F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by 0xJRS » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 7:02 PM UTC

tspike wrote: post #148

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…

Access to information like you describe would be very useful in a free market, but the ISP market is not. If I get a report from my ISP outlining how they throttled me, how am I supposed to act on that information?

You'll get the "vote with your wallet" speech. Which for most people, and like myself, your only other option in order to do just that is to buy an LTE wifi or get satellite internet.

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

#262

Post by bigcityhobbies » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 7:02 PM UTC

snuxoll wrote: post #78

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.

I was tempted to not vote seeing as I live in Idaho, I don't even have anyone running for local/state seats I want to vote for (our state district had republicans running unopposed for house/senate) and though I hate the phrase my vote literally meant nothing in the federal elections last year. I still did it, because I firmly believe it's my duty (and I personally would go so far as to say we should have Australia-s…

I also am from Idaho and always vote- thank you. We need everyone to have this attitude and we may just shift the narrative off of "hopeless."

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

#263

Post by noetic_techy » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 7:02 PM UTC

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…

I totally agree. Who cares if the worst case scenario is tiered pricing, as long as their is REAL competition, a competitor can come along and say "we offer it all for one flat fee because our infrastructure is better." Boom, done. These municipal exclusion deals are the real problem.

I also think this is going to backfire and bite the telco's in the ass if they try to roll out tiers. The legislative outcry when joe schmo is affected could become so deafening that congress will be likely be forced to get up off their ass and intervene which is exactly what they don't want. If they were smart they would only go after the Netflix and Face-books of the world and leave the consumer out of it.

Can you imagine the 2020 campaign slogan of "Donald Trump ruined the internet." Ignoring this issue was stupid but I don't think they thought this through.

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

#264

Post by zardo » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 7:02 PM UTC

sam0x17 wrote: post #128

zardo wrote: post #54

Is anyone working on market based routing over mesh networks with crypto currencies? Would that have been disallowed under the network neutrality rules?

No, net neutrality just makes it so ISPs can't throttle/block/charge-extra-for particular websites, like they do in Portugal: https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701871092441088

I don't think the regulation was limited to http traffic.

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

#265

Post by rybosome » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 7:02 PM UTC

judah wrote: post #117

ransom1538 wrote: post #47

Comcast board meeting (RIGHT NOW): "First things first, how do we charge more for netflix streaming."

They're free to do so; companies exist to make money. Cable internet carriers probably will attempt something like this. The next thing that will happen is, when Comcast goes too far, another provider (cable? wireless carrier? satellite broadband? something new from a startup?) disrupts the market by offering an alternative to Comcasts' egregious policies. Comcast loses subscribers and is monetarily forced to be more…

Great! So the competitor can rely on leasing municipal broadband networks to avoid expensive, wide-spread fiber buildout? No, because that’s illegal in many cities thanks to lobbying from Comcast and friends.

Ok, so the competitor can build their own fiber network. That’s very expensive and time consuming, but it can be done...if local legislators approve it. Sure hope Comcast and friends don’t have any influence there! This is one of the suspected reasons for the failure of Google Fiber, but hey, maybe it’ll work next time.

Incidentally my two options for internet service are:

1) Comcast 2) A local competitor offering sub-1MBPS

Some choice.

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

#266

Post by 40acres » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 7:02 PM UTC

VOTE.

As I've grown older I've realized more and more that this is the only way for citizens voices to be truly heard. You aren't going to outspend the big donors and you aren't going to out influence the lobbyists. If you want a particular rule set or laws to be enacted you'd better vote for the politicians who agree with your worldview.

Mad that the FCC has repealed net neutrality? Vote for congress members who are pro-NN.

Mad that national parks have had their land area significantly reduced? Vote for pro national park congress members.

Mad that we're giving a huge tax cat to billionaires and corporations and yet the middle class gets a temporary reprieve? Vote for congress members who want to deliver true tax reform.

I could go on and on but I think you get the point.

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

#267

Post by nawgszy » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 7:02 PM UTC

Cknight70 wrote: post #190

rkuykendall-com wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> our democracy isn't working properly Democracy doesn't work through public declarations, it works through elections. One year ago, the states chose Donald Trump as president, knowing they he would end Net Neutrality [1]. If a population wants to send a different message, they must do it in the next election [2]. [1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716... [2] https://swingleft.org/

While I do not think Donald Trump is turning out to be a great president, his competition was not any better for different reasons. I think there is also a problem with how our Democracy elects people as well.

I don't like Hillary at all and think the Democrats would've easily won if they hadn't used establishment tactics to put thru their establishment candidate over Bernie, but..

>his competition was not any better

Really? Hillary was going to carry on a lot of Obam-ian policies. Net neutrality would still exist, pedophiles would not be publicly endorsed by her, and a 'tax cut' that is actually just a confusing mess that only clearly benefits the super-rich would not have happened.

So what exactly would she have done to be as bad as Trump? The guy is incessantly mired in scandals; says things that a centrist family would barely tolerate their old, crazy, racist uncle saying around holiday dinners; and is basically a narcissist.

I don't like Hillary at all and don't see how you can say "she's not any better than Trump" with a straight face.

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

#268

Post by claudiulodro » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 7:03 PM UTC

judah wrote: post #77

Johnny555 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would anything stop the next administration from re-instating net neutrality? Money from the even richer companies that want to prevent it from happening. Think of the ad campaigns: "Since have been able to charge content providers for their use of our network, we've kept our costs low - that's why you pay only $99.99/month for your ultra fast 10 mbit connection , f net neutrality comes back, your rates will skyrocke…

Many of those big, rich companies (Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) are in favor of net neutrality.

Well yeah. Their services will definitely be part of the "Core Internet Bundle" and their small competitors' services definitely will not be!

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

#269

Post by nkassis » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 7:03 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #209

snuxoll wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Go…

Actually the competitors would have trouble competing with Google and Netflix in this scenario due to the fact that they would be harder for them to beat out what Google and Netflix would pay.

This also ignores the fact that consumers have paid the ISP for general internet access, no where did it stipulate some services you want to access should pay extra for us to carry their data to you.

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

#270

Post by tolmasky » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 7:03 PM UTC

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…

This is pretty disingenuous because one elected official is oftentimes overloaded with multiple responsibilities. In this case the FCC chairman was appointed by the president (Barack Obama). Are you implying that the REAL way to deal with the Net Neutrality issue is that we need to become single-issue voters with respect to net neutrality next presidential election cycle? That seems a bit silly, and yet seems like the only reasonable way to affect change in this situation by "playing by the rules". It would be a lot less anxiety producing if people had a more direct way of affecting FCC rules without having to possibly sacrifice some other completely unrelated issue they care about (such as Supreme Court appointment, or health care direction, etc. etc.).

It would be a lot easier to get behind the idea that we should elect "good people" if we weren't concentrating so many responsibilities to the one magic "good person" we get to choose.