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

151–160 of 217 posts

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#151

Post by jperras »

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…

Fantastic analogy. Will be using this one in the future.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#152

Post by GCA10 »

pmorici wrote: post #96
erik wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How well do you feel that this has worked? I was under the impression that telecom prices in New Zealand were pretty painfully expensive?

It's a little island in the middle of the pacific everything except maybe sheep is going to be expensive

Two islands, actually. More than 30 if you count all the outlying ones.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#153

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?

I keep feeling like the debate over Net Neutrality is ignoring the elephant in the room: that ISPs have access to inspect your traffic at all.

We don't need rules to enforce a neutral internet if we create a traffic system where 3rd parties can't see your destination before you get there. We don't need to have a debate or try to explain the reasons at all if we use better encryption and routing protocols.

This is all technically doable, I just feel like we haven't allowed privacy to be a high enough priority, and we won't really get net neutrality until we decide to make privacy more important than giving ISPs and government the ability to look at everything we do online.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#154

Post by creeble »

foodstances wrote: post #149
tunap wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

Perhaps electricity might be a better analogy?

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#155

Post by awj »

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?

"What if your mail carrier had sole power to decide how quickly (or if at all) you got your mail?"

It's probably not a particularly accessible analogy for most of us here, but it's easily relatable across generations without getting bogged down in technical details.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#156

Post by creeble »

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.

Exactly the problem.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#157

Post by subway »

shawnfratis2 wrote: post #138

What I'm curious to know, is how will any of this truly affect users who aren't necessarily streaming/torrenting/big bandwidth users, like those who focus on education, research, computer sciences, among others. Not meaning to sound too vague, but speaking for myself, most of the Internet-related things I depend on don't necessarily involve constant high-bandwidth usage (like online gaming, for example). If the inter…

Throttling is far from the only sort of shenanigans ISPs like to play on their subscribers. A very cynical view might be that any (potentially innovative/interesting) network protocols that aren't easily productized will suffer from deprioritization to the point of becoming unusable. The ISP's response will be that you have no business doing that over a home connection, and that you need to pay 10x for a Business class connection.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#158

Post by rattray »

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.

You're likely being downvoted for assuming lamentation is related to the party that was elected, rather than the person. We're in a unique situation here.

I do agree that we should wait and see when it comes to the new (FCC) administration, however.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#159

Post by drakonandor »

digler999 wrote: post #145
794CD01 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 ?

Might not be explicitly legal, but chances are it'd go like this:

Police: Sir, do you know what speed you were going?

Driver: Yes, my wife is in the back and she's about to go into labor.

Police: Let me turn on my lights and escort you to the hospital!

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#160

Post by witty_username »

AgentK20 wrote: post #122
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.

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,…

> 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"?

Yes, because of competition or the threat of competition. This works for CPU vendors and toll roads; why shouldn't it work for internet service (which is rather fungible)?

> How many homes in America don't have access to Broadband internet? IN 2016?

I don't know; what are you trying to tell me? Are you saying it's too little or everyone has broadband internet?

> 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.

Assuming a monopoly:

a) Wouldn't antitrust law work if the ISP tried to prioritize their own pages (like their streaming video services)?

b) If people wanted net neutrality the ISP would offer such a plan. But then you might say the ISP will price that too high. But why didn't they price normal non-neutral internet service too high then? The threat of competition forces them to price plans reasonably.

Post reply on HN