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

F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 286 posts

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#241

Post by onetwofiveten »

seehafer wrote: post #197
turing wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine it's a whole lot easier to pass campaign finance regulation than it is to transform a population of hundreds of millions of people into an intelligent, knowledgeable, rational group.

That's not the only way of making a more educated electorate. Another method would be to limit the electorate.

You mean restrict who can vote? The public wouldn't go for it. Which is good, because if people were okay with having their right to vote taken away, we'd be in a much bigger mess.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#242

Post by unclebucknasty »

saraid216 wrote: post #230
unclebucknasty wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, what I was trying to do was point out a bit of irony in the GP comment. Judging by your and eli's responses, obviously I wasn't successful. I'll give it another shot. At a time when our political process is broken, full of cronyism, regulatory capture, and co-opting by moneyed interests, we get this new position from the FCC. The position itself is about giving those with money (e.g. Netflix) advantages on the…

> The Net, of all things, which was supposed to be a democratizing, equalizing force. No, it wasn't. You were made promises, not by politicians, but by a powerless counterculture who spoke loudly and had no clout. There is nothing democratizing or equalizing about the Internet. > I mean, at what point do we consider that democracy is losing and money is winning? Well, I would have put it somewhere in the 19th century…

>You were made promises, not by politicians, but by a powerless counterculture

No. The promises were made by the technology and its potential. But, you're reading my statement out of context anyway.

>We have the Internet now. There is no such need anymore.

Wait. So, you're now a representative of the powerless counterculture? You just said "there is nothing democratizing about the Internet. Now, you're hailing it as the solution to what is arguably the single biggest threat to democracy in U.S. politics today: money.

Make up your mind, man.

>what is a public office for?

Direct democracy has its place, but you're not seriously suggesting rule by referendum, right? I mean, I'm having trouble seeing any implied alternatives in your question that don't lead to utter silliness, so please feel free to make your point.

>If you don't subscribe to Rootstrikers, you are seriously out of touch

Says who? But, hey, color me seriously out of touch. If you put any stock in third party traffic analysis, I'm in good company (unfortunately). But, thanks for the pointer.

>Unlike you, Lessig has actually been doing things along this line, and unlike you, he has some notion of how to build political capital.

Awesome that you know me so well. I feel like we're old pals from way back. But, of course, your opinions of my capabilities in this area--even if accurate--have nothing to do with the merit of the statements to which you are responding. In fact, I'm trying to name all of the fallacies there: Appeal to authority? Red herring? False dilemma? Am I missing any?

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#243

Post by pyvpx »

xedeon wrote: post #240

Let's all contact the F.C.C. and let them know how we us consumers are against this! I can't believe not a single HN user suggested this on this thread yet! Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail Chairman Tom Wheeler: Tom.Wheeler@fcc.gov Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: Jessica.Rosenworcel@…

I'm sorry; I think you meant to suggest we pool our pocket change and hire a lobbying firm. A fax and email campaign is going to do what? waste toner and mailstore space?

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#244

Post by onetwofiveten »

seehafer wrote: post #153
dsr_ wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money. There are 100 senators. 34 or so come up for election every two years. Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. The most expensive campaigns spend about $20M; the tenth most expensive campaign spends about $5M. The margin between D and R in the Senate is 8. Form a SuperPAC and fund it with about $75M. Ensure the election of a crop of senators who know what the key issue…

> Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. Source? Tell that to Meg Whitman. The biggest problem I have with the argument about limiting the amount of money that can be spent in elections is that it essentially implies that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. So shouldn't the solution be a more informed (however you want to do accomplish that) electorate?

It doesn't necessarily imply that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. I think it's more likely that most of the time these elections are a close call and campaigning sways people who are in the middle or motivates people who might not otherwise vote.

The argument basically just implies that advertising has some influence. Which is true - even for an educated and informed audience. Nothing you do to the electorate can make them immune to advertising. So money will always be a motivation for politicians. Especially since extra campaign money can always be spent on all kinds of fun expenses, and giving well paying jobs to friends and family.

