Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
I'm fully in support of net neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the first place. From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, there weren't major protests, news about it even largely disappeared from the front page of HN (!). So, I would be beyond shocked if this was an election year issue of substance. What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? Has the lack of net neutrality caused issues that I just have not heard about?
loading story #40161258
loading story #40170657
loading story #40163817
loading story #40161091
loading story #40161027
loading story #40161630
loading story #40161203
loading story #40163515
ISPs predicted this would happen and didn't want to have to revert back everything.
loading story #40162543
loading story #40163261
loading story #40161156
loading story #40162544
loading story #40161042
loading story #40164474
> it since it was repealed in the first place. From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then

I got downvoted heavily years ago on HN for predicting this when it was making the rounds

There is almost no evidence of a tiered model either working or being legitimately attempted, even globally in places without these rules. The only evidence I was ever given was some tiny Portugese mobile network entirely serving the lowest end of the market, and even that barely made a dent in the local market.

I want a free internet as much as anyone but people like to fear monger scenarios they invent in their heads, and pointing at vaguely defined wealthy people conspiring to do so behind the scenes, even when theres little evidence it was ever a plausible market nor technically coherent scenario.

But I guess people fear that sort of chaos where every detail isn't in a neat box clearly defined by the government, even if it means finite regulatory time/resources gets redirected from pre-existing tangible issues like privacy and spam.

This rule does, however, effectively regulate the prices that broadband providers charge consumers, as it disallows high-volume customers from being charged a higher periodic rate than lower-volume consumers. If that's not regulating prices, it's not at all clear what might be.

Just like Obamacare, another gift from the left that has worked out so well...

loading story #40164929
{"deleted":true,"id":40161036,"parent":40160899,"time":1714068530,"type":"comment"}
loading story #40164564
[flagged]
Your first post in this thread containing partisan flamebait getting flagged into destruction wasn't enough for you? You toned down the cultish political speech about 30% but posted effectively the same comment again. Your posts do not create useful discourse, they just create political flame wars with echo chamber 1 fighting echo chamber 2.

[Edit] Looking through your history you seem to often make similar political posts making biased, (in my opinion hate-based), partisan assertions and having people reply to you telling you this. There's Reddit/Twitter/etc for you to do this sort of thing.

There's wrong, and then there's "not appropriate for the site". I accept that I do veer into the "not appropriate for this site" category sometimes, and I understand and accept why I get flagged when I do so. But getting flagged is not evidence of being wrong. (And, as much as I wish I were wrong, I am unfortunately not.) I also disagree that it's not useful discourse -- ignoring the problem certainly isn't useful either. But I wouldn't post about it in Club Penguin and I understand if people don't want me to post about it in HN. It's a tricky line, because the article under discussion is inherently political. It's one thing to get flagged for off-topic in a tech thread, but it's harder for me to know where the line is when everyone else in the discussion is also talking politics.
As someone who was fortunate enough to see their previous comment, it sure wasn't wrong, though it sure was inconvenient for the Temporarily Embarrassed Billionaires here who are happy to sleepwalk the rest of us into fascism if it means making another buck.

As for rooting through their comment history, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, my friend. So far yours is "cars good", "California bad", "won't someone think of the poor companies (unironically)", "public transit bad", "everyone does propaganda so it's okay when Russia does it". Is this comment hate-based, in your opinion?

Yeah also the non compete stuff is absolutely fantastic even if it only affects those with middle class income.

Shits happening again and I'm here for it. Constant gridlock in passing laws is terrible.

loading story #40162047