5 ms·

Somehow, I don't see this happening; there's too much of implied control for this to be a realistic scenario.

• deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  • djb_hackernews 16y ago
    Hmm. I feel the exact opposite. The fact we are even debating net neutrality is scary.
    • kksm19820117 16y ago
      The fact that it has generated debate suggests that any attempt at Internet access control will be micro-examined end to end. Even if rationality and human decency fail to prevail, I trust that bureaucracy will slow things down well enough.
      • ff0066mote 16y ago
        The fact that we have to rely on the nature of bureaucracy scares me. It shows that rationality and human decency are failing. I do not believe that current attempts to control internet access and content are being micro-examined end to end.
        • donw 16y ago
          Not to sound too defeatist, but over the course of human history, when have rationality and human decency ever succeeded?
          • tkahn6 16y ago
            Civil rights movement?
          • ff0066mote 16y ago
            Regardless, there is no reason we shouldn't continue to help them succeed (by being rational and decent).
    • pyre 16y ago
      I was under the impression that there was debate because people in general don't trust either big business or the government to police things properly.
      • SkyMarshal 16y ago
        That's basically it. It's just that the dittoheads think net neutrality = government policing when it's not. The telecoms have done a bangup job of misinforming the free market dogmatists on that matter.
        • jbooth 16y ago
          Well, the hippies are for net neutrality, you see. The rest of it follows from there. Brain need not engage.
        • pyre 16y ago
          Government mandated net neutrality is basically what most of the debate is about. I don't see much of the net neutrality debate framed outside of whether or not the government should enact regulation.
    • tkahn6 16y ago
      Really? The debate is a valid one. Net Neutrality (forcing telecom companies to relinquish control over their property), is only potentially a valid idea because they hold a government-assisted monopoly. They receive government subsidies and have specific permission to lay down fiber-optic cable. If these were totally independent companies that existed and thrived without the aid of government, appropriating their property for the public would be illegal and immoral.
      • cia_plant 16y ago
        I believe it is legal in many or most countries. In the USA the power of the state to expropriate property for the public good is called eminent domain, and it is affirmed by the US constitution.
        • vollmond 16y ago
          However, in that case, you don't force the original propertyholder to continue maintenance of the site.
          • jbooth 16y ago
            The US has anti trust laws, too, you know. And they were introduced for a reason. You're not allowed to collude or leverage dominance in one market (infrastructure) into an unfair advantage in another market (content). This is why free markets work -- if we refused to regulate anything, ever, it'd be oligarchy, and there'd be precious little "free" about it.
            • tkahn6 16y ago
              You're not allowed to collude or leverage dominance in one market (infrastructure) into an unfair advantage in another market (content). Citation needed. Apple dominates the college student/professional artist demographic. They sell hardware coupled software - it is illegal to run their software on any non-Apple hardware. This is why free markets work -- if we refused to regulate anything, ever, it'd be oligarchy, and there'd be precious little "free" about it. That is absolutely wrong. By definition a free market has no regulation (besides prevention of fraud). In fact the only thing giving telecom companies a monopoly is the government. EDIT: To the person who voted me down, would you mind explaining why? I'd be fascinated to know. EDIT 2: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to enforce ownership ("property rights") and contracts
    • djb_hackernews 16y ago
      I'd like to clarify because my comment is ambiguous. It's scary either way. Either we end up with a fragmented internet like the article suggests, or end up with a heavily regulated internet like the article suggests. Both are scary outcomes. and someone playing the false dichotomy card in 3...2...
• mseebach 16y ago
  It's oddly appropriate that the first comment to this is [deleted]