Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#91

Post by uabstraction » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 6:08 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #35

This is an unpopular opinion here, but I think net neutrality is too absolutist. If a company wants to pay to have all the data of an app be free for their users, that's great in my opinion. I don't want ISP's to extort small players or artificially slow down anyone. But if a company wants their video streaming app to be zero-rated by paying all the data costs, that seems like a business decision to me. Some people w…

If we don't have Network Neutrality, we need to increase competition in consumer Internet access by an order of magnitude. In other words, its either net neutrality, or break up AT&T, TWC, Comcast, and Verizon into at least 40 companies, or riots.

With no NN, and no competition, we're going to end up forcing families who are aleady paying out the ass to choose between letting little Jimmy do the research he needs for his homework assignment, and Daddy sneaking some porn in the middle of the night. No way.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#92

Post by chris11 » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 6:08 PM UTC

ci5er wrote: post #31

Well, sure. In theory, he could do anything by fiat within the bounds of established regulatory discretion. Of course, I wouldn't worry too much about all of the stuff that "Trump could do" until he gets around to doing it. He talks a lot. And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that people worry about him potentially doing... As frustratingly slow as congressional action is -- it's more resistant to…

> And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that people worry about him potentially doing...

Trump doesn't have to do that much to dismantle net neutrality. All he has to do is sign bills put in front of him and appoint people to the FCC that are against the latter. He's not president yet, so he hasn't done the former, but he is in the process of the latter.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fcc-idUSKBN13H02...

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#93

Post by gweinberg » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 6:08 PM UTC

tallowen wrote: post #50

throwaway729 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too I'm from the midwest and I still don't understand this sentiment. Why should the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at night? That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. It's not that people who don't live on the coasts shouldn't have a say. It's that if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes , then t…

> The house also favors less populous states, even if not by design. Out of curiosity, how does this happen in practice? My understanding was that seats were divided up by population (giving equal voice to those in more densely populated areas).

They're even with a rounding error, but every state must get at least one. The rounding error is pretty big for the smallest states.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#94

Post by TulliusCicero » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 6:09 PM UTC

ci5er wrote: post #31

Well, sure. In theory, he could do anything by fiat within the bounds of established regulatory discretion. Of course, I wouldn't worry too much about all of the stuff that "Trump could do" until he gets around to doing it. He talks a lot. And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that people worry about him potentially doing... As frustratingly slow as congressional action is -- it's more resistant to…

> The lesson that a lot of anti-Trumpers appear to have taken away from this election is that the electoral college is bad because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too.

Utter nonsense. Under a popular vote-based system, each person in a non-coastal state would have exactly as much say as each person in a coastal state. To the extent that coastal areas might have more sway as a whole because they have more people, isn't that the whole point of democracy?

If we want to give people in less populous areas more power because they're a minority, why stop there? Why don't we give Asians and blacks more voting power than whites? Why not give Muslims and Jews more voting power than Christians? We could give more voting power to gays and lesbians than straight people!

Why is rural area/state vs urban area/state the divide where we ought to privilege the minority? Why not some other dimension that historically has involved a lot more oppression? Wouldn't that make more sense?

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#95

Post by tajen » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 6:09 PM UTC

saboot wrote: post #37

ci5er wrote: post #31

Well, sure. In theory, he could do anything by fiat within the bounds of established regulatory discretion. Of course, I wouldn't worry too much about all of the stuff that "Trump could do" until he gets around to doing it. He talks a lot. And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that people worry about him potentially doing... As frustratingly slow as congressional action is -- it's more resistant to…

I have talked directly to people in higher positions in telecom industries. They are expecting a reversal on net neutrality towards more "market-friendly" positions. Yes, this is a personal anecdote. No, I don't have a citation. Hope for the best, but expect and prepare for the worst.

I think at this point it is clear that it takes tremendous energy to have a very little say on topics like net neutrality, surveillance, and more. That's the case is most western countries: Our leaders have a great latitude, in parallel with their main program, to apply things which weren't discussed during the campaign.Until we find a better way, we'll have to accept that, yes, the president has legitimate power to do it.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#96

Post by mzw_mzw » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 6:09 PM UTC

throwaway729 wrote: post #39

ci5er wrote: post #31

Well, sure. In theory, he could do anything by fiat within the bounds of established regulatory discretion. Of course, I wouldn't worry too much about all of the stuff that "Trump could do" until he gets around to doing it. He talks a lot. And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that people worry about him potentially doing... As frustratingly slow as congressional action is -- it's more resistant to…

> because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too I'm from the midwest and I still don't understand this sentiment. Why should the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at night? That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. It's not that people who don't live on the coasts shouldn't have a say. It's that if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes , then t…

> It's that if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes, then they should probably win the election.

