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

Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 250 posts

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#51

Post by nulbyte »

javagram wrote: post #8
EpiphanyMachine wrote: post #2

The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that much backing it should be done through the legislative branch. I'm concerned about the growing use of courts to try to decide policies because our legislative bodies can't work together and instead just try to force one sided issues through or block each other.…

The House of Representatives majority, which is held by the GOP and is anti - net neutrality, also represents more than 50% of the US population by this method of counting (which says the state AGs “represent” people who didn’t vote for them). Under the constitutional system of the US something like net neutrality could be passed as a law by the congress, but there hasn’t been a congress that chose to do so.

Like legislators, attorneys general represent "the people," not just those who voted for them, and that is the case even if no one voted for them. (As an interesting side-note, there are a few states whose attorneys general is governor-appointed and even one whose attorney general is appointed by the state's Supreme Court.)

I believe the point being made was that it has been too difficult to get Congress to act on reinstating something that is overwhelmingly popular across the nation. The FCC won't do it. Congress won't do it. Yet, when we put some numbers behind it, WaPo reported in December of last year on a study concluding that 8 in 10 Americans disapproved of the FCC's handling of net neutrality.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#52

Post by asdkhadsj »

wang_li wrote: post #41
davnicwil wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The former provide infrastructure that the latter services run on. They are therefore in fundamentally different categories and so different regulations apply. That's why there isn't consistency between them, because they are different things.

The latter largely do not produce their own content and thus are not fundamentally different than what a carrier provides. Why would you say that it's ok for Google to ban Alex Jones from youtube, but not ok for level-3 to do the same? It's a convenient kind of bullshit to draw a line below layer 4 of the ISO stack and say "everything below this line has to be fully neutral, everything above this line can be fully bi…

Because internet is more important than binge watching Netflix. To many of us, we're thinking of it on par with water, electricity, etc.

With that said, I would agree that some other services such as information seekers ought to be regulated somehow. Ie, Google/Facebook can do massive harm these days, and their reign of independence is failing here.

Another point is that, many companies have previously ran into issues of anti-competitive behavior. This in recent years has become very very lax, too lax I feel. Windows should be providing an equal platform for everyone to run on. They shouldn't be blocking competitors applications (a hypothetical). Same goes for ISPs. My ISP shouldn't block Netflix because the ISP prefers their own media site.

To be honest, your objection really confuses me. You seem to argue that ISPs can do whatever they want, because we're inconsistent with other sites/etc. So rather than enforcing other sites, you want to give free reign to ISPs? How does that make sense? I agree consistency is important. Lets fix all abusers, not just ISPs. That should satisfy your argument, no?

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#53

Post by corerius »

wang_li wrote: post #41
davnicwil wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The former provide infrastructure that the latter services run on. They are therefore in fundamentally different categories and so different regulations apply. That's why there isn't consistency between them, because they are different things.

The latter largely do not produce their own content and thus are not fundamentally different than what a carrier provides. Why would you say that it's ok for Google to ban Alex Jones from youtube, but not ok for level-3 to do the same? It's a convenient kind of bullshit to draw a line below layer 4 of the ISO stack and say "everything below this line has to be fully neutral, everything above this line can be fully bi…

Exactly.

The vast majority of media websites that make their money by delivering other peoples' content have an interesting problem. They skirt the line between curating and merely providing a form of storage for everyone. The minute you curate, you fall down an interesting rabbit hole.

That's not even to mention the business model of youtube which is largely based on copyright violation.

In any case, the difference between ISP and major media website is insignificant to the average user. It's one big blob.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#54

Post by shkkmo »

strictnein wrote: post #50
EpiphanyMachine wrote: post #2

The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that much backing it should be done through the legislative branch. I'm concerned about the growing use of courts to try to decide policies because our legislative bodies can't work together and instead just try to force one sided issues through or block each other.…

> Together, the AGs represent states totaling 165 million people — more than half of the U.S. population. By this logic, the executive branch represents 100% of the population.

They do. Donald Trump represents us all.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#55

Post by corerius »

asdkhadsj wrote: post #52
wang_li wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latter largely do not produce their own content and thus are not fundamentally different than what a carrier provides. Why would you say that it's ok for Google to ban Alex Jones from youtube, but not ok for level-3 to do the same? It's a convenient kind of bullshit to draw a line below layer 4 of the ISO stack and say "everything below this line has to be fully neutral, everything above this line can be fully bi…

Because internet is more important than binge watching Netflix. To many of us, we're thinking of it on par with water, electricity, etc. With that said, I would agree that some other services such as information seekers ought to be regulated somehow. Ie, Google/Facebook can do massive harm these days, and their reign of independence is failing here. Another point is that, many companies have previously ran into issue…

"Lets fix all abusers, not just ISPs. That should satisfy your argument, no?"

