3 ms·

There hasn't been any fire lately, lets remove the fire extinguishers from the building. Just because you don't see it happening overtly, doesn't mean that it'

There hasn't been any fire lately, lets remove the fire extinguishers from the building. Just because you don't see it happening overtly, doesn't mean that it's not needed. When dealing with private interests you have to presume that if something is allowed and will result in a marginal, even if insignificant rise in income, firms will do it. And considering that they've attempted to do it before, it's preferable to pursue regulation that would result in disincentives to pursue such actions, rather than let them to their own devices. You would remind a kid not to eat cookies before dinner, even if they know about it.

mexicocitinluez 2y ago
Are you saying we shouldn't trust these huge corporations to look out for our best interests? /s The idea that these companies won't leverage the absolute hell out of rulings like this to nickel and dime the shit out of you (which we know 1000% they already do) is absurd.
- Schiendelman 2y ago
  The problem is, this leverage/throttling has been legal for seven years straight. We've seen tons of innovation during that time, these companies have had a long time to cause what we would see as very negative outcomes. It's a struggle to find any specific negative outcomes to point to.
- bko 2y ago
  Are you saying we shouldn't trust unelected regulatory bureaucrats to look out for our best interests? /s The idea that these regulatory bodies won't leverage the absolute hell out of rulings like this to invade on free speech (which we know 1000% they already do) is absurd. You might be thrilled at this incoming administration and their ability to appoint absolute incorruptible stewards of the public into these positions, but administrations change over time so they may eventually be handing it off to some people with bad intentions
  - mexicocitinluez 2y ago
    > The idea that these regulatory bodies won't leverage the absolute hell out of rulings like this to invade on free speech (which we know 1000% they already do) is absurd. blah blah blah blah blah freedom of speech blah blah blah. > You might be thrilled at this incoming administration and their ability to appoint absolute incorruptible stewards of the public into these positions, but administrations change over time so they may eventually be handing it off to some people with bad intentions What? What on earth does my stance on net neutrality have anything to do with the incoming administration? And yes, I will trust some unelected bureaucrat over the worst companies on this planet every time.
    - bko 2y ago
      > What? What on earth does my stance on net neutrality have anything to do with the incoming administration? You seemed very eager to allow the state to have more control over ISPs so I assumed you were bullish on the incoming administration since they're the ones appointing these unelected bureaucrats. I just mentioned that even though you may like this new administration, you may not like future administrations and think they are filled with self-serving billionaires with authoritarian tendencies and may abuse their power
BoorishBears 2y ago
[flagged]
- justwool 2y ago
  “Blanket bans on modes of operation” Okay so you don’t even understand what this is. Thank you for getting offended and then speaking out your ass. Hackers news best trait of centrist shit.
  - Schiendelman 2y ago
    This comment is not helpful and does not add to the conversation.
  - BoorishBears 2y ago
    If you don't think limiting how ISPs can operate in terms of rates and carrying traffic is covered by "blanket bans on modes of operation", I don't know what to tell you. Verizon literally referred to it as > "arbitrary and capricious" intrusion which violates the company's right to free speech, stripping it of control over what its networks transmit and how. Which is dramatic, but I'd say not much more melodramatic than the "Cable Package For Websites" rhetoric that was getting pushed. - But you're also clearly dealing with some personal issues that make you need people who don't agree with you to actually just be dumber than you? Wouldn't want to ruin the only thing you're clutching onto at this point... (I should mention though, I'm from a country without net neutrality. It mostly looks like cheaper access to specific services for end users. You could argue that's a tad anti-competitive but that's a) not much different than bundling that already happens in the US b) not exactly the kind of fire and brimstone being promised...)
- tzs 2y ago
  > At the end of the day this is a war between two groups of wealthy corporations: ISPs don't want net neutrality because big tech traffic blows up their bandwidth allocations. Big Tech wants net neutrality because they don't want to pay for the build outs needed to sustain their outsized footprints. Big Tech does pay. Every big site that has a huge amount of traffic also gets a huge bill, roughly proportional to the amount of traffic, from their internet providers.
bko 2y ago
> if something is allowed and will result in a marginal, even if insignificant rise in income, firms will do it In a closed system, maybe. But there are some options and the threat of new entrants that keep the system in check (e.g. SpaceLink). Regulation has a cost, and it might be able to prevent some bad behavior but it keeps competition out. That's why the most regulated industries are often the most stagnant, expensive and awful to deal with (think education, legal, health care, banking) There's a million examples of companies not naively maximizing profits. Why doesn't McDonalds charge for napkins and ketchup? Surely some pointy haired manager suggested this to squeeze out some profit, but it would piss people off and isn't worth it. And this is a better constraint on bad behavior than some unelected regulatory body.
- michaelmrose 2y ago
  Satellite internet can't meaningfully compete with other forms of internet at scale because it can't accommodate but a fraction of them. Even terrestrial wireless internet can't really replace wired even though its certainly cheaper to deploy.
- afavour 2y ago
  Internet access is a closed system for a lot of the population. Satellite internet is not meaningful competition in that area given how much of our lives are channeled through an internet connection. 5G cellphone connections are closer but if you put all household data through a cell connection the towers would surely get immediately overloaded. > Why doesn't McDonalds charge for napkins and ketchup? If they did I could just go to Burger King. But someone living in a town where McDonalds is the only restaurant would be powerless. (and McDonalds does now charge for sauces they used to give away for free!)

mexicocitinluez 2y ago

Are you saying we shouldn't trust these huge corporations to look out for our best interests? /s The idea that these companies won't leverage the absolute hell out of rulings like this to nickel and dime the shit out of you (which we know 1000% they already do) is absurd.

