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

The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 150 posts

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

#41

Post by PhasmaFelis »

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)…

Some government regulations are stupid, certainly. Something should probably be done about those. When you start saying that regulation as a whole is stupid--that being allowed to use cheap windows is more important than, say, keeping thalidomide out of the US--is where you lose me.

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

#42

Post by cdancette »

nercht12 wrote: post #39
ryanpcmcquen wrote: post #25

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.

It is government controlling the internet. It's the extent and who that is different. In this case, it's only forcing a fair playing field. Kinda like highways being public vs. toll instead of telling you what cars you are and are not allowed to drive. I'd like a "free" internet, but I still have to admit it's going to cost someone else's "freedom".

So we can summarize saying it's customers freedom against ISP freedom.

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

#43

Post by nercht12 »

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)…

The problem isn't the idea of "net neutrality". The problem is special interest groups and lobbyists, but those are the same problems we've always had. Nothing's changed.

Admittedly, it could get worse, but the need for "drawing the line" (in this case, deciding what gets regulated) has to be done somewhere, and it seems most of us here think it's a good idea to draw it at what would likely be a critical bottleneck. Perhaps the regulations themselves aren't needed but the high likelihood that they might be made law might encourage ISPs to stay on the friendlier side, so promoting net neutrality is still good.

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

#44

Post by nercht12 »

cdancette wrote: post #42
nercht12 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is government controlling the internet. It's the extent and who that is different. In this case, it's only forcing a fair playing field. Kinda like highways being public vs. toll instead of telling you what cars you are and are not allowed to drive. I'd like a "free" internet, but I still have to admit it's going to cost someone else's "freedom".

So we can summarize saying it's customers freedom against ISP freedom.

Yes

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

#45

Post by polotics »

nateconq wrote: post #12

"would need a bare majority in both the Senate and the House, as well as the president’s signature" "We don’t know how this is going to end...." They know very well how it will end. This is an effort to get ammo for the primaries.

Well any representative that votes No puts themselves fair and square in the parliament of whores.

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

#46

Post by ianai »

cdancette wrote: post #42
nercht12 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is government controlling the internet. It's the extent and who that is different. In this case, it's only forcing a fair playing field. Kinda like highways being public vs. toll instead of telling you what cars you are and are not allowed to drive. I'd like a "free" internet, but I still have to admit it's going to cost someone else's "freedom".

So we can summarize saying it's customers freedom against ISP freedom.

No, that implies companies have the same rights as individual people. They do not and should not as they don’t have the same legal constraints as people. There’s no human equivalent to many of the abilities enjoyed by corporations and corporations don’t die and cannot be imprisoned. They’re also able to raise funds in ways humans may not. The list goes on from there.

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

#47

Post by danShumway »

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.

What are you talking about? Net Neutrality isn't complicated at all, it's just saying that Internet providers need to deliver Internet connections without prioritizing or blocking certain sites/connections.

The only complication is that telcos and businesses have different ideas about how far it should go (ie should zero-rating content be included). This is like arguing that because we have disagreements about the extent of free speech that the entire concept of free speech is just poorly defined government propaganda.

This is nothing like GDPR, this not a government created oligopoly, you're thinking about this completely backwards. Net neutrality decreases government control over the Internet; it enshrines that businesses, states, and governments aren't allowed to control access or play favorites in a freely competitive online market.

There are valid reasons why someone might oppose legislated net neutrality, but "the government taking over" isn't one of them. You lose a lot of credibility when you use words like 'Orwellian' to describe a policy that explicitly makes it harder to censor things.

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

#48

Post by econochoice »

mch82 wrote: post #37
jeremyt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What about the internet seems broken to you that loss of net neutrality will fix?

Once the government gets its hands out of the internet, ISPs can finally offer premium internet packages with higher quality bits.

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

#50

Post by boomboomsubban »

This is an almost meaningless bill, only going to a vote so various politicians can claim to support net neutrality on the campaign trail.

Not only is it unlikely to pass both chambers and be signed by the president, passing the bill doesn't change the broader status of net neutrality. Currently, the legality of the FCC enforcing net neutrality is unclear, with the matter destined to be decided in the courts either way.

A law explicitly giving the FCC control has been necessary for over a decade, but both parties have refused to pass one or even consider passing a future one.

Post reply on HN