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

181–190 of 217 posts

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#181

Post by mjevans »

creeble wrote: post #170
amelius wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, it's also a scarce resource. And similarly to water, excessive use is (usually still) bad for the planet.

But internet connectivity is somehow inherently limitless and deliverable for free?

Internet connectivity is all about maximum capacity. Everything past that is just sunk costs.

It doesn't cost anything more to use it at maximum capacity than it does to just leave it on standby. (The end points MIGHT use a TINY bit more power, but we're talking on the order of cents per month for terrabytes/month of traffic; it's a rounding error.)

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#182

Post by cabasse_ »

Terr_ wrote: post #91
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?

You pay more for the same electricity for your toaster, when it's a brand that isn't owned by the power company.

if you don't rent your toaster from the power company

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#183

Post by zeveb »

anigbrowl wrote: post #74
bdhess wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of recess appointments is an anachronism in an age with instant digital communications and airplanes.

No it isn't. Congress is only in session part of the time. Lawmaking - as opposed to politicking - currently requires a quorum and that legislators actually go on the record with both arguments and votes. It's where the rubber of governance meets the road and politicians can't pander to all and sundry while shrugging off criticism by saying 'they misspoke' and so on, but must instead commit to some sort of position (…

> Unfortunately, I feel there's a particular faction in the country that actively aims at the undoing of the union in favor of a weak federation of states or several regional confederacies.

This is off-topic, but I don't think that the number of people who genuinely want to do what you describe is effectively none. I suspect that you're actually referring to people who want the government of the United States and the governments of the several states to actually obey the federal and state constitutions. They (and — full disclosure — I) would argue that things for which there's no constitutional provision (e.g. drug prohibition) simply shouldn't exist, or amendments should be passed to permit them.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#184

Post by qq66 »

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 you should pay more per unit for a pool or massive outdoor fountain than for drinking and showering. And the water company does, too -- many water companies charge very little for the first X gallons (for basic needs) and then charge a higher price for usage over that.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#185

Post by Spivak »

mr_spothawk wrote: post #173
croon wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think Net Neutrality is bad for consumers, because it entrenches dependance on eg. Comcast. Instead, if we'd just let Comcast do whatever it wants with its networks (yes, we have stupidly built a lot of laws/rules around network sharing, that enable nasty behavior by Comcast, et. al.), then they'd jack up the price for whatever they want and (in a handwaving way) we'd have a market for citizen built mesh-networks.…

So what you're arguing is that NN is artificially keeping the cost of network access down? That's actually an argument I haven't heard before. Thus the only companies that can afford to eat the cost of NN are huge ISPs. I don't know whether this is true or not but I'm at least interested.

NN is largely independent of the type of content being sent over the network. NN helps Netflix because they're in competition with services that are owned by or partner with ISPs -- it doesn't, on the surface, seem to foster the creation of more streaming services.

Comcast was extremely anti-NN because they want to push cable and their own streaming services via network restrictions. I'm not sure what part of CC's business is begin codified into NN regulations or what nasty behavior it enables.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#186

Post by Spivak »

shuntress wrote: post #167
foodstances wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Bandwidth is also limited.

Which is why you pay for 'speed' which is basically a proxy for bandwidth.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#187

Post by Spivak »

bluetwo wrote: post #130
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"

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'?"

Customer: "These two cars are basically the same price, but if I go with the Honda I get $0.25 off per gallon. Cool, let's go with that one."

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#188

Post by pjc50 »

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 toll roads looked inside cars and trucks before deciding how much to charge. Or charged more for e.g. Ford cars until the manufacturer paid protection money.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#189

Post by Spivak »

crazy1van wrote: post #85
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…

> 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 seems like a good argument against NN. It makes me think that some traffic is much higher priority and should get special privileges.

That's because this analogy misses the point. We are in a thread about the difficulty explaining a problem I suppose.

Discriminating based on the type of traffic is arguably a good thing so long as it's done in good faith. Real time connections like VOIP and streaming ought to get higher priority.

It's the destination that really matters. Since UPS owns the roads and partners with Amazon, shipments from Jet.com are limited to 15mph while trucks carrying Amazon packages can go 60mph.

Or if you want something that's more like actual shipping a better example might be only UPS is allowed to deliver packages on the roads they own (like last mile ISPs), and because of their partnership with Amazon, only packages from them can have next-day shipping.

Re: Tom Wheeler Resigns from the FCC

#190

Post by thenomad »

mr_spothawk wrote: post #173
croon wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think Net Neutrality is bad for consumers, because it entrenches dependance on eg. Comcast. Instead, if we'd just let Comcast do whatever it wants with its networks (yes, we have stupidly built a lot of laws/rules around network sharing, that enable nasty behavior by Comcast, et. al.), then they'd jack up the price for whatever they want and (in a handwaving way) we'd have a market for citizen built mesh-networks.…

Do we really want more television?

Do we really want more of one of the most vibrant artistic media right now?

Do we want them pushing new boundaries in the way they tell stories?

Do we want them bringing delight to more people - and more diverse groups who were previously ignored by network television?

Erm, yes.

I know it's fashionable amongst certain filter bubbles to be snippy about TV (and sometimes about all forms of entertainment), but actually, it's a pretty remarkable time for the artform.

Many of those of us who are in favour of art, stories, beauty, reflection of humanity in the mirror of fiction, all that stuff, do indeed want more of it.

Post reply on HN