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

I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 423 posts

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#91

Post by Zren »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #64
throwaway5752 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're a dope if you don't vote. It's impolite to mention this, but it is not a political problem, but a Republican problem. A Democratic administration's FCC enacted Net Neutrality, a Republican one is attempting to dismantle it. Vote for Democrats at every level of government, in every election possible. This will change some day, but today the Republican party has lost its mind and morals. To be clear, I'm not cal…

It's worth noting that Ajit was installed by Obama

Obama installed the Republican nominee since the FCC can't have more than 3 comissioners from the same political party (thus there's always a 2v3 balance).

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_V._Pai#Career

> In 2011, Pai was then nominated for a Republican Party position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Minority leader Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012,

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commiss...

> Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#93

Post by bbatsell »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #64
throwaway5752 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're a dope if you don't vote. It's impolite to mention this, but it is not a political problem, but a Republican problem. A Democratic administration's FCC enacted Net Neutrality, a Republican one is attempting to dismantle it. Vote for Democrats at every level of government, in every election possible. This will change some day, but today the Republican party has lost its mind and morals. To be clear, I'm not cal…

It's worth noting that Ajit was installed by Obama

As an independent agency, the FCC is required to have two members from a minority party, and when a spot opens up, a new member is traditionally given to the President by the minority party. (Pai was Mitch McConnell's choice.)

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#94

Post by saulrh »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #49
netsec_burn wrote: post #43

Nick Gillespie: Your plan will, according to a write up in Politico, and I think this is accurate, it quote, "will jettison rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so called paid internet fast lanes." Question for you, do you think fast lanes will become a thing? What is the value of a internet fast lane? Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We'v…

> "If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be 'too preemptive' to outlaw it?" But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason). > "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now." But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.

> But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.

I think that this is the part that I can't comprehend. The railroads misbehaved so badly that the government had to break rail transportation as an industry to kill them. Ninety years later we're still using long-haul semi trailers for everything. Bell's abuse of its monopoly was similarly severe. How do people hold this belief without becoming laughingstock?

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#95

Post by 0xbear »

labster wrote: post #33
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #19

"There is something not right about a few unelected FCC officials making such vast determinations about the future of the internet." Is she talking about 2015 or 2017?

2017, because in 2015 the FCC acted on the advice of the people. Now, they act opposed to 98.5% of the unique comments from the public.

Where by “people” you probably mean the lobbyists from Google/Facebook/Netflix and other internet companies who would have to share a fraction of their fat profit margins to deliver their stuff to you.

As the present predicament shows “advice of the people” means jack squat to the FCC, just like it did in 2015.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#96

Post by throwaway5752 »

thesmallestcat wrote: post #73
throwaway5752 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And?

And so you could have a single-party system and you'd end up with a split of conservatives and liberals. It's not about party, at least not about blindly voting for one party.

This is not about liberalism or conservativism at all. It would be lovely if the current Republican party was about conservativism. This is not about political philosophy, this is about party and who exercises power in those parties.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#97

Post by jquery »

frogcoder wrote: post #77

This is how China "blocking" web site from most of the world other than China. When many sites are blocked out right, many more are accessible but painfully slow. On the other hand, if you go to any major Chinese site, it would be lightning fast. By doing this, those foreign sites are rendered almost useless.

China has net neutrality. You are quite naive if you think NN is a solution to censorship. Browse eff.org for more than a few minutes to see that NN doesn't even scratch the surface of underlying issues. I don't want NN because then everyone will think the internet is just fine, when NN is a joke of a solution that doesn't even cover anything more than the FTC already covers.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#98

Post by [deleted] »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #64
throwaway5752 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're a dope if you don't vote. It's impolite to mention this, but it is not a political problem, but a Republican problem. A Democratic administration's FCC enacted Net Neutrality, a Republican one is attempting to dismantle it. Vote for Democrats at every level of government, in every election possible. This will change some day, but today the Republican party has lost its mind and morals. To be clear, I'm not cal…

It's worth noting that Ajit was installed by Obama

[deleted]

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#99

Post by rectang »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #49
netsec_burn wrote: post #43

Nick Gillespie: Your plan will, according to a write up in Politico, and I think this is accurate, it quote, "will jettison rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so called paid internet fast lanes." Question for you, do you think fast lanes will become a thing? What is the value of a internet fast lane? Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We'v…

> "If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be 'too preemptive' to outlaw it?" But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason). > "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now." But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.

But the beneficiaries of your "net freedom" are a handful of regional monopoly ISPs who are protected by regulations that realistically won't ever be rolled back.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#100

Post by rdtsc »

ribosometronome wrote: post #14
exabrial wrote: post #7

Sorry I'm not buying into the panic. Between wide scale TLS deployment and larger swaths of bandwidth available, I'd rather see free market solutions so these regulatory powers can't be abused. Net neutrality only matters if your ISP can decrypt your traffic and there is a limited share of bandwidth available.

Free market solutions only work in a free market. Do you think an ISP can't throttle/limit encrypted traffic?

Right, that's the key. Even in some larger cities there are usually 2 or 3 providers to choose from. In some rural areas there is only 1. If it decides to throttle Youtube and charge extra to access Facebook, there is no competition to go to and bargain for a lower price.

So in an abstract world where there is ample choice of providers, Comcast would be dead if it continues with the practices it is engaged in now. In the real world that's not happening until someone comes in and slaps it on the head and tells it to behave.

Post reply on HN