421–430 of 598 posts
Opponents have been doing a victory lap for some time. COVID especially showed how much better the US Internet expands and contracts based on demands.
As far as I know, nobody has accused ISPs of throtteling Netflix.
The whole idea behind CDNs is we should stop treating all Internet users as equals, and connect based on geography. Not dystopian censorship, but the sort of thing neutrality enforcers would have to approve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's just that net neutrality wasn't a priority for the Biden administration, so they dragged their feet until the very last minute. The FCC was deadlocked until September 2023 and started this process a few days later. Maybe they could have started in 2022 if Biden had nominated someone else after Republicans blocked his 1st choice. But Democrats believed Republicans would block anyone who would restore net neutra…
> The FCC was deadlocked until September 2023 and started this process a few days later. I am aware of that. > Maybe they could have started in 2022 if Biden had nominated someone else after Republicans blocked his 1st choice. But Democrats believed Republicans would block anyone who would restore net neutrality. And they were proven wrong, and didn't even try to test their theory until half his term was over. That c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? there's usually some principled people in the government, and every now an then when an issue is obscure enough they can manage to get something done without the other side caring too much. what's the impetus for blocking this?
it's not needed, the fcc doesnt have the authority, keeping the government away from internet is a good thing
This flip-flopping happens because there is no commonality to find. One of the only (effectively) two major political parties of the United States is completely uninterested in governing. They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. Their only goal is the piecemeal selloff of government powers to the highest bidder, and they convince their stalwart followers of this by making sure…
Don't you think that is a very cynical view? The party or parties you disagree with may not share your views, but they do have many things in common with you. In order to build bridges with other parties, it's important to believe that the majority of people who get involved in government, regardless of party, are motivated primarily by the desire to serve their neighbors and their country; otherwise they would find…
It's a realistic view.
> The party or parties you disagree with may not share your views, but they do have many things in common with you. In
The major party I disagree with least doesn’t share my most of views but has many things, in broad focus, in common with me.
That’s very much not true of the major party I disagree with most.
> In order to build bridges with other parties, it’s important to believe that the majority of people who get involved in government, regardless of party, are motivated primarily by the desire to serve their neighbors and their country
Why would “building bridges with other parties” be a goal? A lot of people seem to have gotten ideas that the long realignment period from 1930s to the 1990s when the salient political divides were not along the same axis as the divide between the major parties (though they were approaching alignment at the end of the period) was a norm and not an aberration, and thus have fetishized bipartisanship which was simply a result of ideological factions crossing partisan boundaries rather than generally being contained within major parties. When that applies, you don't need to build bridges between parties, the factions inherently provide it; when it doesn't, you don't have a commonality to build on.
And, in any case, this is the fallacy of argument to the consequences of belief – you are justifying a belief in a fact claim not by any evidence that it represents the actual facts, but by the notionally desirable consequences of believing it independent of its truth. > Without that belief, it will be near impossible to form agreements across the aisle.
I actually think that its a lot easier to achieve agreements across the aisle, where there is utility in doings so, by observing the actual things that the specific goals the other side has in concrete terms and appealing to them, rather than fantasizing a distant abstraction like “serving the neighbors and their country”. The latter is only useful once you determine a concrete operationalization that comports with the actual behavior of the individuals involved, but that offers nothing between a low-level concrete model of interests that avoids any high-level abstractions.
Now, to the extent that its often a concrete low-level interest that they want to be seen as motivated by the desire to serve their neighbors and their country, that may be useful, but that’s different than believing that that is their actual motivation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's just that net neutrality wasn't a priority for the Biden administration, so they dragged their feet until the very last minute. The FCC was deadlocked until September 2023 and started this process a few days later. Maybe they could have started in 2022 if Biden had nominated someone else after Republicans blocked his 1st choice. But Democrats believed Republicans would block anyone who would restore net neutra…
> The FCC was deadlocked until September 2023 and started this process a few days later. I am aware of that. > Maybe they could have started in 2022 if Biden had nominated someone else after Republicans blocked his 1st choice. But Democrats believed Republicans would block anyone who would restore net neutrality. And they were proven wrong, and didn't even try to test their theory until half his term was over. That c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some libertarian dream the FCC lacks authority...
The American libertarian dream confuses me because unlike libertarians abroad (where it's a synonym with "anarchist") they stop with political authority, and seem to have no issue with corporate authority. The ISP business in the USA is very clearly an oligopoly with the top players colluding. Not sure how a rugged individual is supposed to fight back against that.
Here's the FCC announcement (pdf) for those interested: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-restores-net-neutrality
I'm looking for full text of the actual action / implementation. Like the document containing the text that they actually voted on, specifically. Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40160960
I'm fully in support of net neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the first place. From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, there weren't major protests, news about it even largely disappeared from the front page of HN (!).…
I believe they are only restoring it to enact “security” aka more spying. I would like to see what the actual text of these policies are. The administration has its tentacles into too many tech companies already.
They aren't a secret:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The proponents of net neutrality thought without it ISPs would just arbitrarily block data and require bribes from data providers to even serve up their data. In reality, no net neutrality would mean things like Netflix not counting as data on your mobile plan through some kind of sponsorship, or free basic internet like Wikipedia and news at a lower cost. I don't support legislation that bans something undertaken vo…
> free basic internet like Wikipedia and news at a lower cost. I can't comprehend why you think ISPs would feel compelled to be so altruistic without any government intervention. Except, since when was free wi-fi an impossible thing to find? Ever been to a coffee shop? Even in the "free shitty half-internet for everyone" pipe dream, the costs of such a service don't just magically disappear. Either way, someone's pay…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That seems rather vague. The timing is also rather interesting, given the forced divestiture of TikTok. This is just a press release. The actual decision is more than 400 pages long and will come out in the next few days. Here's the draft of the order released three weeks ago: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf (Of course, parts of this will inevitably be vague as well.) The timing is almost c…
I'm not sure that's the order itself or just a very detailed "fact sheet" about the orde. It seems like it references the content of the order in great detail, allowing someone to figure it out, but I don't see the raw text of the rule there unless I just don't understand what FCC rules look like. I read a lot of FTC rules and court documents, but this the first time I'm looking for the full text of something the FCC…