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

FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#551

Post by HumblyTossed »

areoform wrote: post #526
karaterobot wrote: post #29

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neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the first place.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 (!).…

It feels like everyone has short memories. Net neutrality abuse did indeed happen, a few notable incidents, — Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile slowed down YouTube + Netflix traffic. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-a... — Verizon throttles so much that the Santa Clara County Fire Department’s ability to provide emergency services during the California wildfires. "The fire department experienced s…

> — Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile slowed down YouTube + Netflix traffic. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-a...

They still do... Get on AT&T and hist fast.com You are pegged at 4Mbps

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#552

Post by thomastjeffery »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #361
thomastjeffery wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary: most liberals (or anyone else who doesn't identify as a [neo]conservative) are painfully aware that the democratic party is failing to represent them. We just know that that failure is less damaging than what the Republican party is up to. The Republican party is the party of unification and engagement. The Democratic party is the tent for everyone else. The presence of the former demands the existen…

> The Republican party is the party of unification and engagement. The anti-LGBT party with a well-known track record of racism is the party of unification? No...no it's not. They're the party, that when asked to NOT be anti-LGBT and not be racist, cries about their freedom being repressed. The Republican party is the party of authority, tradition (Which is not necessarily a virtue), and conformity. They're the party…

I mean unification with themselves. Either you are a Republican, or you are not a conservative. In contrast, the Democratic party actually tries to cater to leftists, progressives, liberals, etc. all at once: one tent for everyone who isn't Republican.

Take for example the words, "In God We Trust; United We Stand." A christian conservative can read those words as a call for compromise around a shared identity; but the rest of us can read them for the threat that they are: either you are in the in group, or you are selfishly standing against it.

If the unification of the Republican voterbase wasn't working, Utah would have put 20% of its 2020 vote into an independent candidate, just like we did in 2016. That didn't happen. Instead, those voters became Trump supporters.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#553

Post by paulddraper »

areoform wrote: post #526
karaterobot wrote: post #29

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 (!).…

It feels like everyone has short memories. Net neutrality abuse did indeed happen, a few notable incidents, — Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile slowed down YouTube + Netflix traffic. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-a... — Verizon throttles so much that the Santa Clara County Fire Department’s ability to provide emergency services during the California wildfires. "The fire department experienced s…

> Verizon throttles so much that the Santa Clara County Fire Department’s

Net Neutrality does not prevent throttling. Bandwidth + data volume limits still exist.

Rather, NN prevents throttling or preferential treatment based on content/services. (E.g. throttling the fire department's access to Netflix but not to Facebook.)

---

Likewise, the CenturyLink example has nothing to do with NN either.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#554

Post by paulddraper »

acdha wrote: post #388
nashashmi wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the neutrality rule would be applying to ISPs. Those would be local to California. Outside of California, we would see the effects of no net neutrality

Yes, but the big ISPs would have a much harder time explaining the difference. Imagine them going into court or Congress having to explain why they needed to shakedown Netflix in NYC but not LA or explain why it suddenly became cost-prohibitive to run a network when you cross the border into Oregon or Arizona.

Without NN, under what charge would they be going to court?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#555

Post by [deleted] »

LastTrain wrote: post #519
mindslight wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just another system of control. Temporarily embarrassed millionaires and all that. And once the desire for freedom has been transmuted into support for corporate authoritarianism, the money flows and the political hacks get to work shoring up the platform for the sponsors. I don't think 'libertarian' has to be synonymous with 'anarchist', but US libertarianism desperately needs an analog of anarchism-without-adj…

If you made a Venn diagram of self-proclaimed libertarian’s beliefs, the center would be empty. That is the practical definition of libertarian in today’s world.

[deleted]

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#556

Post by paulddraper »

komali2 wrote: post #396
LastTrain wrote: post #382

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.

> they stop with political authority

The difference between political authorities and corporate authorities is that the former can conscript you, tax you, send you to jail, seize your assets, etc.

The latter can affect you insofar as you enter a contract.

There is no "opt-out" of a political authority. "No thanks, I'm better off without your services."

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#557

Post by paulddraper »

dragonwriter wrote: post #479
EasyMark wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

libertarians are a subgroup of classical liberalism; limited government and socially liberal, or at least the right to live as one wants within reason in a society. Anarchists, at least to Americans, have so many subgroups I don't even know where to start, it always seems completely watered down to me other than the "no central government" part.

> libertarians are a subgroup of classical liberalism No, they aren’t. There is some overlap between “libertarians” and groups from left to right (in the modern sense) that are grounded primarily in classical liberalism, and those include the bulk of what tend to get labeled “libertarians” in America (which are mostly the center-to-right subset of the classical liberal subset of libertarians.) But “libertarian” also…

Different words mean different things at different times in different places.

In America, the word "liberal" in 1900 is very similar to "libertarian" in 2020.

You may agree or disagree with this variability (I'm not a fan personally). But there you have it.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#558

Post by nobody9999 »

yterdy wrote: post #192
jrockway wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair Congress does some work. They have avoided 2 government shutdowns. They funded the war efforts in Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. They passed the infrastructure bill. The reality is, they just don't care about net neutrality. I'm still mad that they haven't passed the bill that gets rid of DST (or rather, gets rid of standard time). Everyone wants it in both parties. Just get it done. Even more annoying is th…

>To be fair Congress does some work. They have avoided 2 government shutdowns. They funded the war efforts in Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. They passed the infrastructure bill. That's just three different ways of saying, "Wrote checks to fill the pockets of monied interests, the bill for which will be paid for by the generations which explicitly oppose such policy." Talk to me when they pass Medicare For All, the Gree…

>Talk to me when they pass Medicare For All, the Green New Deal, campaign finance reform, and a border/immigration bill that finally puts that issue to rest. Until then, it's just another round of avoiding addressing the issues that are easiest to run on if they haven't been fixed in a prior term.

You do realize that half (and maybe a little more than that) of the elected folks in Congress do not support such things. That those folks represent less than half of the electorate is a different discussion -- but until you have clear majorities that support those initiatives (I and those I voted for certainly do), clamoring for everything all at once is a waste of time.

The idea that "I'm not getting everything I want right now means that government is irreparably broken," is ridiculous on its face.

That's not to say we shouldn't have better governance and more focus on making the world a better place rather than maintaining power. We definitely should. But asserting that unless all our elected representatives support our own beliefs/policy ideas and pass them post-haste is both unhelpful and not very realistic.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#559

Post by School-Cotton »

ThePowerOfFuet wrote: post #502
bko wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s easier for me to switch which business I give my money to than it is for me to move or change governments. Most of the services I use are provided by private industry and I have choices. Everything from food, clothing, shelter. All private corporations I choose to buy from. I guess I can go get my food from a government soup kitchen or apply for government housing but my experience is these services are not comp…

> I guess I can go get my food from a government soup kitchen or apply for government housing but my experience is these services are not competitive with private market even at the lower price (or free) Because you have such limited experience with the world. Did you know there are countries out there — dozens of them even! — which are not American? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/17/realestate/paris-france-h...

We are talking about the U.S., though, not France.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#560

Post by nobody9999 »

reaperman wrote: post #454
nobody9999 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf

Yes that is just the "FCC FACT SHEET" as it says in the top title of the document. It is not the actual rule/action. It is also the exact same link that the poster just above me already gave.

>Yes that is just the "FCC FACT SHEET" as it says in the top title of the document. It is not the actual rule/action. It is also the exact same link that the poster just above me already gave.

No. The first page is the "fact sheet." The other 693 pages is the rule-making document.

Or are you unable to read past the first line of the first page?

Post reply on HN