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

121–130 of 217 posts

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#121

Post by croon »

hueving wrote: post #119
quasse wrote: post #32

I was recently at a conference in DC called "Transforming Communities: Broadband Goals for 2017 and Beyond" which was largely focused on public policy related to the lack of real broadband in America. Gigi Sohn, who is the counselor to the chairman of the FCC, spoke. She was very candid about the position of the FCC and the fact that she was finally able to speak her mind because this was going to be one of her last…

It's worth noting that whenever there is a change of parties in control, the incumbent party is always going to lament the fact that it's the end of the world. Time will tell if the new FCC administration is actually bad for the consumer.

While I in many scenarios in theory could agree with you, this portrayal is very disingenous unless you think Net Neutrality is somehow bad for consumers, because going off party politics on these issues, this WILL be bad.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#122

Post by AgentK20 »

witty_username wrote: post #71
rudyfink wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 di…

Yes, UPS should because different vehicles cause different amounts of wear to the roads and take up different amounts of space.

But can we truly say that these for-profit, mostly un-regulated telecom providers whose mandate is to make money for their shareholders, will put that money towards "wear to the roads" and "upgrading the road system"? How many homes in America don't have access to Broadband internet? IN 2016?

Even more, how do we know that these telecom providers will only charge as much as is needed for the maintenance of the roads, and not just slap on more costs?

We can't even really blame the telecom companies for this, either, as they do have a responsibility to their shareholders to make as much money as possible, but in a monopolized market, as ISPs are in most cities in America, the government has to step in at some point to protect the consumer's interests.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#123

Post by cmdrfred »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #67
koolba wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The history of the democratic party leads me to believe you will be disappointed. We shall see.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#124

Post by nroach »

trynewideas wrote: post #78
shawn-butler wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to sources on the hill, his resignation is part of a deal to ensure Jessica Rosenworcel gets confirmed for an additional term. They won't fill up the spot until the next administration.

That's what he was saying he'd do a week ago. The Senate convened on Saturday without acting on Rosenworcel ( http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-tech/2016/12/tech-... ) and Wheeler quit anyway, so Trump gets a 2-1 majority to start his term.

This resignation is very bad for consumers. I'd hoped that Wheeler would stick it out and at least be present to bring consumer perspectives to the discussion and get consumer concerns on the record in commission meetings. But I can understand why he wouldn't personally want to finish out his term as a lame duck dissenter.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#125

Post by Lazare »

turbohedgehog wrote: post #20
ComputerGuru wrote: post #11

This isn't really news, more of a mere formality. The federal government department heads are all expected to resign or be fired when there's a regime shift in the Oval Office (party change).

Incorrect. FCC commissioners serve a term and Wheeler's term was up June 30, 2018, so this is an early resignation and opens up a spot for Obama or Trump to fill.

Not really.

There's a few independent commissions like the FCC where the members are meant to have a partisan split with the party that controls the White House has the majority. To make that work, the tradition is that the chairman steps down when the White House changes hands.

Kevin Martin (R) resigned on January 19th 2009 to allow Obama to select a chairman; William Kennard (D) resigned on January 19, 2001 to allow Bush to select a chairman; Alfred C. Sikes (R) resigned on January 19, 1993 to allow Clinton to select a chairman, etc.

This has actually been a matter of contention this year; back in March Wheeler was asked by the Senate Commerce Commission if he would follow the tradition and refused to commit, which raised a number of eyebrows. Apparently he thought better of it (or was just having fun keeping people guessing).

> opens up a spot for Obama or Trump to fill.

No, as per normal his resignation is effective on inauguration. The entire point is to let the incoming president fill the spot.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#126

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#127

Post by croon »

kalleboo wrote: post #111
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the real problem is that we have a private utility. I think things like net neutrality can have market solutions if we divorce the last mile operators (to become a utility) from customer ISPs, who merely operate a contract with various backbone networks to connect their clients to servers they want. With last mile paid by taxes, ISPs are only dealing with the cost of backbone transit rates, where there is vib…

Net Neutrality legislation to me is definitely attacking the symptoms, not the problems. In my experience, in places where there is competition, net neutrality is not something you need to worry about. Private doesn't even have to be a problem if competition is maintained. In Sweden there's a mix of public, privatized-minority-government-owned, co-op and private providers and competition is quite healthy.

Only on the wired side, wireless carriers in Sweden are moving closer to US standard than their neighboring countries. Finland having unlimited cap options, and Norway and Denmark at least twice the cap per price compared to Sweden. Telia just got served for going against net neutrality principles on exempting some services from their caps.

But that's because Sweden has open carrier fiber network, while the wireless network is carrier specific.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#128

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

coldcode wrote: post #117
mwc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In New Zealand, our broadband market is structurally separated. The the access provider for both the copper and fibre network (right to the customer premises) is a regulated wholesale only provider, which is required to provide open access to its network on a non-discriminatory basis between all access seekers (retail telecommunications companies).[0] This almost entirely resolves the net neutrality debate in New Zea…

Electric service works that way in Texas.

The US has basically that model for many other natural monopolies, and it works alright.

I think we could do with a bit more government investment in infrastructure, because government is really the only entity that can drop a trillion dollars, then wait 40-50 years for its returns. (Well, them and pension funds, but neither has exactly shown great financial prudence lately.)

I just... Have a hard time articulating why infrastructure is important, because it's just so glaringly obvious from my perspective that it is. I mean, we see infrastructure everywhere in nature -- from the layout of bacteria mats to ant colonies. The idea that our society can be vibrant without having to perform those basic functions is absurd.

So it makes sense that the lives which depend on the services should control the final delivery network when it's not possible to deploy more than one or two -- eg, FTTH should be utility, cellphones should be a market; roads should be (largely) public, etc.

If the US's power is its people, then infrastructure is what allows us to maintain and focus that power.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#129

Post by mikey_p »

pmorici wrote: post #97
rudyfink wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 di…

They do charge different kinds of vehicles different prices to drive on toll ways and many cities have freeways w/o tolls and a parallel express lane you can choose to pay a toll to use.

Yes, but this is applied evenly across all users of the road, all cars or trucks pay the same fee regardless of the company that operates them.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#130

Post by bluetwo »

hamandcheese wrote: post #87
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?

"Imagine if there was a different speed limit depending on if you were driving to McDonalds or to Burger King"

I like it.

I was thinking "What if gas stations could charge you based in the car you drove, and asked car companies to pay these 'fees'?"

Post reply on HN