Schiendelman 2y ago
The problem is, this leverage/throttling has been legal for seven years straight. We've seen tons of innovation during that time, these companies have had a long time to cause what we would see as very negative outcomes. It's a struggle to find any specific negative outcomes to point to.
bko 2y ago
Are you saying we shouldn't trust unelected regulatory bureaucrats to look out for our best interests? /s The idea that these regulatory bodies won't leverage the absolute hell out of rulings like this to invade on free speech (which we know 1000% they already do) is absurd. You might be thrilled at this incoming administration and their ability to appoint absolute incorruptible stewards of the public into these positions, but administrations change over time so they may eventually be handing it off to some people with bad intentions
- mexicocitinluez 2y ago
  > The idea that these regulatory bodies won't leverage the absolute hell out of rulings like this to invade on free speech (which we know 1000% they already do) is absurd. blah blah blah blah blah freedom of speech blah blah blah. > You might be thrilled at this incoming administration and their ability to appoint absolute incorruptible stewards of the public into these positions, but administrations change over time so they may eventually be handing it off to some people with bad intentions What? What on earth does my stance on net neutrality have anything to do with the incoming administration? And yes, I will trust some unelected bureaucrat over the worst companies on this planet every time.
  - bko 2y ago
    > What? What on earth does my stance on net neutrality have anything to do with the incoming administration? You seemed very eager to allow the state to have more control over ISPs so I assumed you were bullish on the incoming administration since they're the ones appointing these unelected bureaucrats. I just mentioned that even though you may like this new administration, you may not like future administrations and think they are filled with self-serving billionaires with authoritarian tendencies and may abuse their power

BoorishBears 2y ago

[flagged]

justwool 2y ago
“Blanket bans on modes of operation” Okay so you don’t even understand what this is. Thank you for getting offended and then speaking out your ass. Hackers news best trait of centrist shit.
- Schiendelman 2y ago
  This comment is not helpful and does not add to the conversation.
- BoorishBears 2y ago
  If you don't think limiting how ISPs can operate in terms of rates and carrying traffic is covered by "blanket bans on modes of operation", I don't know what to tell you. Verizon literally referred to it as > "arbitrary and capricious" intrusion which violates the company's right to free speech, stripping it of control over what its networks transmit and how. Which is dramatic, but I'd say not much more melodramatic than the "Cable Package For Websites" rhetoric that was getting pushed. - But you're also clearly dealing with some personal issues that make you need people who don't agree with you to actually just be dumber than you? Wouldn't want to ruin the only thing you're clutching onto at this point... (I should mention though, I'm from a country without net neutrality. It mostly looks like cheaper access to specific services for end users. You could argue that's a tad anti-competitive but that's a) not much different than bundling that already happens in the US b) not exactly the kind of fire and brimstone being promised...)
tzs 2y ago
> At the end of the day this is a war between two groups of wealthy corporations: ISPs don't want net neutrality because big tech traffic blows up their bandwidth allocations. Big Tech wants net neutrality because they don't want to pay for the build outs needed to sustain their outsized footprints. Big Tech does pay. Every big site that has a huge amount of traffic also gets a huge bill, roughly proportional to the amount of traffic, from their internet providers.

bko 2y ago

> if something is allowed and will result in a marginal, even if insignificant rise in income, firms will do it In a closed system, maybe. But there are some options and the threat of new entrants that keep the system in check (e.g. SpaceLink). Regulation has a cost, and it might be able to prevent some bad behavior but it keeps competition out. That's why the most regulated industries are often the most stagnant, expensive and awful to deal with (think education, legal, health care, banking) There's a million examples of companies not naively maximizing profits. Why doesn't McDonalds charge for napkins and ketchup? Surely some pointy haired manager suggested this to squeeze out some profit, but it would piss people off and isn't worth it. And this is a better constraint on bad behavior than some unelected regulatory body.

michaelmrose 2y ago
Satellite internet can't meaningfully compete with other forms of internet at scale because it can't accommodate but a fraction of them. Even terrestrial wireless internet can't really replace wired even though its certainly cheaper to deploy.
afavour 2y ago
Internet access is a closed system for a lot of the population. Satellite internet is not meaningful competition in that area given how much of our lives are channeled through an internet connection. 5G cellphone connections are closer but if you put all household data through a cell connection the towers would surely get immediately overloaded. > Why doesn't McDonalds charge for napkins and ketchup? If they did I could just go to Burger King. But someone living in a town where McDonalds is the only restaurant would be powerless. (and McDonalds does now charge for sauces they used to give away for free!)