11 ms·

My comments: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10522187689085 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10522187689085

wtallis 8y ago
Your comment shows you seem to have bullshit beliefs about QoS that are a complete red herring to any net neutrality discussion.
- benlorenzetti 8y ago
  Care to elaborate? My understanding is ISPs can internally implement or not implement any QoS that makes economic sense. Also that was my lesser point. Can you address my larger point about jurisdiction for regulating ISPs?
  - wtallis 8y ago
    The burden is on you to show how QoS concerns are relevant to net neutrality regulation, such as by pointing out how the net neutrality regulations could possibly have impaired an ISP's ability to handle QoS. Otherwise, pointing out that there exist different kinds of traffic on the internet with different bandwidth and latency requirements has no relevance to the regulations that were under consideration. You shouldn't imply that there's any technical motivation for being anti-net neutrality unless you're prepared to back that up with a real explanation. I'm not going to respond to the part where you don't believe that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce in non-physical goods, because that's so far into crackpot territory that nobody on either side of the net neutrality issue cares about your stance on that issue. It's hard to take you seriously when you're so against net neutrality that you also advocate for getting rid of federal wire fraud statutes.
    - benlorenzetti 8y ago
      The Feds can regulate wire fraud--that is definitely commerce. Sorry you are very bent on misrepresenting me.
      - wtallis 8y ago
        > The Feds can regulate wire fraud--that is definitely commerce. Sorry you are very bent on misrepresenting me. And yet, you wrote: > I don't see how light crossing state borders is construed as commerce. You're not convincing anyone when you pretend to be unable to understand how paying someone to carry information across state lines on your behalf is commerce.
        benlorenzetti 8y ago
        I'm talking about the 1st amendment and the commerce clause, together and where they conflict. Sorry if I went a little abstract in a different series of comments.
        wtallis 8y ago
        Where's the first amendment come in to any of this? It sounds like you're trying to refer to first amendment rights of the ISP, but I don't see where that is at all relevant to their business of forwarding my packets. There's no speech on the part of the ISP to be restricted there, and forwarding my packets is in no way analogous to the ISP publishing anything. ISPs are extremely keen to make sure that their subscriber's data transmissions are never regarded as speech/publishing by the ISP itself, because of things like copyright infringement liability.
      - dang 8y ago
        Please don't get personal, even if provoked. It breaks the civility rule and leads to worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - dang 8y ago
      This comment breaks the HN guidelines by name-calling ("crackpot") in the sense they ask you not to. Please don't do that. It's uncivil and usually provokes worse, as it did below. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Your comment shows you seem to have bullshit beliefs about QoS that are a complete red herring to any net neutrality discussion.

benlorenzetti 8y ago
Care to elaborate? My understanding is ISPs can internally implement or not implement any QoS that makes economic sense. Also that was my lesser point. Can you address my larger point about jurisdiction for regulating ISPs?
- wtallis 8y ago
  The burden is on you to show how QoS concerns are relevant to net neutrality regulation, such as by pointing out how the net neutrality regulations could possibly have impaired an ISP's ability to handle QoS. Otherwise, pointing out that there exist different kinds of traffic on the internet with different bandwidth and latency requirements has no relevance to the regulations that were under consideration. You shouldn't imply that there's any technical motivation for being anti-net neutrality unless you're prepared to back that up with a real explanation. I'm not going to respond to the part where you don't believe that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce in non-physical goods, because that's so far into crackpot territory that nobody on either side of the net neutrality issue cares about your stance on that issue. It's hard to take you seriously when you're so against net neutrality that you also advocate for getting rid of federal wire fraud statutes.
  - benlorenzetti 8y ago
    The Feds can regulate wire fraud--that is definitely commerce. Sorry you are very bent on misrepresenting me.
    - wtallis 8y ago
      > The Feds can regulate wire fraud--that is definitely commerce. Sorry you are very bent on misrepresenting me. And yet, you wrote: > I don't see how light crossing state borders is construed as commerce. You're not convincing anyone when you pretend to be unable to understand how paying someone to carry information across state lines on your behalf is commerce.
      - benlorenzetti 8y ago
        I'm talking about the 1st amendment and the commerce clause, together and where they conflict. Sorry if I went a little abstract in a different series of comments.
        wtallis 8y ago
        Where's the first amendment come in to any of this? It sounds like you're trying to refer to first amendment rights of the ISP, but I don't see where that is at all relevant to their business of forwarding my packets. There's no speech on the part of the ISP to be restricted there, and forwarding my packets is in no way analogous to the ISP publishing anything. ISPs are extremely keen to make sure that their subscriber's data transmissions are never regarded as speech/publishing by the ISP itself, because of things like copyright infringement liability.
    - dang 8y ago
      Please don't get personal, even if provoked. It breaks the civility rule and leads to worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - dang 8y ago
    This comment breaks the HN guidelines by name-calling ("crackpot") in the sense they ask you not to. Please don't do that. It's uncivil and usually provokes worse, as it did below. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html