Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 217 posts

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#61

Post by [deleted] »

ddddddddq wrote: post #50
will_hughes wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's my attempt: Companies build private roads. To drive on those roads, they install a toll-booth at each entrance onto the road (like your house, office, warehouse, shops, etc) - every vehicle gets charged to enter the road network. Large road companies usually come to some agreement that they'll join their roads at large intersections, but don't install toll-booths there, because it's good for each of them - aft…

How would you respond if someone replied with: Yeah, but isn't it in the private roads' owners benefit to reduce congestion, so they create HOV lanes? And what if they want to promote certain kinds of cars like electric and hybrid and therefore allow them to drive in the HOV lanes? Shouldn't they be allowed to? Edit: Not that I necessarily agree, but this seems like a flaw in the analogy.

[deleted]

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#62

Post by eropple »

droopybuns wrote: post #51
eropple wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you would, could you explain how Wheeler didn't care how technology works and what of the policies his FCC enacted were around people "bending to his will"? Please provide cites. Thanks in advance!

https://www.c-span.org/video/?414145-1/fcc-robocall-strike-f... Watch starting at the 3 minute mark. He's over the top & kind of babbling. Compared to IRS tax threat scams, the idea the robocalling is the biggest threat is offensive. (IRS Tax threat scams: https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/dont-be-fooled-phone-scams-... )

So I watched the video, and he comes off a little clumsy, but I'm not following the argument you're making. Can you explain to me how that bolsters either that he does not care how technology works or how he's about people "bending to his will"?

(I'm not sure that IRS tax threat scams are FCC jurisdiction and not FTC, and the IRS refers to the FTC and not the FCC on that page, but IANAL.)

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#63

Post by rudyfink »

bluetwo wrote: post #36

One of the problems with Net Neutrality is that techies (us) and the media have both had a hard time explaining it clearly. Meanwhile those opposed have been able to come up with analogies that while false and misleading, are easily understood. What is the best way to explain the concept that can be quickly understood by those that are non-technical?

If all roads were owned by companies, should it be OK for UPS to charge FedEx or ambulances more to drive on its roads?

This is imperfect, obviously, but I think it gets close to the core issues fairly concisely.

Frankly, I, as a citizen, think you should be allowed to sell the pipe, what goes over the pipe, or what the consumer connects to the pipe, but only one of the three. I like that this has reasonably clear divisions and provides competing interests that keep the other parties in check.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#64

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ddddddddq wrote: post #50
will_hughes wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's my attempt: Companies build private roads. To drive on those roads, they install a toll-booth at each entrance onto the road (like your house, office, warehouse, shops, etc) - every vehicle gets charged to enter the road network. Large road companies usually come to some agreement that they'll join their roads at large intersections, but don't install toll-booths there, because it's good for each of them - aft…

How would you respond if someone replied with: Yeah, but isn't it in the private roads' owners benefit to reduce congestion, so they create HOV lanes? And what if they want to promote certain kinds of cars like electric and hybrid and therefore allow them to drive in the HOV lanes? Shouldn't they be allowed to? Edit: Not that I necessarily agree, but this seems like a flaw in the analogy.

FWIW HOV lanes actually increase congestion in practice, because the benefit from getting a small number of additional people to carpool is less than the efficiency loss from operating the lane at less than its carrying capacity during congestion.

And the correct analogy for what they want to do is that the road company also owns a car company and is restricting the lanes you can use and charging higher tolls for not buying one of their cars, because they want to monopolize the car market.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#65

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bluetwo wrote: post #36

One of the problems with Net Neutrality is that techies (us) and the media have both had a hard time explaining it clearly. Meanwhile those opposed have been able to come up with analogies that while false and misleading, are easily understood. What is the best way to explain the concept that can be quickly understood by those that are non-technical?

> What is the best way to explain the concept that can be quickly understood by those that are non-technical?

