7 ms·

> Don't get me started on the logical hoops MG must jump through to view a compromise on a policy proposal for net neutrality as the ultimate betrayal while a d

> Don't get me started on the logical hoops MG must jump through to view a compromise on a policy proposal for net neutrality as the ultimate betrayal while a device that the manufacturer must approve all software that runs on it is A-OK. I see this as two different things. Google buddying up with Verizon to change net neutrality in the mobile space has an impact on everyone while Apple preventing software from running on their devices only affects Apple users.

bad_user 15y ago
I really don't get HOW and WHY people want government regulations, the same government that is pushing for SOPA. Government regulations of the market are only useful in one case only: to prevent abuses from established monopolies. However, wireless Internet is not monopolized. And you should checkout the competition in Europe. It's absolutely crazy. Google buddying up with Verizon to change net neutrality in the mobile space ... Actually they haven't "changed" anything. They just left things as they were before. The Internet is not were it is today because the government told ISPs how they should operate. Customers did.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  >However, wireless Internet is not monopolized. In the USA? You're kidding, right?
- DarkShikari 15y ago
  I really don't get HOW and WHY people want government regulations, the same government that is pushing for SOPA. Opposing SOPA --> "I don't want corporations regulating the internet." Supporting net neutrality --> "I don't want corporations regulating the internet." They are identical positions: "hands off my internet". Not all laws by the government are "regulation". Is making murder illegal the "regulation of killing", and thus murder "shouldn't be regulated"? No, that's absurd.
  - harshreality 15y ago
    The idea touches on positive and negative rights[1]. Real world examples have shades of both, yet the principle remains: sometimes you want someone (particularly the government) to do something; other times you want them to not get involved. In a specific instance, both might be desired to further a single purpose. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
  - ABCD_FUFU 15y ago
    >>Is making murder illegal the "regulation of killing", and thus murder "shouldn't be regulated"? No, that's absurd. Of course it should be regulated, stupid. The only way you can regulate it is by giving rent a cops license to kill if their donut burps are offensive. And not kill just murderers - anyone they want. The right way to handle murder is with immediate murder back by armed citizens. Stupid.
- yardie 15y ago
  The Internet is not were it is today because the government told ISPs how they should operate. Actually, they did. They told them don't interfere with it and if you do you are liable.
- icebraining 15y ago
  And you should checkout the competition in Europe "Europe" is a big place, but here at least regulation is aplenty, to promote competition. An example is the law that forces carriers to unlock phones of SIM restrictions for free if the contract has already ended.
  - LordBodak 15y ago
    People would be fighting for unlocking laws like that in the US, if it actually mattered. The only providers that use SIM cards are T-Mobile and AT&T, and they use different 3G frequencies so most phones aren't (fully) compatible between them anyway. Europe has choice, the US doesn't really. You choose a provider, you're stuck with their phone options, for the most part.
- onemoreact 15y ago
  You don't need to be a monopoly to dump lethal levels of arsenic into groundwater. Regulation takes many forms for many reasons, and even minor players can be vary destructive.
diminish 15y ago
"This is exactly why I hate Apple. they apply a totalitarian control on their devices; and it affects their users (who are not always aware of that) and carriers have at least competition." Emotion based arguments like "I love, I hate x" are making top news at HN; which is sad. Especially if the article clearly comes from publicly known fanboys.
- DeusExMachina 15y ago
  Please notice that, while you complain that emotion based arguments like "I love, I hate x" make it to the top of HN, you yourself started your comment with That is exactly why I hate Apple.
  - diminish 15y ago
    Ahh that was the rhetoric, to show everyone how it sounds. "I hate Apple, because" or "I hate Verizon because" - type of arguments can be used interchangeably with a simple change of subject. Here the writer has an emotional affinity to Apple, or Verizon and accepts any weird policies coming from one, but does not at all trust the other.
    - DeusExMachina 15y ago
      I did not notice the quotes when I read your comment the first time. Did you add them afterwards? Of course that changes the meaning of your post.
    - stonemetal 15y ago
      Color me confused, I love(or hate) X isn't an argument. It is a statement of position. The part after the because is the argument. Hopefully that part isn't interchangeable.
      - diminish 15y ago
        Check this postmodern deconstructive text to show the confusing arguments in the current case; "I hate Verizon for their control(crappy software) on my device, I hate Google because it lets Verizon control my device, but I love Apple because they don't let Verizon control my device, because they control my device and kick competing platforms, and porn from the app store; and doomed me to use only AT&T for years, so I hate total control, and I hate Apple because of its total control, they control everything; but they do it for me, and Verizon does it for money or for its customers?"
jemfinch 15y ago
> Google buddying up with Verizon to change net neutrality in the mobile space Nothing changed about net neutrality in the mobile space. We went from "no net neutrality" to "net neutrality in wired networks, but not wireless networks".

