The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by nl » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:12 AM UTC

ianai wrote: post #46

cdancette wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you are actually in agreement with the person you are replying to?

They point out it is freedom of ISPS vs natural people, and you are pointing out that considering ISP rights the same as people is bad.

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

#62

Post by ppf » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:15 AM UTC

duxup wrote: post #24

jeremyt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that anyone here, without looking it up, could explain what exactly "net neutrality" means, without falling back on talking points and vague aspirational language, rather than what actually is written in the regulations. For starters, the FCC did an end run around Congress because they couldn't get Congress to pass it, so they had to take previous regulations intended for telephone service and cram a…

I think most folks here (and who care elsewhere) get the gist and impact of net neutrality. There's quite a few discussions that seem to illustrate their knowledge pretty clearly. You just have to read them. I mean can you honestly recite the regulations? Would that disqualify your opposition to it? The gist of your position seems to be the supporters are dumb and you generally don't like government regulation .... a…

The "gist" of Net Neutrality - "all connections and data packets must be treated equally, except when ISPs give access to some sites for free to some people, and when live audio and video streams need QoS prioritising, and when nasty websites need blocking".

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

#63

Post by pfisch » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:34 AM UTC

donatj wrote: post #53

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’d obviously want to ensure net neutrality then?

Net neutrality is literally constraint on how data passing through networks can be routed and shaped. It’s exactly “constraining the Internet”. It’s not “freedom” in any shape or matter. Freedom is never constraint on others. It’s a popular constraint, and people just happen to confuse and conflate “things I like/feel positivity about” and “freedom”. It’s controversial to say here but I don’t think it gets discussed…

When att makes it free to use their video service and not free to use everything else, that hurts unestablished players.

Net neutrality also helps users. Do I really need to explain how?

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

#64

Post by ghba66 » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:36 AM UTC

Why are people here so pro-net neutrality? I don't have NN in Europe and I'm happy: because of it, I enjoy zero-rated services at a fair price.

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

#65

Post by Matterrr » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:41 AM UTC

ghba66 wrote: post #64

Why are people here so pro-net neutrality? I don't have NN in Europe and I'm happy: because of it, I enjoy zero-rated services at a fair price.

Zero-rating is a terrible thing that helps stifle the free market and consolidate monopolies. It is also of questionable legality.

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

#66

Post by ppf » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:42 AM UTC

wslack wrote: post #10

trentnix wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also an inevitable consequence. Truth be told, I distrust the part of government that supports “net neutrality” and I distrust the part of government that is against it. Make no mistake, the government is itching to dictate content and tax data transfer.

It's really not. The US gov't can't require censorship like that.

Do you think that the FCC's regulation of Cable TV content counts as "censorship"?

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

#67

Post by jacquesm » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:43 AM UTC

rhcom2 wrote: post #32

craftyguy wrote: post #2

> Reddit, Tumblr, Etsy and other sites have put up Red Alert banners as part of a day of action to drive petitions in support of the resolution. I get the feeling that these sites are just 'preaching to the choir' (i.e. their customers already support these things, and most likely have let their 'representative' know). Is anyone doing anything to give the 50 senators who are against this a taste of what is to come? I…

Not to introduce flame bait but one of the reasons the NRA is powerful is the ability to quickly motivate their very vocal members.

The fact that those members have guns might also have something to do with it. 'Do this or else we will sick our gun carrying members on you' even if they do nothing at all is a more powerful signal than 'Do this or a bunch of people will show up to protest'.

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

#68

Post by ghba66 » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:47 AM UTC

Matterrr wrote: post #65

ghba66 wrote: post #64

Why are people here so pro-net neutrality? I don't have NN in Europe and I'm happy: because of it, I enjoy zero-rated services at a fair price.

Zero-rating is a terrible thing that helps stifle the free market and consolidate monopolies. It is also of questionable legality.

It does not consolidate monopolies because, by law, ISPs are required to add all apps from a category (chat, video, etc) to zero-rating. i.e. if you add Netflix you are required to add YouTube, etc.

All I see about NN is a lot of manipulation from both sides. And what's especially frustrating is that some people insist that NN is anti-customer. No thanks, I'll keep my zero-rating.

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

#69

Post by Crosseye_Jack » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:49 AM UTC

ghba66 wrote: post #64

Why are people here so pro-net neutrality? I don't have NN in Europe and I'm happy: because of it, I enjoy zero-rated services at a fair price.

The U.K.'s (government / regulators) stance on net neutrality) is that as long as there is competition in the market and there are services you can sign up for that “neutral” then there is no need to step in yet.

The competition in the U.S. isn’t as great as it can be in here in the U.K. where many will only have a single choice for their ISP (or have restricted cell/sat isp or have a service that we wouldn’t even consider as broadband as it’s speed is so low).

It’s strange how people from different parts from the world may require different rules that govern them.

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

#70

Post by donatj » Thu, May 10, 2018, 9:57 AM UTC

pfisch wrote: post #63

donatj wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Net neutrality is literally constraint on how data passing through networks can be routed and shaped. It’s exactly “constraining the Internet”. It’s not “freedom” in any shape or matter. Freedom is never constraint on others. It’s a popular constraint, and people just happen to confuse and conflate “things I like/feel positivity about” and “freedom”. It’s controversial to say here but I don’t think it gets discussed…

When att makes it free to use their video service and not free to use everything else, that hurts unestablished players. Net neutrality also helps users. Do I really need to explain how?

It’s not as clear cut as “it helps users”. There are positives and negatives for users as there are in all things in life; nothing is black and white.

Firstly I would hardly call demanding the end of free services on moral grounds “helping users”. As far as the end user cares, forcing them to pay for all services equally when they could previously get one for free is a net harm.

The bigger problem however is that internet has been running largely at full bandwidth capacity since mid 2015, particularly the backbone. Bandwidth is being devoured faster than it is being added. Not being able to limit major hogs, namely streaming services, in favor of other smaller and potentially more important connections actually harms users with slower overall response time for the internet at large.

I personally think things like medical/government services and online banking traffic getting priority over entertainment is not that controversial - but not allowed under net neutrality.

It’s not as clear cut as people think.