by u678u on 5/6/21, 4:33 PM with 260 comments
by rectang on 5/6/21, 5:10 PM
Why was FCC head Ajit Pai able to get away with citing fraudulent evidence? How can we stop such blatant corruption of the FCC's policy-making process in the future?
by wolverine876 on 5/6/21, 6:25 PM
> The report said investigators had not found evidence that Broadband for America or the lobbying firm it used for the campaign were aware of the fraud. But, the attorney general said, several “significant red flags” had “appeared shortly after the campaign started, and continued for months yet still remained unheeded.”
> The attorney general’s office said it had reached agreements with three “lead generation” services that were involved — Fluent, Opt-Intelligence and React2Media, companies that gather customers for clients as part of marketing efforts. Under the agreements, the companies said they would more clearly disclose to individuals how their personal information was being used. The companies also agreed to pay over $4 million in penalties.
by betwixthewires on 5/6/21, 7:32 PM
The NN debate online was a massive propaganda warfare campaign between two teams of huge corporations, neither of which had any of our interests in mind. We were squeezed in the middle of it and everyone was pressured to take sides.
by brokenkebab on 5/6/21, 5:44 PM
by binarymax on 5/6/21, 8:09 PM
by neilv on 5/6/21, 5:35 PM
This particular attack seems less familiar.
I'm wondering whether we'll deliver such a firm corrective "no" on this attack, that actors decide not to do anything too similar in the future.
by barbazoo on 5/6/21, 4:55 PM
[0] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
by floren on 5/6/21, 11:34 PM
Analysis here: https://www.gravwell.io/blog/discovering-truth-through-lies-... (disclaimer: I work for Gravwell)
by splitrocket on 5/6/21, 6:21 PM
by bmmayer1 on 5/6/21, 7:41 PM
by ffggvv on 5/7/21, 1:52 AM
by spanktheuser on 5/7/21, 2:49 AM
The Francis Wilhoit definition of conservatism as a form of aristocracy seems applicable:
“There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
by briantakita on 5/6/21, 7:09 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but would Net Neutrality effectively subsidize high bandwidth providers, such as Netflix & torrent providers, presumably creating latency across the network? It may no longer be an issue, as rate-limiting can be applied to the consumer.
The context of the Net Neutrality debate is different today than it was a few years, as content providers have more capitalization compared to ISPs, technology has improved, & new markets are in play. A big benefactor to NN nowdays seems to be distributing computing platforms such as IPFS, cryptos, Holochain, etc; which I find beneficial.
But then, as systems are designed, where does Net Neutrality stop? If there were a bill that includes NN, would it be written in a way where lawfare can be abused to require any load balancer or proxy service to provide NN? Which leads back to the primary legitimate (IMO) concern of regulation being abused by entrenched powers to stifle competition. Is regulation better or is less more? At this time, what harm is being perpetrated that NN would solve?
by WarOnPrivacy on 5/7/21, 2:18 AM
by chaosharmonic on 5/6/21, 6:46 PM
In effect, we had net neutrality in all but name until the Internet started to move to other, more vertically-integrated forms of infrastructure like DSL and cable.
I would really love to see a Ted Cruz or Dan Crenshaw or some other disingenuous right-wing hack try to argue that, had it not already been illegal to do so, AT&T wouldn't have done the exact same things to AOL that Verizon and Comcast have gotten caught doing to Netflix.
(EDIT: At least, it would amuse me in theory. In practice, my blood would probably start boiling about 30 seconds in.)
by u678u on 5/6/21, 5:33 PM
by brightball on 5/6/21, 6:09 PM
I could get 400mb or 1gb if I wanted but 200mb has been more than enough.
I assume there's just very different issues in other parts of the country, but where I live I haven't seen any need for NN so it makes me wonder if there will be some negative effect to my currently good experience?
by pessimizer on 5/6/21, 5:05 PM
edit: I'd love a net neutrality bill or order, but I'd prefer net neutrality + prison time for those responsible for the fraud.
by lakecresva on 5/6/21, 6:14 PM
The fact that some other corporate actors might be doing similar shit in the other direction is totally irrelevant; if they got caught, we should all want to bring the hammer down on them too.
by dantheman on 5/6/21, 5:42 PM
by briandear on 5/7/21, 2:16 AM
It seems to me that there should be “social media neutrality” — the very real effects of corporate-sponsored censorship have caused more harm than a lack of NN.
by CyberRabbi on 5/6/21, 5:23 PM
What. If. Every. Thing. You. Did. On. The. Internet. Took. This. Long.
Give me a break. There were no “good guys” in this debate, just corporations scrambling to control the popular narrative to suit their business interests.
by bjt2n3904 on 5/6/21, 5:43 PM
We're in this incredibly undesirable place where instead of debating something, we have this meta debate. "Net neutrality is valid because it's opponents astroturf."
It's pretty funny, because I have the same opinion, but in reverse. Net Neutrality disappeared off the radar, and now all of a sudden it's on HN every other week. Looks like astroturfing to me! "No, you're a towel!"
But you know what? Whether or not something is being AstroTurfed is entirely irrelevant, and debate is fruitless. We can have a debate on Net Neutrality without pointing fingers at who has genuine interest, and who is astro turfing.