Yes.

Of course, people want to build an internet that suits them personally, so there are a million answers.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#56

Post by fedorareis »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #38
cirgue wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those services all have vibrant competition, your ISP definitely doesn't. The whole point of common carrier regulation is to make sure that industries that are essential to the economy, inherently non-competitive, and impossible to implement effectively as a government service can exist and serve their purpose in society. Youtube/google/fb doesn't fit that definition. There is absolutely competition in that space, an…

Google has almost no competition in several different market categories, and not just regionally, but on a global scale. I have three ISPs which offer about comparable service offerings, and four major wireless carriers. And no wired ISP even can say it has national coverage. Tech monopolies are bigger, they have more money, and they've spent more of that money convincing you ISPs are the big bad. I'm not opposed to…

You are lucky to have 3 comparable ISPs. In the area where I live each town has at most 2 ISPs. One of them provides DSL and the other cable. This means if you want speeds above about 5Mbps you have 1 choice. We were forced to switch to cable because our DSL provider couldn’t even manage to maintain a consistent connection much less the 5Mbps we were paying for. All this to say there are plenty of places where there is effectively 0 competition between ISPs.

On the other hand if I don’t like Facebook I can choose not to use it or I can use another social media platform. If I don’t like Google I can easily use an alternative (at least for all of the consumer products I use from them). I can’t easily go to a new ISP that is comparable if I don’t like my ISP.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#57

Post by shkkmo »

IronWolve wrote: post #26

>US Internet Speed Has Gone From 12th To 6th Fastest Since End Of Net Neutrality I see this being tossed around as a counter to the main point of NN being slow down of speed. Also, why do the state dem AG's always suing to enforce new laws instead of the legislation process, it seems like the new way to pass laws is to get a judge to give it to you. We have legal weed from legislation now.

I believe all the states that currently have recreation cannabis have it because of referendums and ballot initiatives. The legalization process has shown exactly how our legislatures have failed to address this issue. Canada did legalize recreational use with legislation, but they are the only ones so far.

I personally blame gerrymandering.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#58

Post by justinzollars »

narrator wrote: post #45
justinzollars wrote: post #40

I would like to see Twitter, Google, CloudFlare and Facebook classified as public utilities. While Alex Jones is a nut case (And shouldn't be defended), other less publicized incidents of censorship by Social Media companies has occurred (related to picking winners between Israel and Palestine) [1]. While I am a Democrat who has been elected in the past, I agree with the conservative argument that: Corporate censorsh…

The argument against net neutrality that I like the best is that net neutrality takes power away from the regulated telecom monopolies, which are more firmly under government control and scrutiny, and gives it to the tech multinationals who are much more loosely regulated. The tech multinationals are more and more acting a lot like governments with their coordinated content policies, so it's more about giving power b…

Thanks for posting this perspective. That is an interesting point.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#59

Post by nulbyte »

pc86 wrote: post #7
mberning wrote: post #4

One thing I don’t understand is why states do not enact their own net neutrality legislation. As far as I know every state has a public utilities commission of some sort that regulates power, water, etc. Why could this not work for ISPs?

Is the current situation (lack of net neutrality) simply the lack of a law or is it a law or regulation? If the former, the states can enact their own net neutrality legislation. However, if the latter, the federal law or regulation takes precedence and the states cannot override it.

The current situation is a mess. The FCC derives its power to regulate telecommunications from the Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.

However, the FCC believes it is limited to interstate telecommunications—when it suits them. They refused to defend their own price caps on intrastate prison calls because it was not a matter of interstate commerce. However, despite this, they purport the reclassification of ISPs preempts state law with regards to net neutrality. I find the logic behind this mind-boggling.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#60

Post by mullen »

justinzollars wrote: post #40

I would like to see Twitter, Google, CloudFlare and Facebook classified as public utilities. While Alex Jones is a nut case (And shouldn't be defended), other less publicized incidents of censorship by Social Media companies has occurred (related to picking winners between Israel and Palestine) [1]. While I am a Democrat who has been elected in the past, I agree with the conservative argument that: Corporate censorsh…

This is silly. We don't have to have Twitter, Google, CloudFlare or Facebook in our lives. We can live perfectly happy lives without them and they can be replaced by other companies as quickly as they were created by Twitter, Google, CloudFlare or Facebook. Electricity and phones are two physical services that we really need and can be ran by any company. Cable television is regulated because cable companies need right of way on telephone poles and under the streets, which is owned, more or less, by the city, county, state or federal government.
Post reply on HN