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

Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 121 posts

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#81

Post by prophesi »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #79
CaptSpify wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be an activist for more than one cause at a time. Additionally, those corporations (who I detest probably more than most people here) can still be legitimate victims, even if they are terrible. I don't like siding with them either, but if they are right, then their evil-ness is irrelevant.

>You can be an activist for more than one cause at a time. I agree. But scale does matter. You are not going to be worried about if the person giving you CPR has cooties or not, if you are suffering through an heart attack. >their evil-ness is irrelevant It is relevant, because I think free speech is more important than speed of packets. I have to use this opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of these corporations.

You're just being stubborn now.

Speed of packets is part of free speech, as it affects how it's sent and received.

It's obviously in Google/FB/etc's interest to advocate Net Neutrality, but they'll still be using their algorithms to filter what their users see whether or not net neutrality is a thing.

If Net Neutrality wasn't a thing, FB/Google might have a blow to their wallet. But they can afford it. The hobbyist can't.

And if you can choose between a person with cooties versus a person without cooties to save your life, you'd go with the one without cooties. You have nothing to lose to make the more sensible choice.

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#82

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

and0 wrote: post #39
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #24

I soured up on Net Neutrality after seeking what YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit did to silence voices that they don't like on their platforms. How does net neutrality matter if what travels on a perfectly neutral net is controlled anyway, actually controlled much more effectively, by a very few with agenda that goes far beyond just greed for money? "Don't open and judge my TCP/IP packets. But, I will open and judge…

None of what you're describing really has anything to do with net neutrality. And getting rid of net neutrality would only weaken alternative outlets. I'm thinking the problem you had with these services might have been your own fault, judging by your approach here.

Why not let Comcast decide if the video being uploaded to YouTube has a reference to an terrorist organization and then stop the upload?

Why is Google a better judge of what is terrorist content than Comcast?

>I'm thinking the problem you had with these services might have been your own fault, judging by your approach here.

Right. Those pesky packet senders themselves must be the problem because of which Comcast wants to send them to the slow lane.

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#83

Post by CaptSpify »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #79
CaptSpify wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be an activist for more than one cause at a time. Additionally, those corporations (who I detest probably more than most people here) can still be legitimate victims, even if they are terrible. I don't like siding with them either, but if they are right, then their evil-ness is irrelevant.

>You can be an activist for more than one cause at a time. I agree. But scale does matter. You are not going to be worried about if the person giving you CPR has cooties or not, if you are suffering through an heart attack. >their evil-ness is irrelevant It is relevant, because I think free speech is more important than speed of packets. I have to use this opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of these corporations.

It would have taken you less time and effort to file a complaint than it took to post these responses. I really think that you are missing the forest through the trees on this one.

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#84

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

prophesi wrote: post #81
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can be an activist for more than one cause at a time. I agree. But scale does matter. You are not going to be worried about if the person giving you CPR has cooties or not, if you are suffering through an heart attack. >their evil-ness is irrelevant It is relevant, because I think free speech is more important than speed of packets. I have to use this opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of these corporations.

You're just being stubborn now. Speed of packets is part of free speech, as it affects how it's sent and received. It's obviously in Google/FB/etc's interest to advocate Net Neutrality, but they'll still be using their algorithms to filter what their users see whether or not net neutrality is a thing. If Net Neutrality wasn't a thing, FB/Google might have a blow to their wallet. But they can afford it. The hobbyist c…

>You're just being stubborn now.

I hear you. :)

Do I want Net Neutrality? Yes

Is Free Speech more important to me? Yes

Is pointing out hypocrisy of YouTube at this point important for me? Yes

Will I vouch for a guy who gave me finger at the last intersection, if he gets into an accident no fault of his own at the next intersection? Yes, without hesitation.

Would I have some choice words for him for giving me finger? You bet.

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#85

Post by prophesi »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #84
prophesi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just being stubborn now. Speed of packets is part of free speech, as it affects how it's sent and received. It's obviously in Google/FB/etc's interest to advocate Net Neutrality, but they'll still be using their algorithms to filter what their users see whether or not net neutrality is a thing. If Net Neutrality wasn't a thing, FB/Google might have a blow to their wallet. But they can afford it. The hobbyist c…

>You're just being stubborn now. I hear you. :) Do I want Net Neutrality? Yes Is Free Speech more important to me? Yes Is pointing out hypocrisy of YouTube at this point important for me? Yes Will I vouch for a guy who gave me finger at the last intersection, if he gets into an accident no fault of his own at the next intersection? Yes, without hesitation. Would I have some choice words for him for giving me finger?…

And with this response, it sounds like you agree with everyone in this comment thread.

