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

141–150 of 217 posts

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#141

Post by tunap »

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?

I use a water company analogy. If you use the water for irrigation, you pay $X. If you use it for showering or dishes you pay $Y. If it's for drinking or cooking you pay $Z. Different applications for the same commodity that makes no difference to the provider outside of volume, which you already pay per unit. Should you pay more per unit if you water your lawn, if you have a pool? This is what the data providers are doing to the 'other' supply pipe coming into your home.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#142

Post by 794CD01 »

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"

"Imagine if you always had to follow the same speed limit no matter whether you were driving to McDonalds or to the hospital"

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#143

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

croon wrote: post #135
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But couldn't a lot of that be addressed by requiring a certain number of different spectrum owners? Im not against regulation -- competition is what brings out the best in us, but games are only interesting if the rules are reasonable.

> but games are only interesting if the rules are reasonable I completely agree with this. > But couldn't a lot of that be addressed by requiring a certain number of different spectrum owners? I suppose it could, but is that not the case in the US? I believe it only works if you can expect that cartels won't exist, which unfortunately is not a safe assumption. It's also an expensive barrier to entry for new actors. C…

The difference between phones and FTTH is that I don't think we have enough spectrum to assign a little share to everyone, whereas we do have space to route fibers to everyone.

The question then is how to best regulate the allocation of spectrum. Because cell networks are relatively easy to deploy (on top of an existing fiber network, and relative to the work of the fiber buildout), it seems to make more sense to break regions (city or county) up in to 10 or so spectrum slices, and lease them out to carriers. Regions are free to choose to have some or all of that operate as a utility, I suppose, but I think a regular co-op or corporation likely performs as well, as long as you require that fundamental carrier diversity.

Then just a bit of regulation about unlocked phones (when you pay in full!).

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#144

Post by 794CD01 »

mikey_p wrote: post #131
witty_username wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's a difference between treating all cars the same and all trucks the same vs. treating trucks operated by a specific company differently. Imagine if the fee to cross the bay bridge was different based on what company you worked for? Or imagine that the fee to cross the bridge depended which neighborhood in SF you were driving to?

>Or imagine that the fee to cross the bridge depended which neighborhood in SF you were driving to?

So, how BART works?

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#145

Post by digler999 »

794CD01 wrote: post #142
hamandcheese wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Imagine if you always had to follow the same speed limit no matter whether you were driving to McDonalds or to the hospital"

in what jurisdiction is it legal to speed due to a medical emergency ?

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#146

Post by kitsy »

794CD01 wrote: post #140
byuu wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most useful analogy I've seen is the "ala carte internet" one. "Get Facebook, Twitter, and Google for just $9.99/mo!" "Add on the video package and get Netflix and Hulu for only $24.99/mo more!" "News junkie? Get BBC, NY Times, CNN for $7.99/mo." The reality is of course much more nuanced than that (what's more likely is we'll see these sites being offered bandwidth cap exemptions and faster loading; not outright…

For the average person paying 60 bucks a month for internet today while only using Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, and Netflix, this sounds like a great deal.

Until they want to click on a Facebook news article (or a Instagram image in Twitter or a GroupOn link in GMail) and Access Denied message.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#147

Post by digler999 »

amelius wrote: post #113
simonh wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about if the road company threatened to put speed bumps on the roads unless the restaurant companies paid to not have them installed, and Burger King paid but McDonalds didn't? Oh, and you already paid the road company a toll to use the road to drive to the restaurants in the first place.

That's much better. But now the reply could be: "The customer is free to choose a different road company. And the road company is free to choose its business model. The free market will decide which road company offers the best price/performance ratio in the end." (again, devil's advocate)

thats not devil's advocate as much as it is a "racketeering advocate" [1].

[1] Racketeering, often associated with organized crime, is the act of offering of a dishonest service (a "racket") to solve a problem that wouldn't otherwise exist without the enterprise offering the service.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#148

Post by dahart »

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

With net neutrality, all websites you visit are equally fast and equally accessible. Without it, someone else is allowed to choose for you which ones are fast, and which ones are accessible. As a consumer of a web without net neutrality, you lose some ability to choose, and you may lose some access. It is fundamentally about the freedom to choose, not about payments or bandwidth numbers, but choice.

As many of us are burgeoning web site creators and entrepreneurs, lack of net neutrality gives advantages to existing businesses who have more money than their competitors. It allows bigger sites to drive traffic to them and away from competition. This will make it harder, not easier, to start new businesses that rely on internet traffic.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#149

Post by foodstances »

tunap wrote: post #141
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?

I use a water company analogy. If you use the water for irrigation, you pay $X. If you use it for showering or dishes you pay $Y. If it's for drinking or cooking you pay $Z. Different applications for the same commodity that makes no difference to the provider outside of volume, which you already pay per unit. Should you pay more per unit if you water your lawn, if you have a pool? This is what the data providers are…

I think that's a bad analogy. I'm in support of net neutrality but your analogy just made me want to support different pricing for water.

Water is a finite, possibly scarce resource, and there are shortages in places in the US. If I lived in one of those places, I would sure as hell want some asshole filling his pool during a shortage to pay more than the rest of us pay for basic drinking water. Similarly, I would want companies that bottle that water up and sell it at a premium to pay more than everyone else.

Municipalities already limit outdoor water usage for exactly this reason. You can drink all the water you want but you can only use it outside to water your grass or fill your pool on odd or even days. Your analogy is saying that shouldn't be allowed, because internet.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#150

Post by rhino369 »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #54
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 you want the Internet to continue working exactly as it has since it was created, a fair and level playing field for both Google and Grandma, then you're in favor of Net Neutrality. If instead you want the telecom natural monopolies to take more control of the Internet and change how it works to bias whoever can pay them more, then you're against Net Neutrality."

The problem with this is you aren't really explaining why there needs to be a rule. Which is actually the biggest problem with getting net neutrality implemented. It's sort of a solution in search of a problem.

There hasn't been many largescale violations of it even when violations were legal.

Comcast blocking bittorrent is the only clearly bad example of a net neutrality violation I can think of. AT&T zero rating DirecTV streaming is the second but a lot of consumers see free and don't care.

Post reply on HN