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

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#961

Post by bo1024 »

yters wrote: post #944
bo1024 wrote: post #879

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know yet. You might have almost no change, you might find half the internet censored by default. If ISPs wanted to make it cheaper for you to access a simpler level of services, they could have already done so by offering you lower internet speeds and small data caps. They kept prices high because you were willing to pay them and there wasn't (much) competition. They're not going to give up those profits wil…

Can the ISPs actually censor content? On the other hand, I'm not opposed to censoring some things, like porn.

They absolutely have the technical ability, and now they have the legal ability as well. If a page is http, not https, then they can arbitrarily modify the page in transit. Otherwise, they can simply decide not to serve pages from any site they want.

> On the other hand, I'm not opposed to censoring some things, like porn.

This is how censorship tends to start. Porn, copyright, and/or terrorism. You are opening yourself and your country up to a world of abuses by those in power once you start letting them censor. (Also, why is it any of your business or mine if other people watch porn? And if it is, the path to change practices we disagree with is through dialogue and education, not authoritarianism.)

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#962

Post by Delmania »

matwood wrote: post #957
dtien wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is not acceptable to pursue that agenda by ignoring expert answers to technical questions, regardless of party affiliation Your entire premise can be rebutted with the policies around climate change. If something as catastrophic and irreversible as climate change can be subject to partisan nonsense, twisting of facts and delegitimization of experts; what makes anyone think that Net Neutrality would be looked upon…

> I hope at some point we can return to some semblance of governance based on facts, logic, and pragmatism rather than ideology. This is a great point. We're in this NN shit show because of ideology. The GOP tried to work with the Democrats to craft NN legislation, but the Democrats only wanted a Title II designation and nothing else. Now the GOP has effectively stripped away any NN protections. Both sides holding fi…

No, they haven't, not yet. There is lawsuit being filed by multiple state attorneys general stating alleging the FCC violated the Administrative Review Act, and there is reason to believe they have a strong case.

During this whole process, the Republican commissioners have done many mistakes. They stated they do not need to mind the public's comment period. They even stated they would not pay heed to the public's comments. They cited technological reasons for this, were told they were wrong, and then tried to dismiss those reasons. They refused to work with investigators on the fraudulent comments. They refused to listen to Congress's requests to delay the vote. There have been statements and leaks of Pai acting openly hostile towards the public and catering to Verizon. The other thing is that there is no compelling proof the ISP landscape has changed enough since 2015 to warrant repealing these rules. There is a very strong case that if skillfully argued can demonstrate Pai was acting in an arbitrary fashion against the consumer's best interests, which is the mandate of the FCC.

It's not a sure guarantee, but as I said, the FCC has given the AGs more then enough fodder. It's what happens when you hand the reigns over to people who don't understand the limitations of their office.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#963

Post by zerohm »

rayiner wrote: post #863
zerohm wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republicans aren't pushing deregulation of the internet to make swing states happy. They are pushing for deregulation because that's what several billionaire campaign contributors want them to do.

That's more than a little bit off the mark. Both the U.S. and Europe are in the middle of a multi-decade economic boom resulting from deregulation. Telecom, airline, etc., deregulation isn't something we did on our own. Pretty much the whole developed world has massively deregulated these industries, and continues to do so, and continues to benefit from those policies. To me, the litmus test for whether deregulatory…

The US at least, has been in an economic boom since the Subprime Mortgage Crisis in 2010, which was partly caused by deregulation of banks and lenders. Can you provide some examples of why this world wide boom is credited to deregulation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Decre...

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#964

Post by zerohm »

dionidium wrote: post #641
zerohm wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republicans aren't pushing deregulation of the internet to make swing states happy. They are pushing for deregulation because that's what several billionaire campaign contributors want them to do.

Why is it so hard for people to take the other side at their word? Republicans push deregulation because they think it's the right thing to do , because they believe the market is a better regulatory mechanism. Perhaps you think this view is mistaken. Good, great, fine! Then argue against it. But there's no crazy hidden motive here. Republicans just disagree with you.

I know my post was very cynical. I agree open and free markets are very valuable and need to be protected. But in this case, anti-NN policies are so hugely unpopular, I can't see how anyone would think that they will be good for business as a whole.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#965

Post by killjoywashere »

tptacek wrote: post #127

The voters elected a Republican government. That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine. Anybody who told you that lobbying the FCC was going to make a difference here was, whether they meant to or not, selling a bill of goods. As someone who respects but mostly profoundly disagrees with principled Republican la…

For those in California, Josh Butner (D) is trying to flip Duncan Hunter (R)'s seat. This is the same Duncan Hunter Jr who basically rolled into the seat when his dad, Duncan Hunter, Sr, rolled out. Voters never even noticed. This is the same Duncan Hunter who vaped in Congress and spent something like $1300 of his campaign funds on Steam games.

Josh is a retired Navy SEAL Lieutenant Commander. Spent 23 years in the Navy including combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, raised his family in Jamul, and continues to serve on the local school board. Go help Josh. https://joshbutnerforcongress.com/

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#966

Post by austenallred »

blunte wrote: post #876
tptacek wrote: post #127

The voters elected a Republican government. That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine. Anybody who told you that lobbying the FCC was going to make a difference here was, whether they meant to or not, selling a bill of goods. As someone who respects but mostly profoundly disagrees with principled Republican la…

1. voters did not elect a Republican government. Gerrymandering has given Republicans wins in many places where Democrats would have won in any other universe. Likely rigged electronic voting machines that have no audit trail have given Republicans votes they would not have had. *Targeted voter suppression campaigns have prevented people from voting who would have tipped the scales in favor of Democrats. 2. Republica…

> Likely rigged electronic voting machines that have no audit trail have given Republicans votes they would not have had.

Is there any reasonable source for this other than wishful thinking and denial?

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#967

Post by crummy »

justaman wrote: post #951
chiaro wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That is not why this is shocking. This proceeding is shocking because the legal basis for this change is dependent on a false statements about the technology involved. It goes beyond just, "Republicans prefer deregulation," or, "Republicans favor market-based approaches." There is plenty of room and a general need for debates about what policy approaches are best, but there is no room for debate about the answer to…

One could argue that the democrats have an anti-science view on gender. The newest argument from the far left is that there are no physiological differences between man and woman. Biology says otherwise. The best thing you can do is realize everyone is an idiot and think for yourself rather than the party.

There's a large difference between the Democrats and the far left.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#968

Post by murph-almighty »

Clanan wrote: post #496
murph-almighty wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to bite- aside from AT&T and Time Warner, when is the last time the FTC has taken a pro-consumer action related to trusts?

I'm not very familiar with their history, honestly. But aren't you excluding two very good examples? Abstractly, I consider their effectiveness as separate from whether this should be under their purview. If they're ineffective, they should be fixed instead of having other agencies subsume their responsibilities.

I'm actually referring to one example. The reason why I don't count it is because it looks a LOT like it's being blocked for partisan reasons, rather than concerns about an actual monopoly. TWC owns CNN and the federal government wants them to divest it.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#969

Post by nautilus12 »

So can someone explain what this could mean on the consumer side? I've been mostly thinking about it from the producer side and how tech companies will have to pay a premium for fast service to be delivered to users, but I'm seeing the packages and wondering if as a consumer I would have to call up my ISP to add a random site that I want to access to my service. How would like aggregation sites like Reddit or Ycombinator even work then? I dont know enough about what ISP's can and cannot do to answer this question for myself.
Post reply on HN