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

801–810 of 1001 posts

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

#801

Post by betterunix2 »

goalieca wrote: post #766
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…

> what do you expect from Republicans Disclaimer: I am a canadian citizen. What I expect from republicans is the opposite of evidence based policy making. None of their policies are supported or motivated by evidence. Pick one from taxes to gun control to sex education.

All politicians occasionally lie about the facts; that is the nature of politics. Yet it was not that long ago that Democrats and Republicans were equally likely to base their policy proposals on (actual) evidence. The decline has been happening for a long time, but in the past decade Republicans have completely abandoned the idea of interpreting (actual) facts from a conservative perspective and have instead come to rely only on "alternative facts" (I believe in Canada you would say "fantasies" but I am not Canadian).

Put another way, I like to remind people that it is possible to be an intelligent conservative, despite the image the Republican party has been projecting lately.

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

#802

Post by tzs »

emodendroket wrote: post #691
wwweston wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> Who appointed Ajit Pai to the FCC in the first place?

The FCC by law cannot have more than three commissioners from the same party. The sitting President therefore finds himself in the position of having to appoint up to two commissioners who are NOT from his own party.

I don't think that there is any actual requirement for how the President picks such nominees--so a Democratic President needing to appoint a non-Democrat could in theory choose someone from some left-leaning non-Democrat party like the Green party, and a Republican President could choose someone from a right-leaning non-Republican party, such as the Libertarian party.

In practice, though, what Presidents of both parties usually (always?) have done is ask other party leadership [1] for a name, and then the President nominates that person.

When the nominee comes up for confirmation in the Senate, generally the Senators from each party pretty much automatically vote to confirm the nominees from the other party unless there is something that actually disqualifies them. They don't vote no just because they disagree on ideological grounds.

So yes, Obama originally put Pai on the FCC, but you can't really read anything into that as far as Democrat positions goes. Pai was the choice of Republican leadership for one of the two seats that could not go to a Democrat.

People are too focused on Pai here. Getting rid of net neutrality is in the freaking GOP party platform. By winning the White House, Republicans won a majority on the FCC. It didn't matter which existing Republican commissioner they elevated to the chairmanship (Pai or O'Reilly) or if they made their new, third guy chair (Carr). Whoever they picked was going to do this.

[1] Usually whoever leads the other party in the Senate, I believe.

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

#804

Post by thomastjeffery »

nickysielicki wrote: post #768
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…

For power users on websites like HN and reddit, this might seem true. But if you take a step back and realize that the large majority of Americans don't use the internet like you do, and maybe never will use the internet like you do, I think this argument holds far less water. Consider that it's estimated that 13% of Americans don't use the internet-- at all , for anything, ever.[1] Think about how many people probab…

> the large majority of Americans don't use the internet like you do

They might not for the majority of the time, but they certainly do use the internet like you and I do.

Were this not the case, "googling" would not have become such a common word.

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

#805

Post by lwansbrough »

I’m in Thailand right now and everywhere I go I see about 100 wires being routed along each telephone pole. 3 utility lines across the top for power, then the most incoherent mess of cables I’ve ever seen. One pole I saw had become a literal birds nest. These are fiber and copper lines for individual ISPs. That’s what the internet looks like in a free market.

I wish this image of free choice of ISP was used as an argument against repealing net neutrality. Nothing speaks to republicans more than showing them how their decision will fuck up their nice neighborhoods.

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

#806

Post by gkanai »

Ben Thompson who writes Stratechery, which is often posted here, had a piece on Net Neutrality a few weeks ago which was quite controversial. Thompson is pro neutrality, but anti-title II.

https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/

Because that article was so controversial, he wrote an update as well:

https://stratechery.com/2017/light-touch-cable-and-dsl-the-b...

Pai was on Marketplace Tech before the vote and specifically mentioned Thompson as for Pai's stance.

marketplace tech with molly wood; 12/13/2017: Ajit Pai on what his internet will look like

https://overcast.fm/+F6tgDywN0

I thought it was fascinating that Pai cited Thompson by name.

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

#807

Post by ggregoire »

mac01021 wrote: post #340
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.

That sounds like it might be a disaster for Netflix. But for the rest of us?

You like watching Netflix in 160p?

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

#808

Post by ABCLAW »

okreallywtf wrote: post #580
ABCLAW wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pre 2015, the FCC was enforcing NN through other means. In late 2014, a court case declared the method they were enforcing didn't fall under the scope of their powers, but strongly suggested, while noting that the ISPs could and would be a danger to the internet if left to their own devices, that they had other means to enact the same regulations. The other means was Title II classification.

What exactly were the other methods so that we all know?

The case is public record. I have it linked in my comment history. If you're interested, that's a great place to start.

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

#809

Post by llsf »

ambrosite wrote: post #515
tptacek wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> 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. You propose this as a solution, but for the average person it makes no sense. Suppose that in the worst case scenario, the big ISPs did eventually start throttling certain content and offering tiered pricing for unfettered access to the entire Internet. Would the extra cost o…

I am not sure if this is the right equation. Should we accept something wrong just because it costs (financially) us (personally) less than fighting for fixing it ? Are we becoming more apathetic than the previous generations ? (real question) Should the cost of right be priceless ?

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

#810

Post by unclebucknasty »

maxsilver wrote: post #457
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 (snip) just lay a super long fiber cable straight to (the internet). Yes. I worked on a startup ISP for a few years, which attempted to do this. It's actually really easy to do : 1) Pick a point where you can get connection to the internet. (Backhaul). This is usually a phone companies central office, but it can also be at a data centre or other point of presence. 2) Run fiber cable from…

>The cost for your very first customer is somewhere north of $50k/each, and prices don't become reasonable until your in the thousands.

Sounds ripe for a crowdfunded startup.

Post reply on HN