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

FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 169 posts

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#121

Post by yspeak »

anonsivalley652 wrote: post #68
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about a mobile phone data plan, or a hardwired ISP-ish data plan? I'm about 99% sure that the specific classification this fight was over only applied to the latter, not the former -- there was never any "neutrality" in this sense for mobile data.

Both, to varying degrees. And of course carriers are going to tailor their cell gear to their benefit in ways unknowable to customers without enterprising investigators conducting some seriously-dedicated SDR packet capturing and N carrier x M handsets x P locations x Q time-of-day testing. 0. Even assuming lossless/infinite backhaul capacity, it gets messy when guessing about what's deployed in terms of packet prior…

>. Once deployed and maintained, the marginal cost of data is much closer to zero than what customers are being overcharged.

I think one of the primary tasks of proper pricing is to recover costs of deployment and maintenance, isn't it ? Deployment and maintenance aren't free you and can't ignore those costs. Providers must build those in both to recover past costs and to build a reserve for future deployment. It makes sense that those who need more bandwidth should pay more. This emcourages more bandwidth to be deployed. The more deployment the more supply. The more supply comes on line, the quicker prices go down (or depending on demand, the slower the price increase). This has been so clearly seen in gas prices, where price caps have never worked except to choke supplies and artificially pump up denand. Allow prices to float freely according to use, and prices go up if demand goes up. Higher prices encourage suppliers to bring more online, and/or discourage inefficient uses (gas guzzling vehicles) and prices go down. Price caps always distort markets. Net neutrality functions as a price cap that slows deployment of more bandwidth, increases inefficient use, leading to slow internet for all greatly impeding innovation

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#122

Post by nl »

cowpig wrote: post #111
nl wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would adtech companies buy anti-net-neutrality comments? They are some of the biggest proponents of it because they don't want ISPs trying to charge them for transit to their users.

I believe the parent comment was saying that AdTech companies were selling peoples' identities to use for fake comments on the FCC website (to, presumably, Comcast/Verizon/etc)

Hmm maybe you are right.

I'd like to see one of these checkboxes though.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#123

Post by nitrogen »

thayne wrote: post #114
snisarenko wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Local loop un-bundling does not solve the problem. You are still back to the same situation. A single pipe can only handle so many providers, thus limit local competition to 2 or 3 providers. So either all will collude, or the one with the deeper pockets will under-price the other ones until they go out of business. (sure you can add more "regulation", but this just throwing duct tape on a broken system)…

> side-note: Elon Musk's Starlink might change the economic game It could also make the situation worse, if everyone changes to starlink and Starlink becomes a national or global monopoly ISP.

Other companies are working on similar services, and in places with neutral wired service, LEO service will be unappealing.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#124

Post by jsjddbbwj »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #117
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite your “joke”... no, there are exceptionally few instances of ISPs selectively throttling. The best example was a small carrier that the FCC slapped with a fine - before Net Neutrality rules existed.

Fast.com is an example where ISPs actively throttle it.

What's your proof? It's most likely congestion in the routes that go to Netflix because of how many people use it.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#125

Post by thaumasiotes »

thrtythreeforty wrote: post #76
snisarenko wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creating traditional competition in local infrastructure is difficult if not impossible for several reasons - Last mile sections of the city will always have winner takes most (customers) situation, making the lines built by the other providers redundant and wasteful - There are only so many communication lines you can put on poles, and underground, before the people start complaining about ugliness, and never ending…

A lot of people agree that the problems that net neutrality regulations try to solve are caused by local, unimpeachable telecom monopolies. The economics of having a bunch of competing infrastructure make no sense. As much as I generally dislike regulation, I welcomed Title II classification because regulations are an effective answer answer to an abusive monopoly. However, I think another overall approach would be j…

> The economics of having a bunch of competing infrastructure make no sense

If this were true... why would the local telecom companies fight so hard to make sure it's illegal to build competing infrastructure?

