Hacker News Reader

Comment by icarus_drowning | Hacker News Reader

What I think is missing from articles like this are clear suggestions on how else to compromise with telcos and the FCC. The latter party has already had significant trouble in their attempts to enforce neutrality, and telcos have fought it vigorously.

It seems clear that some sort of compromise was worth inspecting. Whether or not you agree with the Verizon/Google deal, it is worth criticizing it realistically (I thought the EFF's response is the best so far), rather than using charged language like "A paper trail of betrayal".

View on HN

Why should there be any compromise with the telecos?

Why shouldn't there be?

Because their goal is to disadvantage internet properties they don't own or tax and turn the internet into something more like cable TV?

On the contrary, their goal is to make money for their shareholders. At this time, we are worried that they will do so by disadvantaging internet properties they don't own. But the answer to that doesn't by neccessity mean that some reasonable compromise is a bad thing.

Well the compromise is hardly reasonable.

Still, you can not answer a question with a question. Why should there be any compromise? Verizon's goal and that of the public contradict each other fundamentally. The public votes in the politicians and votes them out, thus is immensely more powerful than Vrizon, thus why compromise at all?

I have consistently argued that, although I find these compromises entirely fair, that others are perfectly reasonable to challenge them on their merits.

In general, most of the criticisms that I have read start with the assumption that any compromise is a bad thing, rather than addressing the specifics of this proposal. Such thinking is an entirely unfair, and in many instances begs the question. (Google's compromises are evil because only evil companies compromise on this issue, because compromise is evil).

Far better critics (see the EFF's rational and reasonable critique of the policy proposal) are being drowned out by the extremists, and, as a result, I suspect they are going to marginalize themselves and (tragically) their more reasonable peers.

Because they are gov't subsidized monopolies that own all the pipes and spectrum.

So?

The fact that they are monopolies calls for a tougher line and no compromise absolutely.

Are people so scared of these guys that they are basically going to corrupt all the politicians? I mean, if they lobby, google has more than enough money to match their lobbying and the fact that they are "monopolies" makes google's argument even more powerful, not to mention that they have the backing of the public and the president.

So why compromise? Go for full attack! Fight like brave men. We did not have to compromise with Hitler tho there were plenty I heard who wanted to do so at that time.

You know good and bad are not some metaphorical stuff from the bible, but real concrete stuff which applies to the real world. Internet prioritization is evil, in any platform and form.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com