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

301–310 of 1001 posts

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

#301

Post by joebubna »

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…

Google tried to roll out becoming an ISP and the costs were too great for the potential revenue they'd make back. You should read the article below, but not only is laying new cables down costly (which isn't helped when AT&T and Comcast use the legal system to stop Google), but many Americans buy their internet as part of a package that includes TV and/or phone service too. Meaning to be a serious competitor that can get enough customers to be profitable, you have to also offer TV and phone service to compete with the incumbents.

Read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/10/26...

If becoming a successful ISP is too difficult for Google... then who is going to be able to do it? Who is going to provide the competition to the monopolies of Comcast, AT&T, and Time Warner?

In a system where preventing a monopoly (and ensuring consumer protection) through competition isn't possible, then that's where regulation is needed.

If you feel there is a better way, I'd be interested to hear about it.

EDIT: See my response about the possibility of Municipal Broadband here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15925827

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

#302

Post by rev_bird »

matt4077 wrote: post #99
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…

The fear of Non-Net-Neutrality goes far beyond the usual "there's only two ISPs where I life and they both offer the same deals". It's something in completely its own category of nefariousness because they could be as anticompetitive as they want, and the market could not solve it. That's because the injured party isn't their customers, who could take their business elsewhere, or at least loudly complain on the inter…

This is a really straightforward explanation of a situation I was having trouble getting across, thank you.

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

#303

Post by snuxoll »

rhino369 wrote: post #259
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…

Comcast isn't a Tier 1 provider. Cogent, the netflix ISP at issue, claims to be, but that is very debatable. The internet isn't built on two T2 or T3 providers doing no-fee exchanges. Net Neutrality doesn't prevent peering disputes.

Comcast is by all intents a tier 1 provider. They have a huge national backbone they own and operate, have settlement-free interconnects with many other providers, etc. Just because a majority of their revenue (as far as data transit is concerned) comes from consumer services doesn't change anything.

You're right NN doesn't necessarily solve peering disputes, but one could argue extortion like this falls right in line with it (under a proper regulatory framework crap like this wouldn't fly, "no we aren't throttling netflix, we're in a peering dispute" would be seen through by the courts pretty quickly when documentation of them demanding money from netflix is submitted).

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

#304

Post by gameshot911 »

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.

>This is government at it's worst.

Is it? Republicans were voted by the public into Congress, into the presidency. They are acting just as anyone voting for them could expect. In that sense they are representing the will of the people who duly elected them.

The FCC ignored the will of a small % of technology-oriented, predominately liberal voters. Just because all the media that you might tend to consume and the people you tend to converse with are vocally against this repeal, doesn't mean that that represents the will of the majority. That same sort of ideological bubble is what caused everyone to be so shocked when Trump actually won, despite all the polls and predictions to the contrary.

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

#305

Post by Karunamon »

ketzu wrote: post #214
dkonofalski wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that the state of the internet pre-2015 was a disaster but, prior to the 2015 reclassification, we were already starting to see abuses of net neutrality. When ISP's and telecoms started to block VoIP traffic because it cut into their phone services, it was unprecedented because no one had really prioritized data based on the content up until that point. Once that started happening and more companies caught o…

Is blocking of VoIP traffic not covered by other anti competitive behaviour regulation?

If I understand correctly, this is exactly the kind of behavior that the FTC could get involved in.

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

#306

Post by simooooo »

jackfrodo wrote: post #36

This has made me feel pretty damn powerless, as pretty much every site/person of significance has stated their opposition to such a repeal, and yet they went through it anyway. Just a gut feeling that our democracy isn't working properly when such a loud and clear, great majority of the population messaging is completely ignored.

Well fuuuuuck you! - FCC

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

#307

Post by someone7x »

40acres wrote: post #266

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…

But what about the iterated version of this game?

Ideally you pick all your issues and find at least one candidate on your side. Unless it's the same candidate (lucky you), you'll need to prioritize your issues.

We quickly arrive at the status quo: wedge issues drown out everything.

The answer isn't to just VOTE, the answer is electoral reform. More speficially, prioritize electoral reform as the top wedge issue.

It's like this country has been in a 200 year sprint and refuses to have a retro.

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

#308

Post by s73ver_ »

013a wrote: post #287
dkonofalski wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is exactly what cracks me up... Republicans, moreso than Democrats, are always talking about government screwing over the people and yet this vote was completely on party lines. I wonder how they're going to figure out that dissonance.

This move decreases the government's regulatory power in this area; it completely follows republican ideaology. The government cant screw over citizens if they aren't touching an issue.

Disagree. Repealing a rule that protects citizens absolutely fucks them over.

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

#309

Post by judah »

rybosome wrote: post #265
judah wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

You're thinking too small. Disruptive technologies are disruptive so often because they bypass the current infrastructure. Ford didn't need horses, Lyft didn't need a fleet of taxis. Maybe the next disruptive broadband company doesn't need to lease existing wire infrastructure.

As for internet service options today, yes, it's not great. But it's getting better. We already have several options; here are two examples. Some wireless carriers already allow unlimited tethering; no cables needed. Broadband via satellite is available virtually everywhere in the US; again, no cable infrastructure needed.

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

#310

Post by claytonjy »

wdewind wrote: post #133
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.

> The only reason the rule got put into place was because Verizon was found to be throttling Netflix. No that's inaccurate. Title II reclassification happened in 2015. Verizon Netflix "throttling" (controversial what actually happened there) happened in 2017.

That's a different case I believe; parent is correct, see https://technical.ly/philly/2014/05/09/graph-show for various relevant articles from 2014.
Post reply on HN