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

381–390 of 1001 posts

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

#381

Post by QAPereo »

tptacek wrote: post #253
someone7x wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> work to flip the House back A well written response, but I choke on salt when I read this sort of call to action. The house has been slowly and surely gerrymandering the country into hereditary fiefdoms for their parties. And if the solution is to relocate to "to the nearest plausibly flippable R district" then we're really saying that money is the real power. Today's decision is a black eye for the concept of self…

Don’t relocate. Stay in your damn house. Go talk to the people who are actually running in those districts. If you can write them even the cost of a ps4, they want to hear from you. In particular for Democrats running against entrenched Republicans, these people aren’t evil corporate fat cats. They own restaurants, teach high school, are small-town mayors, or nurses. They need help to compete. The DNC is not going to…

Are you sure that the time to be involved wasn’t say... a couple of decades ago? This feels like the terminal end-stage. It was time to be involved when Reagan was ending the hope of public education or mental health, during three or more decades of scientists and environmentalists screaming bloody murder, or at some point during our decades of failed adventurism abroad.

This isn’t new, this is the sharp end of an edifice people have allowed to be built underneath them, complete with extralegal security apparatus. It’s only when an orange clown is in charge and his henchmen are sharpening their regulatory knives, or 75% of the insect biomass vanishes that people start to notice.

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

#383

Post by FireBeyond »

joering2 wrote: post #207
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

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.

> Imagine quality of people's life in big cities if majority living outside would be playing first violin.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - that's exactly what happens in the US. People in rural Nebraska or Wyoming's vote is often up to three times more "effective" than someone in NYC or LAs.

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

#384

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#385

Post by maehwasu »

vmarsy wrote: post #372
komali2 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking this over for the past couple months, because I was pretty sure this would be the outcome - that we would lose our net neutrality protection. So let's play out the worse case - Comcast, AT&T etc wait out the shitstorm and then start throttling traffic and packaging the internet, releasing cable-esque "plans." Is it feasible to just start running our own fiber to hubs? I want to learn more about the…

> As a private citizen, can I purchase a bunch of land between me and, I dunno, a DNS node or whatever and just lay a super long fiber cable straight to it? I'm sure you can, the issue is do you have a couple million $ in your bank account to do this?

I do; want to come and hang out on my compound?

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

#386

Post by bogomipz »

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

What do you suppose the purpose of government agencies is then?

Looking at their mandate it seems pretty clear that they are there to serve the interests of American citizens and should be acting in citizens best interests.

I think that's pretty clear in the use of the phrase "the people of the United State" here:

The FCC's mission, specified in Section One of the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commiss...

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

#387

Post by alexpetralia »

Can someone clarify this for me? Perhaps my assumptions are incorrect:

> 1. Bandwidth is limited

> 2. Real-time streaming services, such as video, consume much more bandwidth (by sending more packets through the pipeline) than non-streaming services

> 3. Net neutrality guarantees that each packet is delivered with the same priority

Say Netflix takes up 20% of the bandwidth through its streaming services - each packet must have the same priority as any Netflix or non-Netflix packet. That leaves 80% for everyone else.

People begin streaming more Netflix and it now takes up 40% of the bandwidth. This means 60% for everyone else - fewer of their non-Netflix packets are making it into the pipeline. This means their download speeds slow down.

ISPs can either (1) increase bandwidth in order to increase the amount of non-Netflix packets get through, (2) throttle Netflix or (3) neither increase bandwidth nor throttle Netflix, resulting in non-Netflix content slowing down.

Is my analysis incorrect here? Perhaps I am missing something obvious?

To me, it looks like Net Neutrality is (3). In this case, streaming services (and those consuming them) get a free ride to due to the rule mandating that packets must be delivered at the same time (so you benefit if you simply stuff the channel with a ton of your packets, a la Netflix). It would also make sense why Big Tech would support this (they receive the benefit), while Big Telecom would oppose this (they incur the costs). In an economic sense this would seem to be an inefficient market (as regulation tends to do).

However there are always noble reasons behind regulation (even if they are not implemented properly). I don't see (2) as particularly bad in an economic sense, but because these telecoms are notoriously anti-competitive, perhaps the ideal of a competitive market goes out the door?

Would greatly appreciate if anyone could clarify.

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

#388

Post by lurr »

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.

They can screw them over by refusing to touch an area that needs it. By opening the door to allow abuse by corporate interests.

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

#389

Post by lakechfoma »

paiisgod wrote: post #375

The Federal Communications Commission just ended net neutrality by a 3-2 vote despite a security threat that temporarily disrupted the proceedings. All this does is return things to the way they were back in 2015. You would think that with all the hysterics coming from the Jews, Silicon Valley and a variety of Marxist terrorists that this was the end of the world. It is not the end of the world. In fact, it is better…

can someone flag this please...

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

#390

Post by quasse »

tcheard wrote: post #367
Someone1234 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So an open-access network ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-access_network ). This is done quite successfully in other countries around the world, like New Zealand where we mainly have one infrastructure provider (selected and monitored by the Government), who must offer fair and standard pricing to any ISP who wants to add value to the network. As a result, we have many ISP options throughout the country and comp…

What value do the ISPs actually add to the market?

It seems like a government granted middleman position to me, where I'd rather just purchase service from the government or the government's selected infrastructure manager.

Presumably there's already some base price for service that this infrastructure provider is charging everyone (a controller monopolist), what are you gaining on top of that by having a second middleman that is presumably also making a profit?

Post reply on HN