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#86

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

CaptSpify wrote: post #83
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can be an activist for more than one cause at a time. I agree. But scale does matter. You are not going to be worried about if the person giving you CPR has cooties or not, if you are suffering through an heart attack. >their evil-ness is irrelevant It is relevant, because I think free speech is more important than speed of packets. I have to use this opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of these corporations.

It would have taken you less time and effort to file a complaint than it took to post these responses. I really think that you are missing the forest through the trees on this one.

File a complaint? With whom do you suggest?

For me, Free Speech is the forest, NN is a group of trees in a corner.

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#87

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

prophesi wrote: post #85
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You're just being stubborn now. I hear you. :) Do I want Net Neutrality? Yes Is Free Speech more important to me? Yes Is pointing out hypocrisy of YouTube at this point important for me? Yes Will I vouch for a guy who gave me finger at the last intersection, if he gets into an accident no fault of his own at the next intersection? Yes, without hesitation. Would I have some choice words for him for giving me finger?…

And with this response, it sounds like you agree with everyone in this comment thread.

I don't want Comcast looking inside my packets. I don't want Google looking inside my videos.

Deal?

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#88

Post by outsidetheparty »

matt4077 wrote: post #27
anotherbrownguy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know what Google and Netflix want to tell you what it is but I also know what it actually is ( https://www.fcc.gov/document/restoring-internet-freedom-noti... ).

That's actually a fun read. Just loom at this section where they are making an absurd logical Yoga move to get ISPs classified as "information providers" and not a "telecommunication provider": In contrast, Internet service providers do not appear to offer “telecommunications,” i.e., “the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or…

It's a truly ridiculous argument. Users of telephone service don't specify the routing of their calls either, yet somehow that fact is sufficient to transform an ISP from a carrier to a "content provider".

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#89

Post by outsidetheparty »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #82
and0 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of what you're describing really has anything to do with net neutrality. And getting rid of net neutrality would only weaken alternative outlets. I'm thinking the problem you had with these services might have been your own fault, judging by your approach here.

Why not let Comcast decide if the video being uploaded to YouTube has a reference to an terrorist organization and then stop the upload? Why is Google a better judge of what is terrorist content than Comcast? >I'm thinking the problem you had with these services might have been your own fault, judging by your approach here. Right. Those pesky packet senders themselves must be the problem because of which Comcast want…

> Why is Google a better judge of what is terrorist content than Comcast?

Google only gets to decide what you can do on google websites. Without net neutrality, Comcast, in its de facto monopoly position, gets to decide what you do on -all- websites.

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#90

Post by _5ysi »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #48
matt4077 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [..] economic illogicality of an enterprise not being allowed to negotiate prices with its customers. See, that's where your argument makes no sense. ISPs don't want to argue prices with their customers. They want to extort businesses that have never decided to be their customers. And you're assuming peoples' motives in the face of these people telling you that you're wrong: I actually don't have grudge with my loc…

http://gizmodo.com/the-secret-deals-that-mean-you-have-to-wa... The big fish already do pay because ISPs hold their customers hostage. They've "opened new revenue channels" by realizing that they can just pay a small amount for lobbying efforts so FCC and friends will leave them alone to make a larger amount from content sources.

Thanks for finding this. This is exactly the point, we can reduce lobbying corruption by scrapping such economics-defying rules.

This is completely orthogonal to real anti-trust legislation against the hardwired ISPs, which both parties seem to be incapable of.

Net Neutrality didn't officially exist for the first 3 decades of the Internet; I never thought making it official policy fixed a big enough problem to make it worth the cost. A lot of data volume coming out of Google and Facebook are profitable ad images we didn't specifically request. Why shouldn't our ISPs be able charge them for this data? End user bills could fall as low as $0! But the mechanism for doing so has to be blunt and "discriminatory": you can't realistically tell what percentage of data from a domain is of a particular type nor can you keep track of, and contact, every tiny data serving domain out there.

Post reply on HN