Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. IBM, Intel, and Cisco are against it. My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations. It's odd that people like you can't fathom that there are two sides to this issue.
If you are referring to Google's concerns voiced after early outlines of the Title II approach, they objected to something that was discussed earlier as part of the approach -- identifying a "service" provided to edge providers by ISPs distinct from that provided to retail customers, and classifying that newly-identified service under Title II -- because it might create a basis for ISP to edge provider charges.
This provision, from subsequent outlines provided, is not part of the final package, which only addresses retail broadband service as a Title II service and addresses ISP to edge provider relations in terms of the impact they have on retail customers.
HN accounts get banned for breaking the HN guidelines, not for being against regulations.
For example, a jab such as "people like you" in a comment breaks the HN guidelines.
After all ... it would be inconvenient if your utility company told you what can you use your electricity for.
Legislating the wires into "dumb pipes" has certain advantages in terms of openness, but there's no money in building dumb pipes, and these pipes are expensive and must be continually upgraded, much more so than other kinds of utilities.
I don't mind paying for what my service is worth. I mind giving someone else control over my digital life.
What do you think is going to happen at a rate-setting meeting? For every young nerd who thinks the utility should invest in fiber, how many people like my parents will be there (who wanted to switch from FiOS to cable to get Indian channels)?
We're doomed. Maybe not today, tomorrow or next year, but censorship as you fear it is coming and you have yourselves to blame.
We've exchanged impending corporate censorship for possible, maybe, conjectured future government censorship.
I know which one I favor.
user: travie7273
created: 27 minutes agoFurther, it shouldn't need to be pointed out, but the insightfulness of one's posts should not be judged against how long they've been members of a website.
Obviously the insightfulness of comments shouldn't be judged by how long someone has been a member of a website, but how long they've been a member of a website may be a good indicator of their motivations.
If he's making bad points, attack and refute those. Not him.
If somebody wants to write a book making a formal, evidence backed argument on something, I'm less concerned with who they are. But when somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentences, asking who they are and what their motivations are is much more reasonable. Especially on a topic where, as with this one, billions of dollars are on the line.
There are now plenty of people whose whole job is to argue a party line that may have no relation to the truth or to what the speaker believes. There's literally no point in having a serious discussion with, say, a tobacco company PR rep, because they are paid to mislead people forever, to never be convinced, and to distort the dialog as long as possible. With somebody like that, treating them like an honest interlocutor is not only a waste of time, but I believe it actively harms the discussion.
And given that you're apparently mainly here to throw shade on people discussing this in ways you don't approve of, I have no reason to think you're a serious participant who's actually after a useful discussion.
Not really. You're not taking the idea of ad hominem far enough. When somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentence and no citations or evidence, you ought to reject the validity of that argument regardless of who is presenting the argument. That argument is unsubstantiated, period, whether it's posted by a brand new throwaway account or a renowned expert in the area of discussion.
Accusations of astroturfing without evidence are not ok, but personal attacks such as this are not allowed on Hacker News either. Please review the site guidelines:
It's an odd pattern, and the parent above saying it's "vile" to call it what it looks like is overblowing it.
user: CzechsMix
created: 11 days ago
karma: 0
Sorry, I'm anti-NN, sorry I joined only 11 days ago. I can assure you. the two are not related. Again, if elsewhere in this thread, I'm making points you disagree with. attack and refute the points themselves. How else can anyone ever think you have the slightest idea you know what you're talking about, if all you can do is spout people's account age and karma ratings? if being anti-NN is so trivially stupid, shouldn't you be able to point this out quite simply?
They reason I suspect you don't is that you've turned up with a brand new account and an apparent partisan interest. If you would like not to be suspected like that, you could, as I and eropple have, connect you account to your full identity rather than concealing it while lashing out at others.
Also, now as a utility, internet can be regulated for content, be it decency standards or political speech. Maybe not now, not next year, but what about in 5-10 years? Content is content, all bits are equal, all bits are over the same utilities. And internet as a utility is now regulated.
To be frank, this isn't something I particularly fear. You're referencing TV regulation, but the main limiters on TV content are corporations owning the airwaves and people's fear of sex. The internet is not limited in space the way frequency bands are, and good luck trying to enforce pornography laws. Pornography laws are a limitation I worry about a bit, but so far I don't see any evidence that anyone is pushing for using utility regulation to limit pornography, and we can cross that bridge when (if?) we come to it.
Despite the Tumblr feminist movement, I don't think most people are in favor of this sort of regulation, and there isn't sufficient monetary motivation that I can see for such regulation to happen.
However, I do agree that this kind of regulation would also be bad. But again: we can cross that bridge when (if?) we come to it.
If the telecoms hadn't pushed their luck by starting the censorship process to begin with, we could have all sat pretty with the status quo for a while.
Please point to the provision of Title II that allows content regulation, whether it be for "decency standard or political speech" or anything else?
"""Google has grown. And strong net neutrality rules are now no longer a top company priority. They could even be a hindrance. Officially, Google hasn’t taken a formal position on the president’s net neutrality proposal."""
I fail to understand how this could hurt Google. If ISPs start modifying speed and/or access to certain domains I can only see that as damaging for Google. The only thing I can think of is the typical pattern of a company becoming hugely successful then begin seeking to change the laws that allowed them to grow so nobody else can follow the path. Kinda like cutting the bridge after you've crossed it.
I hope that's not what E.Schmidt is thinking...
If you are google with billions in the bank, what does it matter to you if Comcast wants to charge you a little bit more? The real effect is that entrenched powers get further entrenched because of less access to alternatives.
Lets say Comcast wanted to charge search providers 500million dollars. Thats not a lot of money from Googles search engine profits. But how much is 500 million of Bings budget? Yahoos? DuckDuckGo? I would be surprised if every search provider was willing and able to pay fees like this.
Which kind of begs what exactly you think you're criticizing.
All the statements by the FCC leading up to this bill have been ones I would consider positive. So until I actually see the bill, I'm not criticizing it.
Also:
user: travie7273
created: 30 minutes ago
Are you a real user, or a paid astroturfer?