Except that in a universe where the President was selected by popular vote, the candidates would have campaigned differently anyway, so your point is completely moot.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#97

Post by guelo » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 6:10 PM UTC

luso_brazilian wrote: post #13

The part of the Net Neutrality debate that is so often disregarded (and probably the reason conservatives oppose it vehemently) is that it gives FCC (an unelected body of government, part of the executive branch) power to legislate. Not passing judgement or touching the merit of the whole subject but it is a very consistent position of the right in the United States to oppose regulation passed down by unelected offic…

I don't get your point. We all know Trump is anti regulation. So everybody that thinks net neutrality is a good idea is worried.

Personally, I think hardline ideologically driven policies leads to disaster. But it looks like that's what we're going to get.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#98

Post by TulliusCicero » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 6:11 PM UTC

xamuel wrote: post #57

dcposch wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The lesson that a lot of anti-Trumpers appear to have taken away from this election is that the electoral college is bad because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too No. Everyone should have an equal say. That's what national popular vote ensures. Clinton got over 2m more votes than her opponent, but will not be President. That's not democracy. I completely agree with your point about limiting…

Not to endorse either candidate, but you're making a common mistake. If the election were a popular vote, the candidates would campaign for that. They'd focus more on big cities etc. There's no guarantee Clinton would have won the popular vote if that had been the case. Edit: If you're downvoting could you explain why?

You're definitely not wrong that it's not guaranteed she would win. She'd probably have had a better chance though. It would've been harder for Trump to make his pitch in the areas Clinton did well in.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#99

Post by theli0nheart » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 6:11 PM UTC

throwaway729 wrote: post #70

xahrepap wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is anti-democratic by design . Founding fathers didn't want a democratic election for presidents. I think a good example of what the electoral college is: you have a sports tournament. The winner isn't the person who gets the most points in all the games. It's the person who wins the most games.

The original purpose of the electoral college was NOT to provide disproportionate voice to non-populous states. In fact, the states backing the college were some of the most populous as long as you count slaves. Also, the founding fathers weren't all supporters of the electoral college. Appealing to their ultimate compromise is a strange argument, especially since the original political motivations have largely becom…

> The original purpose of the electoral college was NOT to provide disproportionate voice to non-populous states. In fact, the states backing the college were some of the most populous as long as you count slaves.

This begs for a source. Where is it stated exactly what the purpose of the electoral college was, in the Founding Fathers' own words?

Furthermore, you have to keep in mind that at the time the U.S. was founded, the individual states were essentially their own countries with individual governments and leadership. The only way they could make the deal work with all of them was to ensure that no one state could "overrule" the others. If smaller states could be bullied by larger states, the term "united states" loses a quite a bit of its meaning.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#100

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 6:11 PM UTC

jachee wrote: post #16

joeclark77 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"no matter which side you're on"... but what about those against net neutrality? Are we not a side ?

Sell me on the argument against it? Arbitrary operator editorial ability seems like a dangerous and irresponsible thing.

> Sell me on the argument against it?

There are three groups of people opposed to network neutrality. 1) People who don't like government regulation in general, 2) Telecoms lobbyists and 3) People who don't understand what network neutrality is.

Obviously only the first are worth listening to, though the second are the loudest and the third are the most numerous.

And the issue with listening to the first group is that we have to do it in the right order. The principle of not having the government regulate is that the free market will take care of it, but there is currently no free market for telecommunications, in part because the government has given the incumbents access to eminent domain and a trillion dollars in government subsidies over the past century. So the order of things would have to be to first somehow have strong last-mile competition (e.g. more than 20 providers on average) and only then remove network neutrality.

The people who actually believe this also believe that last mile is not a natural monopoly. The proper way to answer it is to give them e.g. Nevada and let them prove it. Then once Nevada somehow has 20 independent last mile providers, we can do the same thing everywhere else and won't need network neutrality anymore. And if they're wrong and they fail, then we'll know for sure and the only people opposed will be the people no one should ever listen to.