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

241–250 of 1001 posts

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

#241

Post by ryanisnan »

slg wrote: post #28

This has been asked a few times but never fully answered, can someone explain why this vote in particular is a problem? I understand net neutrality and I am all for it, but there was considerable public doubt before reclassification that this was the proper way to go about it. It also doesn't seem like the internet regulatory state of pre-2015 was a disaster. Would we better off focusing our efforts on increasing com…

There definitely is a competition problem. Without net neutrality, you will be even more screwed as a consumer when your only good ISP decides to offer you bullshit media packages with fast SNAPCHATZORZ access. Sure net neutrality doesn't help the fact that there just isn't enough competition, but it has the potential to make things a lot worse.

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

#242

Post by mankash666 »

stcredzero wrote: post #146
ikeboy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Logician and Philosopher Raymond Smullyan had a story about this in one of his books. He had gone on a trip with a woman with a little girl. The adults wanted to eat at colorful local cafes, while the girl wanted to eat at McDonalds. He suggested that they vote, and the little girl replied, "That's no fair. I'd lose!" Our republic isn't designed just to do what the people want. It's intentionally designed so that goo…

All these allegories are well and good. Explain how repealing net neutrality is in the public good, as that's what your post suggests

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

#243

Post by microcolonel »

Someone1234 wrote: post #210
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 repa…

> Instead the "last mile" should be a non-profit funded by ISPs who lease the channels.

That's an interesting idea, kinda like Interac for telecom. From what I hear, Interac has a bit of an issue with being fairly closed to new peering agreements, so I wonder how that could be solved for the telco space, maybe constitute the maintenance corporation to be open to bids from new ISPs.

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

#244

Post by juris »

Someone1234 wrote: post #210
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 repa…

I think that would be a good value proposition for a city that does not already prefer one ISP over another. Interesting idea to spin something like this up.

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

#245

Post by _m8fo »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #154
cabaalis wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been mentioned already in this thread, Ajit Pai was appointed to the FCC by President Obama, a democrat.

Yes but any Republican would have taken this action. Pai was appointed because by convention (or possibly requirement) the commission is composed of two Democrats and two Republicans, and is chaired by a commissioner of the President's choosing. Saying Pai is Obama's fault is disingenuous, because he had to appointment a Republican, and any Republican chair would implement Republican policy.

Saying this is the Republican's fault is just as disingenuous as saying it was Obama's fault. Quite literally this was caused by Obama by the appointing of Ajit, who then was promoted by Trump. Ajit, as we know has been spearingheading this whole thing.

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

#246

Post by vpeters25 »

slg wrote: post #28

This has been asked a few times but never fully answered, can someone explain why this vote in particular is a problem? I understand net neutrality and I am all for it, but there was considerable public doubt before reclassification that this was the proper way to go about it. It also doesn't seem like the internet regulatory state of pre-2015 was a disaster. Would we better off focusing our efforts on increasing com…

> It also doesn't seem like the internet regulatory state of pre-2015 was a disaster.

This is a common inaccurate argument I have seen pushed by the telcos to justify repeal.

There are many well-documented cases of how the "big 4" ISPs were increasingly blocking, redirecting (Charter's DNS redirection), interfering (injecting javascript and/or ads) and throttling traffic to internet services (Netflix) from their networks before the Title II reclassification of 2015.

All these abuses happened during a small window of a couple years between the previous FCC's Net Neutrality regulations were thrown out by the courts and 2015, when the Title II reclassification happened.

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

#247

Post by sigmar »

ng12 wrote: post #204
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.

I think Title II is a fine solution (why shouldn't internet be a utility?). There are a ridiculous amount of people in these comments that are trying to thread the needle between "I support NN," but saying "it is fine that they reversed Title-II classification" (which I guess is their cool contrarian point of view, but functionally tripe)

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

#248

Post by huffmsa »

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.

Big bureaucratic, un-elected government institutions are problematic?

Well color me pink.

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

#249

Post by CobrastanJorji »

mancerayder wrote: post #89
awinder wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-voters / people on the “there’s no difference” train also deserve a moment of reflection about whether their reality is true.

We live in an electoral system. For almost all of the states of the U.S. it's actually factually correct that there's no difference for whom you vote in the Presidential elections. In many locations, it also doesn't matter who you vote for in Congressional ones thanks to gerrymandering drawing boundary lines around you before you even get to the polls. We can discuss ideologically what the differences are between the…

Gandhi said, "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it."

You are technically correct. Almost no election is changed by the result of a single person. However, if everyone who thought this way chose to vote anyway, they could collectively swing every election.

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

#250

Post by shiado »

Is there anything that can be done at the protocol level to make the anti-NN goals of the ISPs unfeasible? Would a sudden surge in IPV6 adoption make the databases used to locate and label certain traffic useless? What about at the DNS level? BGP? Perhaps the best way to enforce net neutrality is by forcing the adoption of protocols that ensure it.
Post reply on HN