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

Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 148 posts

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#41

Post by jimmyk »

blueben wrote: post #17
runjake wrote: post #15

Summary: Do you want corporations to act as unregulated "traffic controllers"? Then you're against net neutrality. Do you want an accountable government agency with a lackluster track record for citizens' digital rights to act as a "traffic controller"? Then you're for net neutrality. * Before voting me down, look at the actions the federal government has already taken in regards to traffic control (ala exempting wir…

Then you aren't familiar with network neutrality, which has nothing to do with the FCC dictating what kind of traffic is and is not allowed or controlling traffic.

No it certainly doesn't have anything to do with that. However it does set the precedent that the FCC can set rules for how businesses operate their networks, and once that precedent is set it will become much easier to extend it to regulation of traffic. Keep in mind that governments rarely give up a power once it's become accepted, but that they are quick to extend any powers they do have.

This isn't necessarily the first or last link in that chain, but it is a link in the chain.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#42

Post by CulturalNgineer »

Check the following totally misleading article put out by the Corporate front "Ameripac":

FCC: Information Superhighway Traffic Cops http://conservativeactionalerts.com/blog_post/show/2120

This looks to be a campaign intentionally designed to confuse with the goal of restricting a truly free Internet in order to benefit big money interests.

Frankly I've had more than enough of mega-corporations corrupting good governance.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#43

Post by jcromartie »

mcantor wrote: post #4

I'm not sure how to post this without seeming like a troll, but... is this guy campaigning for or against net neutrality? I can't tell from the article. He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? So... he wants net neutrality? But then he says "no taxpayer dollars [should be] used to fund these net neutrality rules." I'm sure I'm being either naive, stupid or both right now, but I'm honestly confused.

> "our most basic freedoms"

"Our" here means media/telecom corporations.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#44

Post by runjake »

jimmyk wrote: post #41
blueben wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you aren't familiar with network neutrality, which has nothing to do with the FCC dictating what kind of traffic is and is not allowed or controlling traffic.

No it certainly doesn't have anything to do with that. However it does set the precedent that the FCC can set rules for how businesses operate their networks, and once that precedent is set it will become much easier to extend it to regulation of traffic. Keep in mind that governments rarely give up a power once it's become accepted, but that they are quick to extend any powers they do have. This isn't necessarily th…

Well put, thanks.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#45

Post by shii »

jellicle wrote: post #33
sp332 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He thinks (mainly because of ignorance, I guess) that ISPs are competing in a decent approximation of a free market, and that consumers have a choice of providers offering various services at various competitive price points. That's how markets in the USA are intended to work, so I guess it's a reasonable assumption, if you're completely ignorant of the state of telecom in the USA. Just as an example, Verizon decided…

> He thinks (mainly because of ignorance, I guess) that ISPs are competing in a decent approximation of a free market, and that consumers have a choice of providers offering various services at various competitive price points. No, he doesn't. John Boehner is an intelligent individual. His number one campaign contributor is AT&T. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N0000... He damn well understands…

I really wish more people would know about/use/and reference sites like http://opensecrets.org and http://opencongress.org when discussing politics and influence. Great and severly underused resources run by open initiatives and groups like the Sunlight Foundation and The Center for Responsive Politics. If you care, get educated and contribute to, help support, donate, code, whatever for OpenCongress. Great tool I check daily.

Full disclosure, I'm an active participant and donater to OpenCongress. Also, I am not the shii of shii.org fame, to preemptively stop questions about that...

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#46

Post by wmf »

jimmyk wrote: post #41
blueben wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you aren't familiar with network neutrality, which has nothing to do with the FCC dictating what kind of traffic is and is not allowed or controlling traffic.

No it certainly doesn't have anything to do with that. However it does set the precedent that the FCC can set rules for how businesses operate their networks, and once that precedent is set it will become much easier to extend it to regulation of traffic. Keep in mind that governments rarely give up a power once it's become accepted, but that they are quick to extend any powers they do have. This isn't necessarily th…

Isn't the FCC already regulating the Internet through CALEA? I don't quite understand the idea that NN is the FCC's "foot in the door".

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#47

Post by viggity »

jellicle wrote: post #33
sp332 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He thinks (mainly because of ignorance, I guess) that ISPs are competing in a decent approximation of a free market, and that consumers have a choice of providers offering various services at various competitive price points. That's how markets in the USA are intended to work, so I guess it's a reasonable assumption, if you're completely ignorant of the state of telecom in the USA. Just as an example, Verizon decided…

> He thinks (mainly because of ignorance, I guess) that ISPs are competing in a decent approximation of a free market, and that consumers have a choice of providers offering various services at various competitive price points. No, he doesn't. John Boehner is an intelligent individual. His number one campaign contributor is AT&T. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N0000... He damn well understands…

Or maybe ATT supports him because they like his position on the topic?

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#48

Post by gyardley »

jellicle wrote: post #33
sp332 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He thinks (mainly because of ignorance, I guess) that ISPs are competing in a decent approximation of a free market, and that consumers have a choice of providers offering various services at various competitive price points. That's how markets in the USA are intended to work, so I guess it's a reasonable assumption, if you're completely ignorant of the state of telecom in the USA. Just as an example, Verizon decided…

> He thinks (mainly because of ignorance, I guess) that ISPs are competing in a decent approximation of a free market, and that consumers have a choice of providers offering various services at various competitive price points. No, he doesn't. John Boehner is an intelligent individual. His number one campaign contributor is AT&T. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N0000... He damn well understands…

That link tells you absolutely nothing, since there is no way to distinguish between 'John Boehner has this stance because AT&T is his biggest contributor' and 'AT&T is John Boehner's biggest contributor because he has this stance.'

I certainly contribute to causes I support, and if I were an American, I'd contribute to politicians whose causes I support. I would happily contribute money on behalf of my business to a politican who supported causes friendly to my business. There's no impropriety in that, on my part or the politician's.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#49

Post by jimmyk »

wmf wrote: post #46
jimmyk wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it certainly doesn't have anything to do with that. However it does set the precedent that the FCC can set rules for how businesses operate their networks, and once that precedent is set it will become much easier to extend it to regulation of traffic. Keep in mind that governments rarely give up a power once it's become accepted, but that they are quick to extend any powers they do have. This isn't necessarily th…

Isn't the FCC already regulating the Internet through CALEA? I don't quite understand the idea that NN is the FCC's "foot in the door".

Yes that's a good point. I edited my comment before I saw your reply and once after I saw your reply.

I'm not too familiar with CALEA but it seems to be an example of the phenomenon I was describing. It began as a way for law enforcement to monitor VOIP but expanded in 10 years to cover all internet traffic.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#50

Post by leot »

viggity wrote: post #47
jellicle wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He thinks (mainly because of ignorance, I guess) that ISPs are competing in a decent approximation of a free market, and that consumers have a choice of providers offering various services at various competitive price points. No, he doesn't. John Boehner is an intelligent individual. His number one campaign contributor is AT&T. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N0000... He damn well understands…

Or maybe ATT supports him because they like his position on the topic?

Perhaps a good model here is that Boehner's position and ATT's support are dynamically coupled ... each causes and maintains the other.

Kinda makes it tricky to assign blame (which is fortunate, for Boehner).

Post reply on HN