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

The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 150 posts

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

#81

Post by skate22 »

donatj wrote: post #70
pfisch wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 int…

Average connection speed has been steadily increasing for over a decade. I dont like the idea of a risky solution to a non problem. I spend most of my time on the internet & I have one provider to "choose" from in my area.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/616210/average-internet-...

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

#82

Post by Rapzid »

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #30

Wishful thinking, the president would not sign the bill and there's not a supermajority in the Senate and the house to overrule him. This is going nowhere.

To Trump's credit, I believe he would sign the bill. He mostly cares about winning and looking good. Also, he gives people what they want. If both houses pass the bill; "You wanted net neutrality? We now have the best net neutrality in the history of the internet. We rolled back Obama's sick and dying internet, Obama killed the internet did you know that folks?, and now we have the best most free internet EVER. Period."

We may actually have the opposite problem; Trump may not veto anything that comes across his desk.

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

#83

Post by jeremyt »

matchbok wrote: post #23
jeremyt wrote: post #16

I am firmly opposed to "Net Neutrality". Literally everything the government regulates becomes a mess and a boondoggle. Health care, housing, and pensions all the way down to city building codes (I have a friend who needs to replace her windows in San Francisco, and the city government has decreed that they can only use wooden frame windows because of the aesthetics, even though they are more than twice as expensive)…

Healthcare? Name me one country with free-market healthcare. I'll wait. Also, your friend chose to live in that house, along with all the regulations that came with it. Spare us the sob story. You clearly don't understand why NN was put in place. All the telcos were prioritizing content, taking advantage of their monopoly power. Starting a telco is serious work, and that isn't simply due to government regulation. Try…

Veterinary care. Cheap, quick, high quality...free market and unregulated

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

#84

Post by ppf »

tzs wrote: post #56
jeremyt wrote: post #16

I am firmly opposed to "Net Neutrality". Literally everything the government regulates becomes a mess and a boondoggle. Health care, housing, and pensions all the way down to city building codes (I have a friend who needs to replace her windows in San Francisco, and the city government has decreed that they can only use wooden frame windows because of the aesthetics, even though they are more than twice as expensive)…

> "Net Neutrality" is nothing more than an Orwellian named, amorphous and vague idea that nobody really knows what it means. The 2015 Open Internet order's rules take up all of 8 pages. You could know what it means if you actually wanted to and were willing to put in a little effort.

Would love to see an 8-page version of this: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pd...

Certainly includes enough loopholes to mean this is a poor implementation of the ideal of "Net Neutrality". My favourite being "To be clear, the protections of the no-blocking and no-throttling rules apply to particular classes of applications,content and services as well as particular applications, content, and services."

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

#86

Post by adventured »

ryanpcmcquen wrote: post #77
nercht12 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is government controlling the internet. It's the extent and who that is different. In this case, it's only forcing a fair playing field. Kinda like highways being public vs. toll instead of telling you what cars you are and are not allowed to drive. I'd like a "free" internet, but I still have to admit it's going to cost someone else's "freedom".

Controlling ISPs !== controlling the internet.

You're contradicting everything the pro net neutrality people have said for years, namely that without it the ISPs will control the Internet. Part of the premise is that the ISPs do in fact have control over the Internet by acting as the monopoly access point, and that they can do various terrible things accordingly. If you control the ISPs - ie how almost all Americans access the Internet - you inherently do control the Internet.

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

#87

Post by jampekka »

jordigh wrote: post #6

I still can't believe that the movement to kill net neutrality was (is?) called "restoring internet freedom". I guess it's a shortening of "restoring internet service providers' freedom"? But the longer form isn't as catchy.

It's nowadays quite a good heuristic that purpose and effects of a bill is opposite to what the bill's name says.

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

#88

Post by [deleted] »

jeremyt wrote: post #83
matchbok wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Healthcare? Name me one country with free-market healthcare. I'll wait. Also, your friend chose to live in that house, along with all the regulations that came with it. Spare us the sob story. You clearly don't understand why NN was put in place. All the telcos were prioritizing content, taking advantage of their monopoly power. Starting a telco is serious work, and that isn't simply due to government regulation. Try…

Veterinary care. Cheap, quick, high quality...free market and unregulated

[deleted]

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

#89

Post by jordigh »

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…

> Freedom is never constraint on others

Of course it is, you have to constrain the powerful so they cannot take freedom away from the dispossessed.

You have to restrict the freedom of Southern plantation owners to own slaves to ensure the freedom of slaves. You have to restrict the freedom of corporations to merge into a giant conglomerate so you can protect the freedom of choice of consumers. You have to restrict the freedom of corporations to charge for the origin of internet traffic so you can protect the freedom of internet users to visit any site they wish.

Freedom in society is always an exchange and a compromise. Your freedom to swing your fist ends five centimetres away from my nose.

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

#90

Post by pc86 »

polotics wrote: post #45
nateconq wrote: post #12

"would need a bare majority in both the Senate and the House, as well as the president’s signature" "We don’t know how this is going to end...." They know very well how it will end. This is an effort to get ammo for the primaries.

Well any representative that votes No puts themselves fair and square in the parliament of whores.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN