Hacker News Reader

Comment by spodek | Hacker News Reader

Besides Pai and the top shareholders of some companies, how many people actually want this proposed repeal?

I'd guess most people don't know or care. Still, millions wrote to object to the proposed repeal.

Is it possible that only a couple hundred people are making this decision for 300 million over the objections of millions?

View on HN

Had a convo in my CS class about it today. Literally a room full of 19-20 something males, many who are avid gamers, or want to make tech it into a job... I was the only one who had anything to say about nn. People really don't know.

Perhaps that's because NN has more to do with underhand business tactics than with tech.

This is the exact opposite of my experience.

I've been bombarded with pro-NN propaganda from most of my friends, and none of them are engineers, or programmers, or live even remotely near SV.

> Besides Pai and the top shareholders of some companies, how many people actually want this proposed repeal?

I can only assume the entirety of the GOP given it's been part of the party platform since at least 2012: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2aebc568-f1d2-11e1-892d...

The GOP has been captured by corporate special interests and is also caught up in a mindless "repeal all the regulations" hysteria.

This is total speculation, but I'm guessing that the rank-and-file of that party might have a different opinion if they understood and considered the specific issue in isolation.

It's not about what the people want, because the U.S. is no longer a democratic country. When more people start admitting that and seeing that way, then they'll be ready to change that at the detriment of everything else. It's the biggest issue that affects all the other issues, but some still believe if you support this change at the detriment of everything else then you're a "purist" or a "single issue candidate". Of course, usually the people who call you those names are also the ones who benefit from the current system.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02...

> the U.S. is no longer a democratic country

This is a common misunderstanding. A republic is not a democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_Unit...

> This is a common misunderstanding. A republic is not a democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_Unit....

That's a common misunderstanding. "Republic" and "Democracy" are not exclusive concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government#Democracy

Context is important here. Please see the previous post (above mine) referencing "what the people want" which I infer to be referencing the democratic concept of "majority rule" which we do not have in the US.

"It's not about what the people want, because the U.S. is no longer a democratic country." ... I feel that this statement is logically faulty unless the "democratic" portion implies a pure democracy.

People on IT-ish news sites like this are mostly for net neutrality.

People on Conservative/Libertarian political sites are universally against net neutrality.

The vote issue is currently confused and anyone who doesn't like it can easily discount it as fraudulent: https://www.wired.com/story/fcc-must-investigate-fraud-befor...

It's a mess, but really most people at home have no clue what net neutrality is. No one is going to lose their Congressional seat because of their NN position, so they don't care.

As someone who takes care to read as much as possible on both sides, that's not the case.

Liberals and progressives, generally, are universally for net neutrality.

Chamber of Commerce conservatives, libertarians, and if-the-left-is-for-it-I'm -against-it conservatives oppose it. The rest of the right is almost universally for it and many want to take it further and apply similar principles to platforms like twitter.

What exactly is "the rest of the right"?

Core movement Conservatives (far from the CoC Republicans) like:

    * Ben Shapiro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBrZ_CPgm7o
    * Mark Levin: https://www.facebook.com/marklevinshow/posts/10153090598298832
    * Erick Erickson: https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/935686186198294529

... all have come out strongly against Net Neutrality.

Here's a Conservative Review article: https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/net-neutrality-a...

I have never seen any kind of thought leader on the right support net neutrality. I'd be interested in reading any links that you could provide.

I do.

downvoted until invisible

>See, nobody wants it guys!

Given that many of the readers here have never (knowingly) encountered someone with such a position, it might be a good time for you to elaborate on why you want NN regulations repealed, and expose HN readers to that viewpoint.

You can find plenty more to downvote here

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=danjoc

But I will highlight a few key points I've made recently,

1) Racism and death threats against Ajit Pai and his family are not acceptable. At all. Users making/upvoting death threats should be handled with zero tolerance and reported to authorities. NN supporters around the web are doxing Pai and harassing him at his home. Simply pointing this out on HN results in invisibility powers. Sickening.

2) Verizon throttles Netflix? Not NN. Netflix throttles Verizon customers? NN. This offends my sense of fairness. The biggest supporters of NN (Apple, Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc) are complete hypocrites. NN should apply to them too, or not at all.

3) The ISP owns the network, they can manage it how they want. If you want to manage the network, then you can buy your own network. My general belief is the government should not be legislating how we manage network traffic on our own networks.

4) People LIKE zero rating. T-Mobile Binge On is proof of that. Zero rating is not NN. NN supporters are arguing that zero rating is unfair to their startup no one ever heard of. From this vantage point, NN becomes a subsidy for small startups at the expense of the general population that wants unlimited video streaming on their mobile network.

5) Forcing cable companies into BGP peering agreements, at cable company expense, to provide a fast lane to direct competitors in video entertainment businesses... that's just "WOW. I can't even." It certainly won't end well for cable customers. That expense will be passed down to the consumer.

I know most people here hate ISPs/Cable Companies/Phone companies. But they deserve more respect and profits than they get. The FANG companies are making incredible amounts of money and its a bit unfair that the broadband providers have to provide easy access between users and the FANGs by law. Esp as they're the ones doing the hard work of fixing your cable in the snow, paying local taxes.

My ideal would be repeal of net neutrality - but with UK style competition of ISP services where an independent 3rd party owns the pipes and ISPs compete with whatever packages they want.

How is it unfair ? They are in a totally different business.

ISPs are providing a service to their users: the internet. Their users pay for internet access (not just a certain subset) and they decide that they want to use the bandwidth for Youtube or Facebook. 5mbps on a "cable in the snow" is 5mbps regardless if it's coming from Youtube or Netflix or some indie company.

I think my point is that there should be choice. If someone wants to pay for neutral 5mbps internet that is fine. If someone wants to buy a connection that is cheaper but throttles everything that isn't Amazon, that is fine too as long as they have a choice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com