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

FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 322 posts

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#141

Post by bumblebeard »

rayiner wrote: post #108
asciimo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole thing should be a public utility like water, electricity, and sewer.

Yes, just like sewers: http://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/atlanta-area-st... . Also, nobody advocating for "treating telecom like a utility" is actually advocating for that. Try looking up the cost of a county water/sewer hookup sometime. It's not free, and your $50/month water bill doesn't pay for it. I'm paying off a $30,000 bill to get "public utility" water and sewer access. That's pretty typical. If we…

$30,000 seems like a lot unless you live in a very rural area. Where I live in Michigan it's $1,410 for a hookup within 500 feet of a road. Why is it so expensive where you are?

Also, fiber would probably be pretty cheap once the infrastructure was already in place. A single phase overhead power line is often provided for free to new homes and underground service runs about $3.50/foot so I imagine fiber would be similarly cheap.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#142

Post by devindotcom »

guelo wrote: post #50

I hate these types of articles that provide extensive quotes and even a screenshot of part of the pdf, but refuse to link to the actual documents. It's probably an advertising thing where they don't want people to leave the site. The actual statements are available here https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-addresses-unnecessary-accou...

You're quite right. Normally I'm pretty good about that. (At least, I remembered today: https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/24/fcc-prepares-to-pull-broad...)

This article went through several revisions as I did research so the original opening couple paragraphs and links got lost in the shuffle. I've added the link back in.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#143

Post by st3v3r »

rayiner wrote: post #108
asciimo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole thing should be a public utility like water, electricity, and sewer.

Yes, just like sewers: http://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/atlanta-area-st... . Also, nobody advocating for "treating telecom like a utility" is actually advocating for that. Try looking up the cost of a county water/sewer hookup sometime. It's not free, and your $50/month water bill doesn't pay for it. I'm paying off a $30,000 bill to get "public utility" water and sewer access. That's pretty typical. If we…

Except once it's hooked up, it doesn't need to be hooked up again.

And given that most providers will make you pay to run a line to your house, you don't exactly have a leg to stand on

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#144

Post by wtallis »

rhino369 wrote: post #135
walshemj wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Local loop unbundling is what you need like the UK has

The problem is that most americans get their internet over coxial cable owned by the local cable co. Most cable company networks don't have individual loops to unbundle. You share a loop with the whole neighborhood. I've heard people claim it is possible, but I'm not really sure how.

They're already running their phone and Internet services on the same infrastructure but different VLANs. It shouldn't require new hardware to add half a dozen more VLANs for the different backhaul providers and apportion bandwidth inside the last-mile network equally between VLANs.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#145

Post by st3v3r »

rocky1138 wrote: post #95
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone will sue and then laws will be made. Whoever has the most money/best lawyers will win.

Because the network is grass-roots, we can ignore the laws.

No, we can't.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#146

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

massysett wrote: post #112
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a case to be had for how vertical-integration makes businesses more efficient and means there can be some cost-savings for consumers (e.g. if Comcast zero-rated their own streaming video service and included it in their customers' cable Internet fees then consumers would save $10/mo they wouldn't be paying to Netflix - in much the same way Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer meant no-one pays for Netsc…

As a NN opponent, you have somewhat captured my viewpoint. Mostly I think NN is fighting the last war. NN proponents continually assert there is no competition for wired Internet and, therefore, it must be regulated. I think looking at wired Internet defines much too narrow a market. As wireless proliferates, it will become increasingly important, and competition in wireless is alive and well. The recent reignition o…

> I am struck by the arrogance of the belief that the government knows best how to regulate this market.

No worse than the belief that companies, in natural monopoly, will act in the best interests of consumers either. There are many places in the world where the government does work well and in the best interests of their populations - I'm disappointed the "government is inherently bad" meme is so well-entrenched in the USA.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#147

Post by rosser »

djsumdog wrote: post #120
bluejekyll wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really a choice. AT&T in my area of SF is still crap compared to Comcast. So yes, I could choose to use AT&T, but I would be getting substantially worse service. All cities should be investing in building out infrastructure themselves, as it would increase the desire for companies and people to live and work where they have better connectivity.

You can't get Fibre in your part of SF?

The only place in the city residential FTTP is an option (other than to larger apartment buildings) is, AFAIK, Sonic's FTTP trial in the Sunset.

The NIMBY is strong in San Francisco. Apparently, even the imposition of the above-ground junction boxes are too much for people here, and so, once again, "We are why we can't have nice things."

Even — if not especially — in a place like San Francisco.

My choices, where I live, are Comcast and DSL (I'm just out of LoS for Monkeybrains). So I give Sonic money every month for a pretty hideous dollar:bandwidth ratio, comparatively, because that's still better than Comcast, in my book.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#148

Post by deno »

Retric wrote: post #122
necessity wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People agree with someone you disagree, so it must be a conspiracy. Also I think you underestimate the intelligence of the average commentor.

Look at the comment and submission history of the account he responded to. It's a well maintained shill used for propaganda and likely one of many. This is then kind of thing you see in authoritarian states and rather chilling.

The person you’re referring to has three comments in total, and of their submissions only ONE has anything to do with FCC.

You’re attacking person, not argument, and rather ineffectively.

EDIT: Okay, you meant someone else. Still, calling someone with almost 10 year active account a shill requires more evidence than this. Stick to the facts.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#149

Post by tsteele937 »

scarface74 wrote: post #98
wtallis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't more competition among providers what we want? Only at some levels. Physical last-mile connectivity is a natural monopoly; we shouldn't want more than one trench along each driveway. If an ISP has a local monopoly that only covers one city rather than a whole state, that doesn't change the dynamics of what's fair to their users.

I would think that any many decently populated areas, it's at least a "duopoly". You would have the cable company and the phone company competing. I have a choice between Comcast and AT&T.

I have 60mb service from Charter and 45 from AT&T and many in my area have 1g service from AT&T as well. They are rolling out fiber at a rapid pace.
Post reply on HN