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

Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 155 posts

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#71

Post by [deleted] »

drdaeman wrote: post #36
epistasis wrote: post #2

This is why politics is important, even in tech. We need some grownups to represent us. If you spend ~$50/month on home internet access, and $50/month on cell phone access, that's $1200/year for internet connectivity. How much do you spend on hardware per year? Do you buy a >$1200 laptop per year? How much money does Google make off of your info? The ISPs are rolling in cash. They have terrible customer service. They…

I don't know about the US, but it surely can't be like even greediest ISPs are not having any expenses and just hoarding cash enjoying their monopolies. Even though customers sometimes feel that way. I believe the following must be true for every ISP on the planet. Hardware crashes and/or dies - power surges, thunderstorms, vandalism, firmware bugs, old age, human errors - all sorts of stuff happen almost daily. It a…

[deleted]

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#72

Post by jonomw »

bkeroack wrote: post #49
jonomw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He obviously is intelligent if he has made it this far, but taking everything he says, I can't regard him as more than an idiot. He says contradictory things. He says he supports an idea but doesn't support the act of enforcing it. His apparent ideology is in direct conflict with his actions. He either fundamentally misunderstands the situation, is majorly corrupt, or is simply malicious (which I doubt).

> He says he supports an idea but doesn't support the act of enforcing it. I support the idea of being faithful in your marriage, but I'm 100% opposed to the federal government enforcing this. How is that contradictory?

I understand your point and will address it, but I think you chose a bad example. I don't think anyone thinks that government on any level should enforce a marriage (as in, forcing two people to stay wed). On the other hand, Pai thinks that some of these things should be regulated, just not by the FCC or the federal government.

The problem is, there isn't another place for the regulation to happen. The FTC simply does not have the expertise or resources and the internet needs broad conforming rules to perform well, so a state-by-state solution would prove disastrous.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#73

Post by anigbrowl »

bkeroack wrote: post #49
jonomw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He obviously is intelligent if he has made it this far, but taking everything he says, I can't regard him as more than an idiot. He says contradictory things. He says he supports an idea but doesn't support the act of enforcing it. His apparent ideology is in direct conflict with his actions. He either fundamentally misunderstands the situation, is majorly corrupt, or is simply malicious (which I doubt).

> He says he supports an idea but doesn't support the act of enforcing it. I support the idea of being faithful in your marriage, but I'm 100% opposed to the federal government enforcing this. How is that contradictory?

Yes, my relationship with my ISP and other large businesses is just like a marriage between two equal partners.

Please continue to explore this analogical nadir, I am fascinated to see what further jewels of illogic you can dig out of the muck.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#74

Post by s73ver »

pvnick wrote: post #56

Good. The less federal regulation over ISPs the better.

No. Most people have only one choice for ISP, and that wouldn't change if you got rid of all federal regulation on them. Therefore, regulations are required in order to make sure that people don't get fucked by their ISP.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#75

Post by tn135 »

epistasis wrote: post #2

This is why politics is important, even in tech. We need some grownups to represent us. If you spend ~$50/month on home internet access, and $50/month on cell phone access, that's $1200/year for internet connectivity. How much do you spend on hardware per year? Do you buy a >$1200 laptop per year? How much money does Google make off of your info? The ISPs are rolling in cash. They have terrible customer service. They…

> The ISPs are rolling in cash.

Common myth. - Comcast made merely $2B in profits last year.[verified] - ATT made around $5B from wireline data last year. [unverified]

A lot of people think these are monopolies with the help of government without realising that a lot of companies including Google tried to bring disruption and have failed. Part of the reason why not many people are wasting their capital on wireline is because it is unlikely to give better results.

ISPs have terrible customer service because most of their efforts are going into keeping those wires and fibres intact. I would rather have a good working internet service and a bad call center rep than opposite.

Not to mention when you don't allow companies like Comcast etc. to bring cheaper labor from India, they will be forced to spend more hiring American college grads and spend more cash on their training etc. We have to pay for it in the bill.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#76

Post by amccollum »

declan wrote: post #51
amccollum wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your post: It makes more sense for Congress to come up with a lasting solution that isn't subject to regulatory bounce-back, and this is what the bill being described in the article seems to do. From the article: But from what we know about Lee's bill so far, it appears the proposal wouldn't impose any type of net neutrality rules to replace the current ones. Wherein lies the so-called "lasting solution"?

Any lasting solution would be negotiated by Congress.

If they were going to do that, why wouldn't they just put it in the same bill? It would be extremely naive to assume that they are going to do anything on top of repealing the current NN protections.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#77

Post by pvnick »

s73ver wrote: post #74
pvnick wrote: post #56

Good. The less federal regulation over ISPs the better.

No. Most people have only one choice for ISP, and that wouldn't change if you got rid of all federal regulation on them. Therefore, regulations are required in order to make sure that people don't get fucked by their ISP.

Correction: "Most people currently have..."

In the long run, the only barrier to competition is regulatory capture, which is much harder to overcome than short-term problems like there not being enough competition. Technical challenges are a lot easier to solve than regulatory challenges, which 100% of the time increase the barrier to entry by, among other things, raising the cost of compliance (have to pay more lawyers, accountants, etc to make any moves in the market).

Post reply on HN