understand, or else they won't know what the question is. The first question most people will understand.

If it has to be dumbed down and leading that much, the result of the survey is meaningless.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#225

Post by naasking »

smsm42 wrote: post #214
naasking wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? I'm not sure you've thought this through. Consider: 1. Representatives voting in complete ignorance would vote 50/50, on average. However, some representatives will actually have the technical knowledge needed to vote properly, so the majority would probably fall in NN's favour. What do…

> Representatives voting in complete ignorance would vote 50/50, on average. Why? > However, some representatives will actually have the technical knowledge needed to vote properly By "properly", you mean "agreeing with me", right? This does not require any technical knowledge. > so the majority would probably fall in NN's favour. You implying everybody that has technical knowledge supports NN, and only reason to opp…

> By "properly", you mean "agreeing with me", right?

I mean in the interests of their constituents.

> You implying everybody that has technical knowledge supports NN, and only reason to oppose it is ignorance. This is wrong and incredibly condescending.

I imply nothing of the sort, but the majority of people certainly favour NN.

> Yes it does. Why would we need any Congress at all then? We could replace them with a cheap one cent coin and save a lot of money and drama. [...] If it's just random, there's no point of wasting effort on it, we can do much better random much cheaper.

Except it's not random, as I explained.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#226

Post by smsm42 »

naasking wrote: post #225
smsm42 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Representatives voting in complete ignorance would vote 50/50, on average. Why? > However, some representatives will actually have the technical knowledge needed to vote properly By "properly", you mean "agreeing with me", right? This does not require any technical knowledge. > so the majority would probably fall in NN's favour. You implying everybody that has technical knowledge supports NN, and only reason to opp…

> By "properly", you mean "agreeing with me", right? I mean in the interests of their constituents. > You implying everybody that has technical knowledge supports NN, and only reason to oppose it is ignorance. This is wrong and incredibly condescending. I imply nothing of the sort, but the majority of people certainly favour NN. > Yes it does. Why would we need any Congress at all then? We could replace them with a c…

> I mean in the interests of their constituents.

Constituents have different interests. Sometimes diametrically different.

> but the majority of people certainly favour NN.

The majority of the people favor a vague description of NN in the form of "do you want to access sites for free". The majority of the people has no opinion about the specific NN regulations being discussed since they don't have a slightest idea what these regulations are and how they work and what exactly changed in 2015 and 2018. It's fine to favor this specific regulation, but claiming "the majority supports it" as an argument is bullshit, the majority has no idea what it is about. It's like asking people "would you like to be murdered?" and presenting the results as support for specific crime reform or gun control proposal. This can't be taken seriously.

> Except it's not random, as I explained.

You "explained" that everybody who has technical knowledge would support NN, if only those pesky lobbyists didn't meddle. It is an unsupported statement based on fallacious premises and so far the only factual support is the abovementioned unserious polls. Not enough by far.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#227

Post by hueving »

_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #115
hueving wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's okay even if they don't recognize it. Every issue in the US is one of tremendous privilege. Recognizing that doesn't change anything.

If you're middle-class or above perhaps. The US is not a country I'd want to be poor in.

China and India are both worse to be poor in, which still makes it a position of privilege compared to a significant portion of the world population. That's why "check your privilege" is such a stupid statement.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#228

Post by pasbesoin »

frockington wrote: post #192
pasbesoin wrote: post #47

My Comcast bill, over the course of two consecutive months since the beginning of this year -- and since the apparent, "inevitable" coming end of net neutrality, increased about 25%. My Congressmen are going to hear about this. About how, for the better part of 20 years, Ameritech/SBC/ATT refused to upgrade my neighborhood trunk line, that doesn't even support DSL. In a high-density suburban neighborhood in the home/…

State reps seem much more willing to help out/listen to their constituents. Every time I've reached out with a state representative they have helped me out. One even drafted a bill and politely told the city to f * off

He sounded very interested during our conversation.

But, ATT is a very big big-money and political player in our state. Even if he wasn't originally dissembling, the ATT executives may have just shut him right down.

Part of my point: I don't care which political party it is. If a member is in bed with this crap -- or even just silently acquiescing, to hell with them.

I'd liked this rep, up to that point. If he'd told me there was nothing he could do, or hadn't specifically told me he'd follow up. Maybe I'd grant a bit more benefit of the doubt. Well, I'd still expect him to address the issue -- take a position against the behavior.

Instead, silence. Like the silence amongst our supposed "mainstream" politicians in response to the hard right pushing beliefs and policy with no backing in fact. (Or the hard left, when they do that -- although then I can usually at least sympathize with the compassion, when present.)

Democrats need to understand that their weak tea "centrist", big business trend no longer sells to the base they need and that needs effective representation.

I'm all for effective business. I'm not for monopolies and oligopolies hindering progress for their own relative advantage. Nor sucking at the teat of public money and policy while complaining about their taxes.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#229

Post by hueving »

wilsonnb wrote: post #79
hueving wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People are going to die based on our health care policy Yes, and people are going to die based on our self-driving car policies, our affordable housing policies, our food subsidy policies, our energy policies, our alcohol policies, our gambling policies, our foreign aid policies, etc. The crippling of the Internet via poor net policies could hamper technologies that ultimately would have saved billions. You are pres…

The difference here is that you are guessing as to what might happen. We know that some people without access to medical care will die. You're saying it's okay to gamble those people's lives on the chance that future lives might be saved. Obviously a balance between spending on research and health care must be struck so this isn't a black and white issue but you would need to put forth a pretty convincing argument th…

>We know that some people without access to medical care will die. You're saying it's okay to gamble those people's lives on the chance that future lives might be saved.

This happens every time a double-blind medical trial takes place.

> as trivial as net neutrality is particularly ridiculous when there are so many other issues where life hangs in the balance.

Trivial to you.

>is particularly ridiculous when there are so many other issues where life hangs in the balance.

If immediacy of life is the sole thing driving your decision behavior, you should quit your job and go help people in developing nations. Some people need to do this. But others also need to focus on longer-term things that promote a better economy that leads to new technologies and surpluses to advance the quality of human life.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#230

Post by tedunangst »

swebs wrote: post #170
zaphirplane wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn’t who you vote for be confidential and you can change your mind till the day? And why can’t a person vote one way for local and another for state ? I don’t get the system

The primaries aren't official US elections. They're unofficial elections set up by each political party (which are private, non-government entities). You can vote however you want in official elections.

I would be careful about asserting that. In PA there can be referendums on the primary ballots. And the results can be binding (sore loser laws, etc.). They're pretty official looking around here.
Post reply on HN