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

The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 206 posts

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#101

Post by greenshackle2 »

cakeface wrote: post #21

The sneakiest thing just happened to me on that Washington Post site. There was an overlay ad, no big deal, with an X to close it in the upper right of the screen. I moved my mouse up there to click the X and the site shifted slightly so what I actually clicked was "Subscribe"!

Couldn't reproduce.

Different A/B test group? Or could just be that the site is hot garbage, every time I reload the banner/overlay ad and top bar behave slightly differently, I can see how that could happen but I couldn't get it to do quite what you've seen after like 20 reloads.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#102

Post by lurker456 »

splintercell wrote: post #28
outsidetheparty wrote: post #8

> Pai argued that rolling back the rules will encourage ISPs to spend more on their broadband networks How? How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network incentivize those ISPs to expand that network? It's just so frustrating that these guys no longer even bother to pretend that their arguments make any logical sense at all. "We'll protect user privacy by eliminating these rules that pr…

> How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network incentivize those ISPs to expand that network? The fundamental idea is that the amount of investment done in a venture is directly proportional to the profitability of that venture. If govt makes a regulation saying that Google can provide Hangouts service, but it cannot charge more for Enterprise Hangouts features, then Google has no addi…

That fundamental idea is wrong for oligopolies and monopolies. Utilities such as ISPs have a natural monopoly.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#103

Post by thinknot »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #88
twoodfin wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demand for water isn't growing at nearly the rate of demand for bits. If communities expected their regulated water utilities to deliver twice as much water every 18-36 months, they'd be in for some tough times.

A government fiber utility installs fiber once, just like a government water utility installs pipes once. Making it faster means replacing termination equipment. In what way is Verizon better at doing that than a public utility company would be?

Fibre is a very recent development... and there are a few kinds of it. Like, GPON, EPON, etc.

Before we had coax cable which required updates very often (DOCSIS versions) which usually required changing lots of equipment (not termination equipment/CPEs).

Before we had DSL which also saw lots of improvements over the years. (ADSL, ADSL2, ADSL2+, annexes, etc).

Also all these technologies require an uplink which needs to be updated from time to time.

These updates are very expensive, you can't imagine how much. A comparison with tap water is moot because, well, you don't need new, thicker pipes every 10 years.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#104

Post by anigbrowl »

__jal wrote: post #97
grzm wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment includes highly partisan and uncivil language: > spewing bullshit > the clownshow in office > D's get to clean up the mess Regardless of how right (or wrong) the commenter may be, this type of language does not invite or encourage the civil and productive discourse that is strongly valued on HN. There are ways to express such opinions in a civil way, though it requires more effort. Given the current polar…

For the record, I use 'bullshit' as a technical term[1]. I can imagine why someone might dislike 'clownshow'. Frankly, I find it accurate, or I wouldn't have written it, and I didn't use such terms in the past to describe pols I disagree with - it is specific to what I see as a historically bad outfit. "Clean up the mess" is "uncivil"? Sorry, that's silly, and another demonstration that politically correct language p…

I also support this use of 'bullshit' as a technical term and recommend that book to anyone who will listen. Your language strikes me as disgruntled rather than incendiary, but then my political views are already closely aligned with yours.

Civility is important for discourse, but so is clarity of expression, and I do not consider it uncivil to express a firm opinion bluntly whether or not I agree with it.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#105

Post by doctorshady »

rdxm wrote: post #65

would be really interrsting to do a deep dive on Pai's personal finances. He's not even trying to hide how much he's in the bag for the telecom/ISPs.

Isn't this exactly the sort of thing the government accountability office is for? I'm seriously asking - someone this transparently corrupt deserves an investigation big time.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#106

Post by cwisecarver »

I live in a rural area in the mid-atlantic US. My choices for internet are 10mbit DSL from CenturyLink or LTE (with bandwidth caps). I've only lived here for a year but my previous two homes have had at least two options for 100mbit+ internet, FiOS and Comcast, and LTE.