Also, bear in mind that even the most well informed educated electorate has a very limited feedback mechanism. Many people care so strongly about particular issues that they will never change their vote. Which means people in the middle ground only really get to choose between the two main political parties. In practise, it works out a bit like a price fixing cartel. Basically both parties take turns screwing everyone over. Candidates only have to make the appearance of being better than the last guy during election time. During their last term they can do whatever they want, which sets the bar really low for the next guy. It's a race to the bottom.

As long as the influence of money is present, politicians will behave as corruptly as they can get away with. Improving the education level of the electorate reduces the amount politicians can get away with, but because of the two party system, they'll always be able to get away with a lot.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#245

Post by grandalf »

Brakenshire wrote: post #117
grandalf wrote: post #101

I realize this view is controversial, but net neutrality is about as logical as arguing that all residential bandwidth should be dedicated symmetrical up/down. As content + routes become mainstream (the top 1-2% of bandwidth), the price of hosting them approaches the dedicated bandwidth price. This is because the usage pattern variability is arbitraged upstream of the ISP. Preferential QoS based on content source is…

> As content + routes become mainstream (the top 1-2% of bandwidth), the price of hosting them approaches the dedicated bandwidth price. This is because the usage pattern variability is arbitraged upstream of the ISP. I'd appreciate a simpler explanation of your point, for mere mortals like myself!

I think I did a better job of articulating it here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7288864

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#246

Post by xedeon »

pyvpx wrote: post #243
xedeon wrote: post #240

Let's all contact the F.C.C. and let them know how we us consumers are against this! I can't believe not a single HN user suggested this on this thread yet! Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail Chairman Tom Wheeler: Tom.Wheeler@fcc.gov Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: Jessica.Rosenworcel@…

I'm sorry; I think you meant to suggest we pool our pocket change and hire a lobbying firm. A fax and email campaign is going to do what? waste toner and mailstore space?

Such a cynical reply, it's worth try and cost virtually nothing... Maybe individuals like yourself deserves a gutted internet that restricts information, and stifles innovation.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#247

Post by lmm »

tomwrenn wrote: post #185
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real reason for streaming is that most people don't know in advance what they want to watch, and with TV/movies, generally only watch something once. I don't know if this is really true. How do you find out about something you want to watch? You see a commercial for it, or somebody tells you about it, etc. If all you had to do was pull your phone out of your pocket and click a button that says "download this wh…

Which is why I'm confused why you guys are advocating this form of consumption over streaming? Assuming most people watch a piece of content once wouldn't it be more bandwidth efficient to transfer them the data on demand when you know they're going to watch it instead of them speculatively guessing what they want to watch and maybe not watching it?

When people watch is highly time-sensitive and congestion is the problem. If a non-streaming approach meant downloading 3x as much data but doing it at night rather than in the evening that would be a win.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#248

Post by beauzero »

tootie wrote: post #178
parfe wrote: post #9

In six months FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will be a VP at NBC Universal/Comcast. Not a bribe; just coincidence.

You can't really blame Wheeler. The courts tied his hands.

bs. The courts tied his hands on a surprisingly weak argument. All he had to do was resurrect direct Net Neutrality language and everything would have been fine. He didn't...this administration hasn't raised its regulatory voice, anything. I don't understand how anyone can defend their record. They just killed small internet business.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#249

Post by nfoz »

seehafer wrote: post #153
dsr_ wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money. There are 100 senators. 34 or so come up for election every two years. Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. The most expensive campaigns spend about $20M; the tenth most expensive campaign spends about $5M. The margin between D and R in the Senate is 8. Form a SuperPAC and fund it with about $75M. Ensure the election of a crop of senators who know what the key issue…

> Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. Source? Tell that to Meg Whitman. The biggest problem I have with the argument about limiting the amount of money that can be spent in elections is that it essentially implies that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. So shouldn't the solution be a more informed (however you want to do accomplish that) electorate?

The educated and informed are also easily swayed. Advertising works.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#250

Post by nfoz »

kin wrote: post #49

we can trust Google Fiber to be net neutral... right?

Why? It's exactly the classic problem: the distribution channel owned by a single content producer. Also, an advertisement company that gets to know literally everything you do on the Internet. What more do you need to know??
Post reply on HN