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

691–700 of 1001 posts

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

#691

Post by emodendroket »

wwweston wrote: post #679
betterunix2 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine." That is not why this is shocking. This proceeding is shocking because the legal basis for this change is dependent on a false statements about the technology involved. It goes beyond just, "Republicans prefer deregulation," or, "Republicans favor market-based approa…

> I expect Republicans to be pro-markets, even pro-big-business; I expect Republicans to favor deregulation. It is not acceptable to pursue that agenda by ignoring expert answers to technical questions, regardless of party affiliation. It is one thing to interpret facts... to simply dismiss facts that are being presented to you by experts, when you have a legal obligation to receive and consider such facts, is anothe…

On the other hand, you have the Democrats, whose default position seems to be "we want to do whatever the Republicans do, except only half as much." Who appointed Ajit Pai to the FCC in the first place?

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

#692

Post by dragonwriter »

jsonne wrote: post #684
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…

When I emailed my Senator this was essentially his response. Whether genuine or not he said he wants to see a permanent solution that creates more competition. Who knows if he's being truthful but it is an argument I've seen for a long term solution.

If a Senator says he wants to see something as an alternative to a concrete option that exists (either as status quo policy under threat or a concrete proposal under debate) he's making excuses for not supporting the thing you care about.

If a Senator says he's actively working on something and points you to specific legislation he sponsors or supports, well, that might also be political theater, but it's at least possible that there is real substance behind it.

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

#693

Post by hueving »

kuschku wrote: post #617
mijowi wrote: post #556

It's not democratic. It's republican. Remember that America is a republic, not a democracy. Each state has 2 senators/electoral votes because this country was founded as the United States. It was supposed to be more of a coalition of states united under a federal government, than a single nation. Also, California has a huge population with tons of representatives, and basically every elected official is democratic. I…

> Remember that America is a republic, not a democracy Republic. Aka, Res Publica. "Thing of the people". A form of government where all political power originates with the people, directly or indirectly. Democracy. Demos Kratia. "Rule by the people". A form of government where all political power originates with the people, directly or indirectly. These two terms are not about how decisions are made. They do not dis…

Perhaps you should spend a little of time reading about the US form of government because what you described is very similar to the purpose of the House and the Senate. Barring gerrymandering issues, the house members are populous elected representatives with each state given weight based on its population. Then each state gets 2 senate seats which are elected within the states by popularity as well.

Tldr; you've essentially described how the law making arm of the US is already elected and have pretended it's something new.

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

#694

Post by [deleted] »

jpao79 wrote: post #690
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…

There's a microwave based ISP in SF called Monkeybrains. From their about us page: "Monkeybrains is primarily a WISP (Wireless Internet Service Provider). What this means is Monkeybrains uses microwave technology to create a wireless network covering much of San Francisco. We deliver internet service to individual locations by placing an antenna on the roof. This antenna picks up an encrypted wireless signal from one…

[deleted]

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

#695

Post by shams93 »

jpao79 wrote: post #690
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…

There's a microwave based ISP in SF called Monkeybrains. From their about us page: "Monkeybrains is primarily a WISP (Wireless Internet Service Provider). What this means is Monkeybrains uses microwave technology to create a wireless network covering much of San Francisco. We deliver internet service to individual locations by placing an antenna on the roof. This antenna picks up an encrypted wireless signal from one…

Los Angeles is too big for that over the entire area but parts of LA like North Hollywood could become an opportunity to setup a microwave wireless ISP that covers an entire neighborhood in LA like North Hollywood or Santa Monica.

