FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by rayiner » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 1:46 AM UTC

badsock wrote: post #208

rayiner wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You don't have to speculate, it's cheap: https://arstechnica.com/business/2015/08/how-a-small-city-of...

Sandy's system covers the 2,400 housing units within city limits, and it cost $7.5 million, so it cost over $3,000 per house to wire up (or $3,500 per subscribing household). Which is actually on the higher side considering that Sandy is a pretty dense little city (about double the density of a typical suburb).

Assuming the city can get a 4% bond, and depreciates the asset over 20 years, about $27 of that $40 goes just to depreciation and interest.

That cost is actually fairly typical. What isn't typical is an 83% uptake rate. Average for municipal providers is about 54%, and average for private FTTH providers like Verizon is 30-35%. If your uptake rate is 35% instead of 83%, your monthly cost in depreciation and interest alone jumps to $64. That's before the cost of bandwidth, maintenance, customer service, etc., which typically eats up about half the monthly bill.

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

#222

Post by tomelders » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 1:53 AM UTC

Undersandly, the conversation in here revolves around the technicalities and semantics of net neutrality. But this isn't an issue of technology. It's a political issue, or worse, an ideological issue. It's not about the empirical truths of net neutrality, or the collective intent of those who created, and those who continue to develop the technology that has woven itself into the fabric of humanity. It's about idealouges imposing their ideals on every facet of our lives, regardless of the facts.

The sad fact is, this is yet another grim attack on net neutrality by nefarious agents who see the web as something to be dominated and bent to their will exclusivley for political and economic gain.

Like it or not, the work we do is going to become highly politicised. Are we ready for this? Do we have the moral fortitude to resist the influence that fuzzy, sloppy, and emotive politics seeks to have on our discussions?

I think back to how we handled the Brendan Eich debacle. I (regretfully) came down on the punitive side of that argument. And I participated in that debate with a level of anger and vitriol that embarrasses me now. But whichever side you took, there's no doubt that for a brief moment we were deeply divided. The Brendan Eich story was a flash in the pan compared to what is about to happen.

Should we engage in political debate, or should we avoid it? Can we buck the trend and participate in political debate in way that doesn't tear us apart, or should we ignore it as it happens around us and impacts upon our lives and work? Or is there a path between the extremes, where we can be neither ignorant to our political leanings nor beholden to them?

I don't dare offer any advice on how we should prepare ourselves for what is about to come, I just hope we can all think about how we hope to respond before it happens.

One thing I will say though, being someone prone to highly emotional reactions in all aspects of my life; developing software in teams has taught me the value of "strong opinions, weakly held".

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

#223

Post by rayiner » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 1:58 AM UTC

pseudalopex wrote: post #163

rayiner wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities have no money. All across the country, they're insolvent and drowning in pension and other liabilities. SF is flush right now, which makes it particularly outrageous that it doesn't invest in infrastructure. But SF's behavior also tells you how cities got so deeply in debt with nothing to show for it.

A number of cities have tried to build fiber networks only to be thwarted by ISP lobbying at the state level. Some had their eyes on Google Fiber. SF is studying municipal fiber, although I don't know how seriously.

I supported the Obama FCC's attempts to preempt those state laws, but most states have no such laws to begin with: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-21-laws-state....

E.g. in Maryland, nothing precludes Baltimore from building its own broadband network. It just has no money. Ditto Chicago, or New York. The laws applying to Philadelphia or anywhere in California shouldn't really stop construction either.

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

#224

Post by chris_va » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 2:03 AM UTC

wtallis wrote: post #218

morgzilla wrote: post #207

I can see how a bit of outrage about this is how the NRA got to the place it is today. This by itself isn't that meaningful, but anything can be politicized, turn public opinion and gain momentum. That's why the NRA's position is to say NO to any kind of gun regulation, because they know that's how you ensure guns are made available and gun culture is for sure secure. In the tech community I see people rising up agai…

There are pros and cons to gun ownership; it both contributes to and harms the public good. Net neutrality is a more lopsided issue—the arguments against net neutrality are all about legalizing extortion and promoting a tragedy of the commons, or else they're non-specific arguments against regulation of any kind. Taken on its own and rationally, the net neutrality issue is much less amenable to producing a permanent…

To be fair, your "arguments against net neutrality are all about legalizing extortion" already sounds a bit "ultra biased".

What if someone wants to start an ISP, and charge less for a lower QoS band? Is that legalized extortion?

(Not to say it would be a good idea, I agree that it is a slippery slope)

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

#225

Post by dnautics » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 2:09 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #192

dnautics wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this distinction is as trivial as you think. Especially in a legal sense. Unless you want judges adjudicating in the Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" sense, which can get scary.

