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

301–310 of 322 posts

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

#301

Post by setpatchaddress »

abootstrapper wrote: post #28
MrZongle2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How ever did things get made into law in the past? Compromise. Something that neither of the two major parties seem interested in anymore. It is that, not the allocation of seats to a party in Congress, which is why things haven't gotten done.

The Republicans are not interested in compromise. They've pulled the Dems so far right, they're practically center now.

Indeed, the Democrats have been right of center for some time. Obamacare is essentially identical to plans previously proposed by Republicans.

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

#302

Post by argigg »

wtallis wrote: post #297
chris_va wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you slightly misunderstood the hypothetical (well, I stated it poorly). In this case, the network is congested and we need to drop packets from a low tier. In the low tier, 90% of the packets are (hypothetically) video streaming. It doesn't need to drop 90% of the packets, I'm just characterizing the traffic in that tier. This is also fairly representative of evening traffic in the US from a residential ISP.…

> The question is: Can the ISP drop packets from this low priced tier that it knows are likely video streaming, even well behaved video streaming, over other packets? Such a policy is not necessary for the ISP to deliver good quality of service. Content-neutral traffic management is good enough, and often better than poorly-designed discriminatory traffic management policies. There's no real upside to permitting ISPs…

Are you claiming that, for any fraction x of traffic that must be dropped, overall subscriber utility is completely independent of what type of traffic is dropped?

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

#303

Post by kevando »

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…

We need an NRA for the free internet.

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

#304

Post by Natsu »

intended wrote: post #283
Natsu wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny that we're so divided on what to do about this, because when the plan by big ISPs to start discriminating based on site popularity was announced, basically everybody from right and left was outraged by those plans. Then it became some kind of political football and people were divided up on how to respond to it.

Pay close attention. This is how people manage to kill normal sensible ideas. The attack comes on several levels, all of which are dependent on having at least some website/newsite which is willing to repeat your claims. Your audience can be broken into 3 buckets (several more, but 3 is enough for a demonstration) 1) The first bucket is non-experts but intelligent. Tie them down in various plausible sounding argument…

Yeah, that's the thing. It's not hard to turn right & left against each other, then the lobbyists profit off of that. Just had to get each side to want to use the problem for their own political ends and divide us over how to address it.

But I think we should try to remember and go back to the fact that essentially nobody likes what the ISPs want to do at all. If we could find a more agreeable way to address it and not let it get twisted to further other agendas, I think most people could agree that it needs to be stopped.

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

#305

Post by saghm »

justaaron wrote: post #228
chris_va wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sci…

> 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

This is definitely the most unique argument I've heard in favor of net neutrality

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

#306

Post by intended »

mwfunk wrote: post #294
intended wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm. Yes and no. The question/answer is of degrees. I can't point to a categorical set of submissions/comments to provide you with some perfect bouquet of HN circa 2008 vs 2012 or such. Essentially it started out more as hackers figuring out how to hack becoming entrepreneurs or making things work - to entrepreneurs or startup founder babies figuring out what to do. So HN was more geeky initially, and the techie per…

My understanding is that it was originally just a place for people in YC-funded startups (or people otherwise affiliated with YC) to share useful/interesting links and information with each other. I don't associate HN (then or now) with any particular crowd, it's just an ever-evolving nexus of common interests that YC maintains as a public service more than anything else. I bet it's more focused on geeky interests an…

No, I know what you mean - I'm accounting for that.

Forum history and human behavior on the web is my hobby subject.

In this case I'm not saying it's become smarter or less earth shattering. I'm saying that the average focus has shifted, as a cultural shift in the community which come so here.

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

#307

Post by [deleted] »

mwfunk wrote: post #294
intended wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm. Yes and no. The question/answer is of degrees. I can't point to a categorical set of submissions/comments to provide you with some perfect bouquet of HN circa 2008 vs 2012 or such. Essentially it started out more as hackers figuring out how to hack becoming entrepreneurs or making things work - to entrepreneurs or startup founder babies figuring out what to do. So HN was more geeky initially, and the techie per…

My understanding is that it was originally just a place for people in YC-funded startups (or people otherwise affiliated with YC) to share useful/interesting links and information with each other. I don't associate HN (then or now) with any particular crowd, it's just an ever-evolving nexus of common interests that YC maintains as a public service more than anything else. I bet it's more focused on geeky interests an…

[deleted]

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

#308

Post by intended »

Natsu wrote: post #304
intended wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay close attention. This is how people manage to kill normal sensible ideas. The attack comes on several levels, all of which are dependent on having at least some website/newsite which is willing to repeat your claims. Your audience can be broken into 3 buckets (several more, but 3 is enough for a demonstration) 1) The first bucket is non-experts but intelligent. Tie them down in various plausible sounding argument…

Yeah, that's the thing. It's not hard to turn right & left against each other, then the lobbyists profit off of that. Just had to get each side to want to use the problem for their own political ends and divide us over how to address it. But I think we should try to remember and go back to the fact that essentially nobody likes what the ISPs want to do at all. If we could find a more agreeable way to address it and n…

The lesson I've learned is that this is no longer the world for the open exchange of ideas. Mostly because people are already waiting to subvert your arguments.

This is dealt with by PR, advertising and focus groups.

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

#309

Post by tracker1 »

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…

I'm in favor of net neutrality.. but lets be serious.. there are users who are far more "using" of their bandwidth than others. And any given company should have every right to sell/filter as necessary those users. But as to what content they filter, imho that's a different story.

But the two get muddled quite a bit.. and what happened between Verizon and Netflix is an outright shame, but I can kind of see both sides regardless of where I stand personally. The trouble is where to draw the line, and what lines to draw from a legal standpoint.

Drawing only from what I got from the article, they're only requiring these companies to be more transparent to their customers, and I'm all for that. I think the 100k customer break was probably reasonable, but even the 250k break won't affect the really big players in the space.

My bigger fear is where individual states are legislating against local communities/cities offering broadband.

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

#310

Post by dragonwriter »

tracker1 wrote: post #309
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…

I'm in favor of net neutrality.. but lets be serious.. there are users who are far more "using" of their bandwidth than others. And any given company should have every right to sell/filter as necessary those users. But as to what content they filter, imho that's a different story. But the two get muddled quite a bit.. and what happened between Verizon and Netflix is an outright shame, but I can kind of see both sides…

> there are users who are far more "using" of their bandwidth than others.

Neutrality doesn't prohibit charging for utilization.

Post reply on HN