bad_user 15y ago

I really don't get HOW and WHY people want government regulations, the same government that is pushing for SOPA. Government regulations of the market are only useful in one case only: to prevent abuses from established monopolies. However, wireless Internet is not monopolized. And you should checkout the competition in Europe. It's absolutely crazy. Google buddying up with Verizon to change net neutrality in the mobile space ... Actually they haven't "changed" anything. They just left things as they were before. The Internet is not were it is today because the government told ISPs how they should operate. Customers did.

Karunamon 15y ago
>However, wireless Internet is not monopolized. In the USA? You're kidding, right?
DarkShikari 15y ago
I really don't get HOW and WHY people want government regulations, the same government that is pushing for SOPA. Opposing SOPA --> "I don't want corporations regulating the internet." Supporting net neutrality --> "I don't want corporations regulating the internet." They are identical positions: "hands off my internet". Not all laws by the government are "regulation". Is making murder illegal the "regulation of killing", and thus murder "shouldn't be regulated"? No, that's absurd.
- harshreality 15y ago
  The idea touches on positive and negative rights[1]. Real world examples have shades of both, yet the principle remains: sometimes you want someone (particularly the government) to do something; other times you want them to not get involved. In a specific instance, both might be desired to further a single purpose. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
- ABCD_FUFU 15y ago
  >>Is making murder illegal the "regulation of killing", and thus murder "shouldn't be regulated"? No, that's absurd. Of course it should be regulated, stupid. The only way you can regulate it is by giving rent a cops license to kill if their donut burps are offensive. And not kill just murderers - anyone they want. The right way to handle murder is with immediate murder back by armed citizens. Stupid.
yardie 15y ago
The Internet is not were it is today because the government told ISPs how they should operate. Actually, they did. They told them don't interfere with it and if you do you are liable.
icebraining 15y ago
And you should checkout the competition in Europe "Europe" is a big place, but here at least regulation is aplenty, to promote competition. An example is the law that forces carriers to unlock phones of SIM restrictions for free if the contract has already ended.
- LordBodak 15y ago
  People would be fighting for unlocking laws like that in the US, if it actually mattered. The only providers that use SIM cards are T-Mobile and AT&T, and they use different 3G frequencies so most phones aren't (fully) compatible between them anyway. Europe has choice, the US doesn't really. You choose a provider, you're stuck with their phone options, for the most part.
onemoreact 15y ago
You don't need to be a monopoly to dump lethal levels of arsenic into groundwater. Regulation takes many forms for many reasons, and even minor players can be vary destructive.

diminish 15y ago

"This is exactly why I hate Apple. they apply a totalitarian control on their devices; and it affects their users (who are not always aware of that) and carriers have at least competition." Emotion based arguments like "I love, I hate x" are making top news at HN; which is sad. Especially if the article clearly comes from publicly known fanboys.

DeusExMachina 15y ago
Please notice that, while you complain that emotion based arguments like "I love, I hate x" make it to the top of HN, you yourself started your comment with That is exactly why I hate Apple.
- diminish 15y ago
  Ahh that was the rhetoric, to show everyone how it sounds. "I hate Apple, because" or "I hate Verizon because" - type of arguments can be used interchangeably with a simple change of subject. Here the writer has an emotional affinity to Apple, or Verizon and accepts any weird policies coming from one, but does not at all trust the other.
  - DeusExMachina 15y ago
    I did not notice the quotes when I read your comment the first time. Did you add them afterwards? Of course that changes the meaning of your post.
  - stonemetal 15y ago
    Color me confused, I love(or hate) X isn't an argument. It is a statement of position. The part after the because is the argument. Hopefully that part isn't interchangeable.
    - diminish 15y ago
      Check this postmodern deconstructive text to show the confusing arguments in the current case; "I hate Verizon for their control(crappy software) on my device, I hate Google because it lets Verizon control my device, but I love Apple because they don't let Verizon control my device, because they control my device and kick competing platforms, and porn from the app store; and doomed me to use only AT&T for years, so I hate total control, and I hate Apple because of its total control, they control everything; but they do it for me, and Verizon does it for money or for its customers?"

jemfinch 15y ago

> Google buddying up with Verizon to change net neutrality in the mobile space Nothing changed about net neutrality in the mobile space. We went from "no net neutrality" to "net neutrality in wired networks, but not wireless networks".