The legal system is built on intent and purpose, so from a legal sense, such distinction is not trivial but its quite normal. What we as a society might want to avoid is ISP that calls a company and say "Would it not be terrible if you lost access to a third of the population in this country. Pay us now, or we will redirect those users to a competitor."

That's already covered by antitrust law

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

#226

Post by wtallis » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 2:15 AM UTC

chris_va wrote: post #224

wtallis wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are pros and cons to gun ownership; it both contributes to and harms the public good. Net neutrality is a more lopsided issue—the arguments against net neutrality are all about legalizing extortion and promoting a tragedy of the commons, or else they're non-specific arguments against regulation of any kind. Taken on its own and rationally, the net neutrality issue is much less amenable to producing a permanent…

To be fair, your "arguments against net neutrality are all about legalizing extortion" already sounds a bit "ultra biased". What if someone wants to start an ISP, and charge less for a lower QoS band? Is that legalized extortion? (Not to say it would be a good idea, I agree that it is a slippery slope)

What do you mean "charge less for a lower QoS band"? Net neutrality has nothing to say about an ISP that wants to offer both 10Mbps and 100Mbps plans, or business-class plans that offer an SLA for a higher price than ordinary residential plans.

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

#227

Post by boona » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 2:15 AM UTC

wtallis wrote: post #216

boona wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, that's a good question. It's not clear to me at what level of government the most stifling regulations are. I had also read that they wanted to offer phone services for free, but they dropped those due to the incredibly high regulations in that field as well. https://www.cnet.com/news/google-to-government-let-us-build-...

That article shows Google wanting new regulations imposed in some areas (forcing local governments and utilities to accommodate Google), but not wanting relief from net neutrality regulations.

> That article shows Google wanting new regulations imposed in some areas

Where did you get that? Kevin Lo from Google is quoted as saying "Regulations tied to physical infrastructure sometimes defer the investment altogether". Are you saying that in reference to something else?

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

#228

Post by justaaron » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 2:19 AM UTC

chris_va wrote: post #224

wtallis wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are pros and cons to gun ownership; it both contributes to and harms the public good. Net neutrality is a more lopsided issue—the arguments against net neutrality are all about legalizing extortion and promoting a tragedy of the commons, or else they're non-specific arguments against regulation of any kind. Taken on its own and rationally, the net neutrality issue is much less amenable to producing a permanent…

To be fair, your "arguments against net neutrality are all about legalizing extortion" already sounds a bit "ultra biased". What if someone wants to start an ISP, and charge less for a lower QoS band? Is that legalized extortion? (Not to say it would be a good idea, I agree that it is a slippery slope)

it seems to be rather against the very spirit of a system that 1) routes traffic in the manner it does 2) specifies access in the manner it does 3) has a history and culture as such

in short: it's against the internet itself...

is the internet biased?

I think the issue is rather like a court case: sure, there are 2 litigants, but in the end one is determined to be "correct" and the other loses...

if a famous data scientist publishes a research paper and I stand up naked on my desk and shout "peanut butter sandwiches!" at the top of my lungs, the peer review committee has no obligation to include my response in the process surrounding the review of said paper.

If a doctor or car mechanic gives a diagnosis in the field of their expertise, their opinion will be given more weight than if I ask a passerby their opinion on my illness or automobile.... i could go on and on making examples where 2 or more "sides" may appear wishing representation and where they don't necessarily warrant/merit it.

one has no obligation to represent litigants as holding an equal stature in validity, it's the a-priori presumption of the possibility of such that allows people to initially listen and nod, before one makes them aware of how bat-poo crazy one is, lol

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

#229

Post by transfire » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 2:23 AM UTC

VonGuard wrote: post #2

This is the end. If we think this guy's gonna listen to the people, we're completely wrong.

Oh, it might just well happen. The engineers that actually make this stuff work generally know whats up, and if things start to turn too sour, just watch them bring the whole damn net to a screeching halt. It'll make the SOPA blackout of 2012 look like daylight.

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

#230

Post by intended » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 2:26 AM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #177

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

Not for nothing, but most people of that mindset don't believe that the government is inherently bad, but that government powers should be closely and judiciously kept to a minimum to prevent it being used for bad. There's a difference there, but like most arguments on the internet, the nuance tends to get lost in the retelling. Regarding net neutrality, if memory serves correctly, it was but a few short weeks after…

Could you explain who this was, and how ISIS and NN intersected? This seems like an...odd argument. NN is protecting business as usual, so using NN to censor isis is kinda novel.