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

Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 155 posts

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#141

Post by tn135 »

forgotmysn wrote: post #85
tn135 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ISPs are rolling in cash. Common myth. - Comcast made merely $2B in profits last year.[verified] - ATT made around $5B from wireline data last year. [unverified] A lot of people think these are monopolies with the help of government without realising that a lot of companies including Google tried to bring disruption and have failed. Part of the reason why not many people are wasting their capital on wireline is…

> merely $2B in profits last year I've never seen billions of dollars in profits dismissed so casually. >ISPs have terrible customer service because most of their efforts are going into keeping those wires and fibres intact. ISP's in other countries, even ones of similar scale to the US, don't have to chose between quality customer service and quality internet service. To call your argument facile would be overly gen…

> ISP's in other countries, even ones of similar scale to the US

Which are those countries ? India, China?

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#142

Post by tn135 »

forgotmysn wrote: post #105
jdminhbg wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've never seen billions of dollars in profits dismissed so casually. Comcast has around 25 million customers [0], so that's around $65/year/customer. So if you cut that profit to $0, you can return $5/month on combined TV and internet to each customer. When people say "cable and internet are so expensive," they don't generally mean "if I got a $5 price cut I would be happy." [0]: http://expandedramblings.com/index…

I'm not suggesting that fast, consistent internet service is cheap to provide. However, I'm also not convinced that comcast's prices aren't as high as they are, and their margins as low as they are, only because its a costly service to provide. It's also because they are really bad at providing it. But that wasn't even my main point. My point is that Comcast is more interested in providing a return to their sharehold…

> However, I'm also not convinced that comcast's prices aren't as high as they are

The math is for you to see.

> It's also because they are really bad at providing it.

And how many ISP companies do you have experience running ?

> My point is that Comcast is more interested in providing a return to their shareholders than they in providing effective and satisfying customer service.

What is wrong with it ? Has worked well for Google.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#143

Post by mstodd »

mikehollinger wrote: post #79

It's hard for me to empathize (in the literal sense of the word) with someone who dislikes net neutrality. What're the reasons / justifications for why the current laws and rules are wrong or insufficient?

I believe the government is immoral, and people and businesses should be free to create and trade unregulated. Even if I thought net neutrality was 'good' for consumers and business and the economy, I wouldn't trust the government to pen it's legislation

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#144

Post by ethbro »

pseudalopex wrote: post #134
ethbro wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different topic, but on the legal side of the law you'll find that most exclusive franchise agreements by an ISP contain something to the effect of "we will pay the city/county $A, give them an ongoing amount of $B/yr (and are not allowed to break that out as a line item), and perform C, D, and E at no cost." All these agreements are public. Go down to your local city hall or courthouse and ask for a copy of the fran…

Franchise agreements can't be exclusive anymore. Officials at any level can still play favorites, of course.

I stand corrected. I'd read ours recently, as I was curious. It was essentially an inherited document from the first cable company to build a network for the city.

It specifically noted it was non-exclusive, but I assumed that was the exception rather than the rule.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#145

Post by mstodd »

root_axis wrote: post #113
pvnick wrote: post #56

Good. The less federal regulation over ISPs the better.

Anyone who asserts "the less regulations the better" style arguments has automatically lost the debate. It's trivially easy to demonstrate that some regulations are good, so to start off the discussion with a blanket attack on regulations in general, without addressing any specifics regarding the actual regulation in question, broadcasts solid evidence that this is not an argument presented in good faith.

list examples of 'good' regulation

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#146

Post by dang »

pvnick wrote: post #56

Good. The less federal regulation over ISPs the better.

Please don't post ideological talking points to HN. The combination of that and lack of other substance in the comment amounts to trolling, as this subthread demonstrates.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#147

Post by dang »

quicksilverFTW wrote: post #65

Crawl back in your hole.

Commenting like this will get your account banned. Personal attacks are not allowed here, regardless of how wrong the other person is. Please don't do it again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14249291 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#148

Post by dang »

pvnick wrote: post #80

Only children cry for grownups when they don't get their way. If you receive enough value from your internet and cell phone that you are willing to spend $50/month for those services, then that is what they are worth.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14248490 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority

#150

Post by dang »

forgotmysn wrote: post #92
dang wrote: post #82

Net neutrality is an important topic, but some politicians sponsoring a bill generally doesn't count as a substantive story. The vast majority of proposed bills go nowhere.

You raise an important point, and if this event took place in isolation, I might even agree with your sentiment. However, this, in combination with FCC Chairman Pai's recent actions demonstrate an organized, concerted effort to deregulate Internet Service Provision. And with the GOP in control of both houses and the Executive branch, combined with their desperate need for political wins, makes me concerned that they…

FCC/Pai is getting thoroughly treated elsewhere, and the rest is political sausage-making.
Post reply on HN