Hacker News Reader

Comment by m333t | Hacker News Reader

It's a made up issue. "Net neutrality" doesn't mean a free internet. It means a free internet regulated by the FCC.

Almost nobody is against a free internet. A lot of people such as myself are against the FCC being in charge of regulating it. Competition and the FTC's anti-trust authority have kept the internet free for decades and will continue to do so in the future.

The people pushing "net neutrality" want to transfer power to the FCC because the FCC will go beyond maintaining fair access to the internet. They'll next move into regulating content as they have done with television and radio. That's the real goal.

View on HN

You are deliberately being deceptive to fool people into agreeing with you.

Net Neutrality is a mandate that ISPs cannot prioritize data from one website over another. It's a regulation to ensure that Comcast cannot effectively censor websites it doesn't like by hiding it behind a slow lane of sorts. We know that ISPs have attempted to throttle Netflix's content, which is what prompted the recent regulatory changes in 2015.

What evidence do you have that net neutrality will necessarily lead to government censorship of the Internet?

Why is net neutrality an essential component for the government to censor content?

net neutrality isn't an essential component, the invocation of Title II is. This is what I think the comment you are replying is trying to say. I don't know what the intent of net neutrality advocates is, but the invocation of Title II puts far too much power in the hands of a historically corrupt & repressive agency.

Personally I am ambivalent about net neutrality. I, however, am deeply opposed to the existence of Title II, let alone it being used to regulate the internet. If advocates want net neutrality to be the governing policy of the internet why don't they advocate for specific legislation that does only that and doesn't give the FCC the ability to become a heavy handed regulator of ISPs?

> If advocates want net neutrality to be the governing policy of the internet why don't they advocate for specific legislation that does only that and doesn't give the FCC the ability to become a heavy handed regulator of ISPs?

Do you have evidence that they are not advocating for proper legislation, or are you just saying this to baselessly discredit advocates of net neutrality?

If I recall correctly, the invocation of Title II was a reaction to an unfavorable supreme court case. Perhaps this is not the most ideal solution, but if one believes that net neutrality is important to protect, it appears to be the only solution in the absence of such legislation from a do-nothing Congress.

Also, if you believe that the FCC is historically corrupt and regressive, why do you seem to trust the FCC to make the correct decision right now? Do you have evidence that corruption in the FCC has vanished?

"are you just saying this to baselessly discredit advocates of net neutrality?"

Let's not jump the gun here, I clearly stated that I do not know the intentions of advocates. I haven't heard of any legislation in congress, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.

I don't trust the FCC, Aijit Pai is actively calling for removing power from the FCC. I trust this specific act of the current FCC chair, I don't trust the FCC.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com