Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 167 posts

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#31

Post by eropple »

rconti wrote: post #20
arctia wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF-specific. Comcast has to step up because competition is fierce. Even just 30 miles south from SF, Comcast is crap because there's less competition there.

28.4 miles south from SF (according to Google Maps driving directions from "San Francisco"), I've got gig down/40 up from Comcast. And the only competition is ATT DSL (yes, I'm like 2000 feet from the CO and they'll only give me 40mbit). Comcast advertises on broadcast TV all over the bay area "gigabit now available in your area". So I'd think penetration is pretty high now. Now, I'd rather pay pretty much anyone oth…

They're still pretty awful anywhere they can get away with it. In the Boston area, the best upstream I've ever been able to get from Comcast is 10Mbps (real-world 12Mbps) regardless of package. So I hope you don't like to use video chat, or Twitch streaming, or the like.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#32

Post by rayiner »

anfedorov wrote: post #10

What's a good resource for understanding broadband markets as a whole? At least in SF in the past 5 years, Comcast seems to have upgraded 100Mbps connections to 1Gbps connections. Not sure whether that translates to a bigger shared pipe for the city as a whole, but it certainly looks like a good amount of improvement in $:bits, at least in comparison with $:sqFt.

There is no single resource. Fierce Telecom and (oddly enough) the forums on DSL Reports are good resources if you actually want to know what’s involved in getting from 100 Mbps to gigabit using DOCSIS. These sources definitely have an industry bent, but they also help you understand that “the Internet” is routers and switches and sense amps, not some platonic abstraction.

As for the policy side, you need textbooks and primary sources. Telecom is a highly regulated market with almost a century of regulations, precedent, compromises, etc. Reading an Ars Technica or Tech Crunch article on it is not educational. I recommend Master Switch by Tim Wu, and Telecom Law and Policy by Benjamin and Speta (disclosure: I’m biased because Speta was my professor in law school).

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#33

Post by awalton »

JoshuaEN wrote: post #4

This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. Congress ultimately directly serve at the pleasure of their constituents, unlike the FCC commissioners. Point being, the time leading up to this vote is probably be the best time to let your congress members know your opinion on NN. Do not let the "failure"[1] of previous efforts to get congress to act in defense of NN dissuade you from fut…

> This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level.

Shame, because this vote is incredibly predictable by anyone who has been paying any attention at all. Republicans are on the bullet train to dismantle and sell off the government to the highest bidders. This vote goes straight down party lines.

But, it'll be an easy banner for Dems to hoist in November to rally voters, since it's categorical that Americans do not want this madness from the FCC to continue.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#34

Post by chriscappuccio »

FreakyT wrote: post #8
jnordwick wrote: post #7

Title II was never meant to be a good solution to net neutrality. It was used because it was the only level that the FCC had. Congress can actually craft internet specific legislation and should. It seems like Title II has become the end game for many because of pure politics, not because it is a good solution. Remember, parts of Title II had to be ignored to get this square peg to fit. No, don't vote for this. Devel…

Seems to me that some of the "ignored" parts of Title II would have nonetheless benefitted consumers. Personally, I would love to see last loop unbundling for broadband.

It's amazing for me to watch the tech community go from the hands off libertarian attitude to full socialist over this issue.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#35

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

rconti wrote: post #20
arctia wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF-specific. Comcast has to step up because competition is fierce. Even just 30 miles south from SF, Comcast is crap because there's less competition there.

28.4 miles south from SF (according to Google Maps driving directions from "San Francisco"), I've got gig down/40 up from Comcast. And the only competition is ATT DSL (yes, I'm like 2000 feet from the CO and they'll only give me 40mbit). Comcast advertises on broadcast TV all over the bay area "gigabit now available in your area". So I'd think penetration is pretty high now. Now, I'd rather pay pretty much anyone oth…

> only give me 40mbit

In most of the US you'd be lucky to break 5Mbit with DSL even in close proximity to the CO.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#36

Post by pitaj »

wmeredith wrote: post #25
mehrdadn wrote: post #15

This is risky. If lack of net neutrality regulation doesn't result in clearly-out-of-bounds behavior by ISPs in the near term, Democrats will be the ones looking bad for trying to add useless regulation. I hope they've thought this scenario through.

The ISPs have already been caught red-handed throttling/shaping traffic to fit their business goals over and over. Comcast was blocking bitorrent traffic in 2008. 1 Verizon blocked tethering apps in 2008. 1 AT&T blocked FaceTime in 2012. 1 Comcast imposed data caps for all streaming services except their own offered through xBox live in 2008. 1 Comcast currently exempts its own Stream TV service from data caps. 2 1.…

Data caps and zero-rating are not illegal under Title II regulations.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#37

Post by lmroz »

The U.S. Senate voted on an older version of net neutrality in 2011 with a resolution introduced by former republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (a resolution of disapproval of the FCC's Open Internet Order of 2010). It was a party line vote, 48-52, with republicans (the minority caucus in the Senate at that time) voting against the order and democrats voting in support of the order.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-joint-re...

Also in 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives had a disapproval vote which passed 240-179, since republicans were in the majority at that time. All but 2 republicans voted to disapprove the FCC order, while all but 6 democrats voted in support of the order.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-joint-res...

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#38

Post by smsm42 »

temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #22

This vote is an important device that serves to decouple net neutrality as a distinct political issue, rather than a footnote in a particular politician's larger platform which -- to many voters -- isn't as important as some other hot-button stances to merit single-issue voting. By triggering a senate vote, this gives an opportunity for each senator to make their stance on this a matter of official record, theoretica…

Where the idea that FCC latest ruling is opposed by majority of conservatives comes from?

Moreover, if you think issue as obscure and technical as NN would be important enough for a senator to break with their own party, you are deluding yourself. The only way to make it so is to wage blatantly false campaign like "without NN you'd be paying 100x for Internet tomorrow and all your favorite sites would be blocked" - which is also kinda too late anyway, because we already know it's not true. Hoping that the average voter can appreciate the fine points of the tug of war between backbone providers and content generators is, as I said, delusional.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#39

Post by renlo »

awalton wrote: post #33
JoshuaEN wrote: post #4

This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. Congress ultimately directly serve at the pleasure of their constituents, unlike the FCC commissioners. Point being, the time leading up to this vote is probably be the best time to let your congress members know your opinion on NN. Do not let the "failure"[1] of previous efforts to get congress to act in defense of NN dissuade you from fut…

> This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. Shame, because this vote is incredibly predictable by anyone who has been paying any attention at all. Republicans are on the bullet train to dismantle and sell off the government to the highest bidders. This vote goes straight down party lines. But, it'll be an easy banner for Dems to hoist in November to rally voters, since it's categor…

I thought that was the point the article was positing; it's a symbolic vote to get Republicans on the record for their support of an unpopular position.

Re: Net Neutrality to Get U.S. Senate Vote as Democrats Force Issue

#40

Post by taurath »

lmroz wrote: post #37

The U.S. Senate voted on an older version of net neutrality in 2011 with a resolution introduced by former republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (a resolution of disapproval of the FCC's Open Internet Order of 2010). It was a party line vote, 48-52, with republicans (the minority caucus in the Senate at that time) voting against the order and democrats voting in support of the order. https://www.congress.gov/bill/112t…

So put another way, whichever party in power is against net neutrality, and whichever isn’t is for it?
Post reply on HN