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

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#201

Post by EKLM-ZK88 »

slg wrote: post #130
dorchadas wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it was a disaster. The only reason the rule got put into place was because Verizon was found to be throttling Netflix. There's no reason to suspect they won't go back to it as soon as they can.

If there was ISP competition then a Verizon customer could switch ISPs if they disagreed with the throttling of Netflix. I would compare it to wireless which never had these net neutrality rules. Is wireless a disaster? It seems like mobile plans are constantly including more data at faster speeds at a cheaper price. Some (all?) of the carriers have various anti-net neutrality policies but consumers at least have the…

There is an incredible up front cost for wired infrastructure and even Verizon was unable to turn a profit in the long run. Go pull their earnings reports and look at the performance of their wireline division (phone, internet, tv, etc...). It always lost money except for one year where they turned a million or two profit. That's why they sold it off to frontier who will invest the bare minimum and just run it until it breaks. This cost is what's preventing competition. Providers are betting hard on 5g wireless, it requires much less last mile infrastructure (you don't have to run and maintain connections to people's houses).

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#202

Post by wvenable »

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #120

Common response on HN for the past two months has been nothing short of hyperbolic. "The world will end if NN is repealed". Speaking as a conservative: When Obama was president, I got told the same thing about the ACA. The world will end, the sky is falling, America is finished. But eight years later, here I am, nothing's that much worse. I have no reason to believe this is "the beginning of the end" of anything. Lif…

The ACA was actually a conservative plan that is actually good for people. In some sense, you could argue that everybody agreed with it until it became a partisan issue.

NN is also good for people and also has bipartisan support (from constituents) but just got repealed. Yes, the sky won't fall but it is now a little darker.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#203

Post by paulgb »

slg wrote: post #130
dorchadas wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it was a disaster. The only reason the rule got put into place was because Verizon was found to be throttling Netflix. There's no reason to suspect they won't go back to it as soon as they can.

If there was ISP competition then a Verizon customer could switch ISPs if they disagreed with the throttling of Netflix. I would compare it to wireless which never had these net neutrality rules. Is wireless a disaster? It seems like mobile plans are constantly including more data at faster speeds at a cheaper price. Some (all?) of the carriers have various anti-net neutrality policies but consumers at least have the…

As a Verizon customer, I'd rather live in this magic world where I can switch ISPs than have net neutrality, but there is no meaningful competition in my building that doesn't suck more.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#204

Post by ng12 »

exabrial wrote: post #79

Unpopular opinion: Title II is not a great solution to Net Neutrality. The only thing I disklike is there isn't a better option already in place. I would rather see the FTC address EULAs. If a company says, "we may from time-to-time limit your bandwidth" I think they should be on the hook to produce a report every month when and why they limited you. This is not much different than the report you get from your invest…

> Title II is not a great solution to Net Neutrality. The only thing I disklike is there isn't a better option already in place.

Sure. But it was an attainable solution, which is much better than no solution at all. It's not like Pai is going to find some other way to protect NN.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#205

Post by slantedview »

ikeboy wrote: post #52
Dangeranger wrote: post #34

This is proof positive that the current FCC commission has ignored the will of the voters on this issue. Support for Net Neutrality was overwhelming and bi-partisan, yet Ajit Pai just plowed forward without consideration for what the citizens demanded. This is government at its worst.

It's funny, the FCC's mandate isn't to poll the public and do whatever most of them want. Strange how people seem to think it's a numbers game, at least when they feel the numbers are on their side

And yet it was a party line vote.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#206

Post by aaronbrethorst »

Call your Congressperson and Senators today and tell them that you want them to enshrine NN into law. And then vote against them next time they’re up for re-election if they don’t. In the case of your Congressperson, this will be next November.

Phone numbers are here: https://www.battleforthenet.com/

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#207

Post by joering2 »

ikeboy wrote: post #52
Dangeranger wrote: post #34

This is proof positive that the current FCC commission has ignored the will of the voters on this issue. Support for Net Neutrality was overwhelming and bi-partisan, yet Ajit Pai just plowed forward without consideration for what the citizens demanded. This is government at its worst.

It's funny, the FCC's mandate isn't to poll the public and do whatever most of them want. Strange how people seem to think it's a numbers game, at least when they feel the numbers are on their side

I was about to say people think in Democracy every vote counts the same. It doesn't. Imagine quality of people's life in big cities if majority living outside would be playing first violin. The latest Presidential race is great example how Democratic election works.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#209

Post by ocdtrekkie »

snuxoll wrote: post #143
exabrial wrote: post #79

Unpopular opinion: Title II is not a great solution to Net Neutrality. The only thing I disklike is there isn't a better option already in place. I would rather see the FTC address EULAs. If a company says, "we may from time-to-time limit your bandwidth" I think they should be on the hook to produce a report every month when and why they limited you. This is not much different than the report you get from your invest…

Limiting bandwidth is one thing. My local Cable company is proish-NN (they have publicly stated that they have no plans to implement prioritization even if the FCC passed this vote), they still impose data caps and network management practices on consumer plans. While I hate these practices (hence paying extra for a business connection), that's not what the NN issue is about. Comcast refused to upgrade their peering…

As with any other system where a product is delivered over someone else's product, a negotiation will take place, money will change hands, and business will resume. That's normal.

Google and Netflix wanted to implement rules prohibiting a perfectly normal transaction in business because it would cost them money, and framed it as the public good. I'm entirely okay with the two giants having to pay more, it provides Google and Netflix's competitors additional room to breathe and innovate.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#210

Post by Someone1234 »

juris wrote: post #135

This wouldn't be a problem if ISP's weren't de facto monopolies. If there was competition in this space, then there would be incentive to improve the infrastructure and Internet speeds. However, ISP's kill competition by making legal arrangements with local governments to only do business with them, and by cutting competitors' cables. Since we have no way to guarantee reasonable speeds to small time websites now, we…

The "last mile" is a utility, and by its very nature will always result in monopolistic control.

It is impractical and irrational to wire up a home to multiple ISPs with their own fiber channels. Each channel could cost tens of thousands to install.

Instead the "last mile" should be a non-profit funded by ISPs who lease the channels. The non-profit is responsible for installing the "last mile," upgrading it, and repairing defects in it. The ISP is responsible for everything that happens from the exchange upon up (inc. pricing, support, peerage agreements, interconnects, etc).

This way you can still choose Comcast if you wish but may also have several local ISPs competing for your business. When you choose to change no engineer needs to come to your house, they just plug and unplug you at the exchange.

Post reply on HN