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

401–410 of 1001 posts

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

#401

Post by slg »

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 doesn't appear to be a problem in any other industry. If I am a farmer, I don't have some inalienable right to have my produce on the shelves of the local grocery store. If am selling widgets through a catalog, I don't have some inalienable right to have my catalogs delivered to customers without paying a fee.

So why don't the results you predict occur in those industries? No one worries about grocery stores capturing all of the excess value from farmers because grocers have plenty of competition. No one worries about postage carriers refusing to deliver their goods because the government has promised to provide that service as a public good for a small fee.

It seems like you could solve your concerns by increasing competition among ISPs or by increasing the number of government run ISPs. I think this is still a "there's only two ISPs where I live and they both offer the same deals" type of problem.

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

#403

Post by ksk »

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…

Even if you avoid the last mile cluster F*, you still need to rent physical space to ISPs for setting up their network equipment. With multiple ISPs, its not clear who should "own" the space. I doubt individual homeowners want to deal with that headache.

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

#404

Post by briga »

Here's my question: why was such a momentous decision decided by a board of five people? A decision that will affect hundreds of millions of people was decided by five people. Isn't that insane? Whatever happened to democracy in America?

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

#405

Post by xienze »

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…

Yeah the reactions here and elsewhere are absolutely ridiculous. It’s almost as if these people have no idea what life before NN was actually like.

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

#406

Post by dicroce »

alexpetralia wrote: post #387

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…

You're not wrong. But when you open the door to private companies throttling, then scenarios like this become possible:

www.comcasttube.com - like youtube.com, but faster... because we're slowing down youtube.com

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

#407

Post by juris »

pishpash wrote: post #357
noetic_techy wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A rather naïve reading. People are stupid. They may even prefer the "simplicity" of tiered packages. They'll roll over.

No way, man. People hate their ISP's, and would love to be able to switch.

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

#408

Post by dang »

csours wrote: post #104
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

Really funny when people in a democracy believe in majority rule.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, especially not on divisive topics.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#409

Post by ddebernardy »

alexpetralia wrote: post #387

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…

> ISPs can either (1) increase bandwidth in order to increase the amount of packets that get through, (2) throttle Netflix which they can't do under net neutrality, (3) charge Netflix (and Google, Facebook, etc.) to not get throttled which they can't do under net neutrality either, or (4) neither increase bandwidth nor throttle Netflix, resulting in all content slowing down and them losing customers to ISPs that will invest in new bandwidth as they should.

FTFY

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

#410

Post by chaosite »

alexpetralia wrote: post #387

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…

A. The rule isn't that packets must be delivered at the same time, the rule is that you can't shape based on source (but you CAN shape based on other things - so, you can prioritize VoIP for example). Basically it means the telecoms can't favor their own streaming services over Netflix. B. The clients are literally paying the telecoms in order to get access to Netflix. That's what they use their internet connection for, that's what they pay the monthly bill for. Why shouldn't they be able to stream?
Post reply on HN