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

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Post by wruza »

illumin8 wrote: post #432
beal wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hyperbole around NN on here and reddit has been annoying. My network carrier already does some anti net neutral things that I like. I do think the market for ISPs has failed. Regulatory patching won't always be able to stay up to date. The government should make it easier to start an ISP.

> My network carrier already does some anti net neutral things that I like. Like what? You do realize that we're all paying $1 more a month for Netflix because Comcast decided to go "rent seeking" and throttled their traffic until they paid up? Our Netflix bills were increased shortly after. You're being fucked by anti-NN, whether you realize it or not.

If users were fucked by Comcast and now pay $1 more, but still do pay, then why didn’t Netflix fuck them earlier himself?

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

#852

Post by Aeolun »

lsllc wrote: post #850

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is…

"Two things only the people anxiously desire — bread and circuses."

Or in this case, pizza and Netflix. People will probably start moving once they start visibly messing around with one or the other.

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

#853

Post by ethagnawl »

notyourday wrote: post #739
ethagnawl wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How not? I'm not disagreeing, but genuinely curious.

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

#854

Post by tzs »

tptacek wrote: post #820
tzs wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The FCC may very well be right that it's not their job to impose our dream portfolio of rules on Verizon (certainly, a lot of the rules people are claiming NN provided were fanciful) That^ Too many people are trying to shove things that are covered by antitrust into net neutrality. This makes it a much harder sell. I'm convinced many Republicans could be convinced to support net neutrality if it didn't have that ex…

Many Republicans do support those principles, today. They simply believe that the FCC doesn't need to impose Title II regulations on ISPs to accomplish it. For instance: the Republican component of the FCC strongly believes it's already unlawful to block legal content to consolidate and exploit ISP market positions, and that the FTC already has the power to enforce that regulation.

Yeah. We probably would have been better off if people had accepted Wheeler's first proposal for the 2015 Order. That was the one that stayed under Section 706, and so would not have been able to do everything that had been done under the 2010 Order because of the court decision that struck down the 2010 Order. It would have had to allow "fast lanes".

But I don't see any net neutrality issue with "fast lanes" AS LONG AS the ISP does not slow other things down in order to force the use of "fast lanes" to get normal advertised speeds. Paid "fast lanes" might be anti-competitive in some cases, but that should be handled under antitrust law.

ISPs probably actually do belong under Title II as far as actually providing internet access goes --I don't see anything fundamentally different from a policy point of view about the internet compared to, say, the telephone system. But that should probably be done by Congress, not the FCC.

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

#856

Post by emmelaich »

mnm1 wrote: post #814
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…

That's a silly expectation for a party that denies science whenever it's inconvenient. Climate change, the war on drugs, abortion, and more are all examples of this. This is the party of anti-intellectualism and anti-science, yet somehow you expect them to treat the Internet differently?

Most of drug, abortion policy is due to values, not science.

You're corrupting the notion of science to say otherwise.

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

#857

Post by hobarrera »

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…

> The voters elected a Republican government

Not the majority though, as far as I understand, they won even though they don't have a majority of the voters, just a majority of the districts. Or something along those lines which simply confuses (and amazes) us non-US residents.

I'm also a bit impressed / curious about how much power the President has; he appoints FCC the chairman, and that chairman ends up taking these sort of decisions? Sounds a lot like something that the legislative branch should pick up, not [transitively] the executive one.

Or am I missing something?

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

#858

Post by analog31 »

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…

>>> The voters elected a Republican government.

Not precisely. The proportion of people who voted in a gerrymandered electoral system with potentially widespread voter suppression produced a preponderance of Republican legislators and an outcome of the electoral college that produced a Republican president. I'm not sure that this qualifies as an "elected" government.

Post reply on HN