Comcast serves across the street from my house and told me it would be $76k out of my pocket to get service here. For I'm 100% in favor of making ISPs common carriers and making it unlawful for them to track their customers' habits. I've worked for two ISPs in my career. They should be happy with the business of providing internet to customers and compete on delivering better, faster, and more reliable service not on selling their customers' information or eyeballs to the highest bidder.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#107

Post by s73ver »

splintercell wrote: post #28
outsidetheparty wrote: post #8

> Pai argued that rolling back the rules will encourage ISPs to spend more on their broadband networks How? How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network incentivize those ISPs to expand that network? It's just so frustrating that these guys no longer even bother to pretend that their arguments make any logical sense at all. "We'll protect user privacy by eliminating these rules that pr…

> How on earth does letting ISPs milk more money out of their existing network incentivize those ISPs to expand that network? The fundamental idea is that the amount of investment done in a venture is directly proportional to the profitability of that venture. If govt makes a regulation saying that Google can provide Hangouts service, but it cannot charge more for Enterprise Hangouts features, then Google has no addi…

Uber and Lyft have competition. UPS has competition. Most ISPs do not.

And while you might say that it allows them to fund things faster, it also allows them to simply give more money to executives and shareholders.

Please don't also pretend that giving them more ways to make money at the expense of the internet as we know it means that they will invest in their infrastructure. In fact, history shows us that they most likely will not.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#108

Post by s73ver »

splintercell wrote: post #37
outsidetheparty wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eliminating net neutrality incentivizes ISPs to build auxiliary services that they can artificially support by throttling the bandwidth of competing products. It incentivizes them to seek profit by favoring some net traffic over other net traffic. It does not in any way incentivize them to build larger or better networks. It does not incentivize them to invest in their infrastructure. All it does is let them make mor…

Business Model 1: Build your own services and throttle everyone else's services unless they pay a premium (in which case your own services would be cheaper, but the profit they get from their own services must be higher than the profit they get from NOT selling the bandwidth their premium service uses, to third parties). Let's put it this way, if a hotel builds a Jacuzzi, you're argument is that the hotel owner will…

History. History is the reason why they would not go for business model 2.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#109

Post by lettergram »

F2 wrote: post #82
splintercell wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In past I've seen comments and incendiary language like this be given warning from the mods. I come to this site because despite of being more liberal leaning, I can have calm conversations with people.

How exactly is the comment you're replying to "incendiary"?

I actually think the "D's" are equally bad, if not worse. But saying that potentially leads to an argument. That's why it's incendiary, because it leads directly to bashing, skipping civil debate.

Plus, it's condecending to at least half of the people in the U.S.

The parent commenter acts as though they know they're correct and every other person is wrong. The comment comes across very close minded, and not really in the spirit of discourse. They even hint that they don't see the point of discourse:

> Engaging on a level of logic with someone who is seeking an outcome and just says whatever they think will support their view. This is about the exercise of power.

The only thing it added was to discount other views and generalize "R's" as "clown" supporters, which just isn't the case. There was no other addition to the conversation.

Further, I dont even see a way to respond to that comment without seemingly defending the "clown"... Which would certainly lead to a more incendiary argument.

Re: The FCC plan to undo its net neutrality rules

#110

Post by rayiner »

prklmn wrote: post #91
ThePurpleKnight wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And to be fair to Pai, he has consistently said his main goal is to reduce the regulatory burdens preventing people from getting in to the market.

That's lip service so the big players can have their regulatory burden reduced. High startup costs and anticompetitive practices are the most significant mechanisms preventing new market entrants.

The FCC just released an NPRM to speed up access to utility poles, which is pretty much the only regulatory hurdle Google Fiber ran into. One of the options being considered is allowing new attachers to do make ready work themselves, which is similar to the one touch make ready laws Google pushed for in places like Louisville (the current pole attachment process requires existing attachers to move their own lines instead of letting new attachers move other attachers' lines themselves).
Post reply on HN