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

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by makecheck »

It should have been impossible to make a decision on something like this without first solving the fundamental problem of giving users control over data consumption.

Just try visiting a web site or installing an app on your phone, while using a limited-data or pay-per-use plan (such as a typical cell phone plan or international “data roaming”): you will rack up insane costs BEFORE you have any idea how much data was going to be required for what you wanted to do! That’s insane!!

There is no practical way to find out how much data an action will take, no regulation of web sites and apps, etc. to force them to invest in minimizing their data footprint, and tools such as content blockers are fought tooth and nail in the name of “revenue” and other such crap.

Ironically, the idea of paying more for an Internet “fast lane” is exactly what companies should have done — to their own employees, investing in R&D to make their sites smaller, faster, with better experiences for everyone. Instead, those same companies will probably shovel the same money or more, except into ISPs and other entities to make their bloated experiences “fast”.

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

#732

Post by nv-vn »

betterunix2 wrote: post #299
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…

"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…

Whether there are mistakes in the official documents doesn't change anything about the policy. They weren't persuaded because they didn't receive a persuasive argument about why net neutrality is supposed to help. That doesn't mean they weren't persuaded that some of the "facts" were wrong, it means that they weren't persuaded in terms of opinions. The arguments of the ISP are obviously biased and that should surprise nobody. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume the same thing about tech companies. Is e.g. Netflix unbiased when the net neutrality question pretty much came up in regards to Netflix? You would have to be insane to claim that Netflix (or Google, or Facebook, or Reddit) aren't supporting this (at least to some extent) for the sake of increasing their own profit margins.

The Right is arguing for a free market economy and decreased regulation not because they are "going against the facts." There is no fact stating that "net neutrality is necessary for the world to function" or "internet is a human right" or whatever. All of these things are opinions. You have the opinion that net neutrality is needed, but there is no fact backing that statement.

> It is not acceptable to pursue that agenda by ignoring expert answers to technical questions

Here's what you're missing: they don't oppose net neutrality because of what the ISPs said about it. They oppose it because it is a regulation that limits the free market. There is no fact or fiction to this opinion, it's like saying "because there's facts to show that speech can hurt people, free speech should be restricted." I agree that speech can hurt someone, but I disagree that it should be restricted. Does that mean I'm fighting the facts here?

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

#733

Post by anigbrowl »

hueving wrote: post #696
fjabre wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Paradigm shifts makes previous systems obsolete. That's why it's not a great time to sell landline telephony or newspapers, and why relying on pre-internet political organizing technology is to cripple oneself straight out of the gate.

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

#734

Post by martin1975 »

komali2 wrote: post #300
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'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…

I sent a message to our mayor, to which he responded, regarding muni fiber... It seems the best way to approach it is via a public-private partnership - meaning, we (the residents of our 50,000+ city in SoCal) pay for the buildout, own the fiber infrastructure that should be good for at least 3-5 decades, while someone like Cox, GFiber or whomever provides billing/maintenance/operations.... that way it's a win win and the city doesn't have to get involved in becoming a full blown ISP.

In his response he said the topic's been brought up before. If I get his and the council's blessing, the next thing is to hit the ground and get probably 3000-5000 signatures and put this up on a ballot in 2018 November to see how the city feels. I'm optimistic however cause I've been hearing multiple complaints, on-goingly about bad service from ISPs (and we have Cox here, and I don't think they're that bad as opposed to Comcast) and probably a pet peeve is data caps... Sure, we've 1TB caps which is plenty, but w/advent of 4k TV and IPTV ... that may be very low.

Here's to hope that in a few years we all have FTTH where I live (crossing my fingers!)

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

#735

Post by nv-vn »

8note wrote: post #588
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…

what does the lack of a monarch have to do with how much representation an area has. truly, the US is an oligarchy. regardless of what votes say, actual decision making and power rests with the wealthy nobles, like the Trumps and Kochs.

Which is why ObamaCare was passed? If they had total control of our country, don't you think that politics would fit their side a little bit better?

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

#736

Post by hyperbovine »

zerohm wrote: post #592
jmcgough wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But otherwise, be clear-eyed: elections have consequences. We elected the party of deregulation. Take the bad with whatever the good is, and work to flip the House back. What I'm bitter about is that my vote, as a californian, is worth a tiny fraction of a vote in a swing state. Republican lawmakers have zero incentive to care about me, and red states are overrepresented in congress in relation to their small popul…

Republicans aren't pushing deregulation of the internet to make swing states happy. They are pushing for deregulation because that's what several billionaire campaign contributors want them to do.

Again, per OP's suggestion, if everybody got one vote, instead of the current formula " = f()" with f' > 1, we would not be in this situation.

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

#737

Post by rmason »

komali2 wrote: post #300
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'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…

It's quite expensive to start a fiber network. You might want to consider using wireless with a mesh network. In Detroit there's an organization that has become the leader:

https://www.alliedmedia.org/dctp

In Detroit it's not real high speed because they're using foundation money to provide basic access, but there's no reason I know of that it couldn't be.

Here's more information on the mesh network in Detroit:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kz3xyz/detroit-me...

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

#738

Post by notyourday »

analogmemory wrote: post #659
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…

In San Francisco there's local ISP called MonkeyBrains that uses microwave tech to create a wireless network in the city. They put a receiver on top of your apartment/building and then run cat5 or use existing cable. It's pretty awesome and fast. So it can be done. I'm hopeful that people will be inspired to create their own local ISP in light of the new rules.

Wireless won't solve this problem.

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

#739

Post by notyourday »

ethagnawl wrote: post #608
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…

Building a mesh network* is a much cheaper, more realistic alternative. Also, with regard to your point about "starting an ISP", I don't know the legalities and IANAL, but NYC Mesh goes out of their way to state that they _are not_ an ISP - there's probably a reason for that. - https://nycmesh.net - https://www.alliedmedia.org/dctp

Mesh networks do not work at scale.

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

#740

Post by notyourday »

bwann wrote: post #437
racer-v wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask around for community-friendly ISP's in your area (including Monkeybrains and Sonic in San Francisco). EDIT: OK I suggested sharing a T1 but apparently that hasn't been a good deal since the 90's.

You realize a T1 is a measly megabit-and-a-half right? Crappy 3G is faster.

3G may be faster but it is rarely better - with a T1 you are going to get very low latency and very very very low jitter.
Post reply on HN