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

#696

Post by hueving »

fjabre wrote: post #541
tptacek wrote: post #127

The voters elected a Republican government. That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine. Anybody who told you that lobbying the FCC was going to make a difference here was, whether they meant to or not, selling a bill of goods. As someone who respects but mostly profoundly disagrees with principled Republican la…

Actually the voters elected a Democrat. The electoral college elected the Republican. Not your issue? I've followed your account for years. This is exactly your issue, and everyone in this community's issue. Without the Internet you have no chance of fighting against things like the new tax bill. It takes away your voice. It takes away all of our voices. This might not be 'your' issue, but make no mistake, it is more…

How ever did society function without the Internet? Were all leaders just dictators leading up to the 90s? It's hyperbolic crap like claiming this is the very foundation of free speech that leads people with opposing views to disengage, leave you to your echo chamber, and then surprise you when they pass regulation that represents their views.

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

#697

Post by yndoendo »

tptacek wrote: post #192
russdill wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think the biggest take away of this is to push the fact that republican legislators did not listen to their constituents. At all. They did not put their constituents first. At all. The chairman actually talked about consumers working with the FCC to enforce regulations as a bad thing.

I do not agree. I believe Republican voters do not in fact want the government extensively regulating the Internet. It is very difficult to argue in 2017 that the Republican party is the party of a pragmatic, consumer-protected regulatory state. The Republicans believe that the market will take better care of Internet users than any regulatory agency. On this one issue, it's possible they're even right.

And when a market doesn't take care of itself the people are the ones to suffer, no matter which party they are part of or voted for.

Mortgage industry was self-regulated and politicians just balled out the bad actors.

It is about "finding" simple and reliable regulations, since there is no true "etched in stone" regulations.

Regulations have a shifting baseline. Say 100 fish are in a lake. Regulate that only 20 maybe harvest a year. This goes on for 10 years and in the 11th they are all gone. Write once regulations do not account for changes in the environment / market environment.

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

#698

Post by zjaffee »

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…

5G networks could very well change that. Right now people rely on LAN, however it's very possible that with the growth of 5G people will just use over the air internet rather than having their own setups everywhere they go.

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

#699

Post by X86BSD »

pdeuchler wrote: post #525
tptacek wrote: post #127

The voters elected a Republican government. That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine. Anybody who told you that lobbying the FCC was going to make a difference here was, whether they meant to or not, selling a bill of goods. As someone who respects but mostly profoundly disagrees with principled Republican la…

This is hilariously naive. You're essentially pointing fingers and laughing at people who you esteem to be less intelligent than yourself while making pretty absurd statements that have little to no basis in actual fact For instance the original, and probably fatal, blow to net neutrality was the 1996 Telecommunications act that was passed mainly to encourage "wire to wire competition", which has since become a total…

One day the people may wake up to realize some things. Like voting R or D does not matter because they share the same di5k to eff you with. There is no difference between the two parties. None. The rhetoric is different but the actual voting records show they are the same animal. Beholden to the same military industrial complex/corporate masters.

They may also realize that if voting actually changed anything it would be illegal.

Neither of which I expect to see in my lifetime. I also have little faith in the intelligence or critical thinking of my fellow countrymen when they can’t seem to understand the above or do anything about it.

Just not a lot of faith. Others will argue I’m wrong. As the red white and blue di5k keeps pounding them in the backside.

As George Carlin noted when you are born in this world you are given a seat to the freak show, when you are born an American you are given a front row seat.

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

#700

Post by jtuente »

illumin8 wrote: post #443
xienze wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I know exactly what it was like. Look at the graph in this article, and tell me you weren't fucked by lack of NN several years ago, if you were a Comcast customer: https://technical.ly/philly/2014/05/09/graph-shows-netflix-s... Then, shortly after Netflix agreed to pay Comcast's extortion money, they had to raise rates by $1 a month. So, we're all paying extortion money to Comcast. Learn some recent history before yo…

Good, all of the damn Netflix traffic is affecting my online gaming. /s

People can bluster all they want about price increases, but this is something that's been a long time coming. Netflix has increased the scope and variety of their offerings over their lifetime, especially the addition of Netflix originals (the real ones, not the per-market-originals). I would expect an increase in price.

Post reply on HN