The only internet path to Comcast ISP customers is through Comcast. Comcast shouldn't be allowed to use that monopoly to destroy their competitors in other markets like TV.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#66

Post by russdill »

Shendare wrote: post #14
wmf wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize that's satire, but actual net neutrality violations are much cleverer and mostly won't even be visible to users. For example, it's more likely that Wired would (be forced to) pay Comcast a cut of their ad revenue.

And they wouldn't be outright blocked. They'd just be throttled to 128kbps and limited to only one open TCP connection at a time from that customer.

Nah, comcast would just inject ads in order to subsidize companies that refuse to "pay their own way"

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#67

Post by seanmcdirmid »

koolba wrote: post #45
anigbrowl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That trick of procedurally gavelling open a session and immediately closing it to avoid the recess disgusts me beyond words. The GOP basically opted to treat the Constitution as a dead letter through tricks such as these and refusing to even dignify Garland's nomination with a hearing. Besides the political ramifications I think it's sad that a guy who's widely regarded as a decent hardworking jurist will have his le…

Look it up. It was invented by Democrats, specifically Harry Reid I think. Live by the sword, die by the sword ...

Yep, and I expect the democrats to give Trump the hell that the republicans have given Obama, especially if they get back congress in 2018. There is no room for niceties anymore.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#68

Post by droopybuns »

eropple wrote: post #62
droopybuns wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?414145-1/fcc-robocall-strike-f... Watch starting at the 3 minute mark. He's over the top & kind of babbling. Compared to IRS tax threat scams, the idea the robocalling is the biggest threat is offensive. (IRS Tax threat scams: https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/dont-be-fooled-phone-scams-... )

So I watched the video, and he comes off a little clumsy, but I'm not following the argument you're making. Can you explain to me how that bolsters either that he does not care how technology works or how he's about people "bending to his will"? (I'm not sure that IRS tax threat scams are FCC jurisdiction and not FTC, and the IRS refers to the FTC and not the FCC on that page, but IANAL.)

I'd concede I'm grumpy. The broad swaths he strokes about robocalling being a "scourge" feel, to me, like they are indifferent to the virtual miracle of long distance communication on demand.

Here's the deal- nobody wants to do the hard parts of secure communications. They want them to work, for free, and be easy. Those goals are not compatible with "secure" and "fraud-free."

So I concede, bend to the his will may be provocative- but I don't see an administrator who is being compassionate to the marketplace realities in his behavior.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#69

Post by anigbrowl »

bluetwo wrote: post #36

One of the problems with Net Neutrality is that techies (us) and the media have both had a hard time explaining it clearly. Meanwhile those opposed have been able to come up with analogies that while false and misleading, are easily understood. What is the best way to explain the concept that can be quickly understood by those that are non-technical?

There is no magic explanation that's going to suddenly convince people when your opponent has no compunction about lying. You need to have your best, shortest explanations available and articulate them, of course, but you also need to be willing to call out dishonesty and get into a fight over it if it persists even though this will make your life unpleasant some of the time, eg by closing some career choices or making enemies of people.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#70

Post by kem »

bluetwo wrote: post #36

One of the problems with Net Neutrality is that techies (us) and the media have both had a hard time explaining it clearly. Meanwhile those opposed have been able to come up with analogies that while false and misleading, are easily understood. What is the best way to explain the concept that can be quickly understood by those that are non-technical?

... so one thing I've never understood is why the networks/ISPs aren't then held accountable for what's on their networks?

As in, they can regulate all they want, but then they're legally liable for everything on their networks. So if a kiddie porn packet goes over it, they're complicit by virtue of not regulating it.

Obviously, I'd prefer net neutrality but I've never understood why that threat doesn't have teeth.

I also have never understood why, if a utility has right of way on my property, I don't have say over things like net neutrality. It seems like if they don't want net neutrality, I should arbitrarily be able to price the cost of them using my property, as well as damages from any removal. It's not like they don't make use of public lands.

... or the arguments against municipal broadband...

... or why ISPs are not subject to antitrust statutes...

Post reply on HN