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#127

Post by angry-sw-dev »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #106
pmoriarty wrote: post #65

FYI: The deadline for comments is March 30, and the deadline for reply comments is April 29, (though it's not clear what the difference between comments and reply comments is). The FCC document (in all its legalistic glory) can be seen here: [1] And you can comment here: [2] [1] - https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-168A1.pdf [2] - https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express

Thanks for that, my comment was: Just as the commission has always held it was the responsibility and duty of all users of a particular part of the spectrum from intentionally or unintentionally interfering with any other legitimate users, the commission should make rulings that require that providers of Internet service (ISPs) shall not intentionally or unintentionally interfere with any legitimate use of the networ…

Appreciate your posting the filing.

Keep in mind, what you post to FCC is public with your contact info. Posting it here verbatim creates a linkage between your persona here and IRL. You may not mind, but it's something to consider.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#128

Post by dingo_bat »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #106
pmoriarty wrote: post #65

FYI: The deadline for comments is March 30, and the deadline for reply comments is April 29, (though it's not clear what the difference between comments and reply comments is). The FCC document (in all its legalistic glory) can be seen here: [1] And you can comment here: [2] [1] - https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-168A1.pdf [2] - https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express

Thanks for that, my comment was: Just as the commission has always held it was the responsibility and duty of all users of a particular part of the spectrum from intentionally or unintentionally interfering with any other legitimate users, the commission should make rulings that require that providers of Internet service (ISPs) shall not intentionally or unintentionally interfere with any legitimate use of the networ…

> the commission should make rulings that require that providers of Internet service (ISPs) shall not intentionally or unintentionally interfere with any legitimate use of the network bandwidth between the end user and the service provider communicating with that end user.

You forgot the most important part of the comment that the FCC really wants to hear from the public : why?

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#129

Post by Proziam »

I just left my remarks. Here's what I wrote, just for the sake of public record (last time we played this game there was a lot of comments thrown out, unfairly).

The internet is a critical part of both military and civilian infrastructure and should not be monitored, limited, or in any way restricted by any entity. Under the definition of arms understood at the time of the Constitution (as written by James Madison in Federalist 46), the internet and any digital tools which may be used in the defense of the nation are "arms" and therefore protected by the second amendment.

Further, because the internet is ubiquitous in modern society as a means of communication, much more so than letters were at the time of the constitution, the government has no right whatsoever to restrict access or use of the internet. Even if there were a disagreement over this interpretation, there can be no doubt that the general public 'assembles' and 'petitions' using the internet. This petition itself is being written on the internet. All this ignores the simple truth that the internet is the most common means of distribution for the press worldwide.

Finally, because the federal government has singularly supported, with enormous sums of taxpayer dollars, the internet infrastructure which is now (against the interest of the public, for which the federal government is a trustee) owned by private corporations, all internet infrastructure should be treated as public property, and ISP's should act only in a capacity of providing a utility service.

In summary - there should be no privatization of internet infrastructure. There should be no government or corporation monitoring anyone's use of the internet (without a proper warrant, signed by a judge, on a case-by-case basis). A person's digital information should be treated as 'papers' and 'effects' as they are considered to be by the general public and by most experts in the subject. And lastly, there should be absolutely zero limits, restrictions, rationing, throttling, or other mitigation of any person's access to a completely free and open internet.

Re: FCC forced by court to ask the public again for feedback on net neutrality

#130

Post by afiori »

gnicholas wrote: post #63
crooked-v wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contracts with ISPs are whatever the ISP wants them to be at any time, because the US court system allows one-sided non-negotiable contracts that include "we can change this contract at any time" clauses. Also, if you want to sue over the changes in the contract... you can't, because the US court system allows those one-sided non-negotiable contracts to include "you can never sue us for anything and instead are requi…

The fundamental problem here isn't how contracts work in the US — it's that in many places there is effectively zero competition for wired broadband services. If there were meaningful competition, then consumers would have somewhere to turn. It doesn't matter what the contract says if you don't have any meaningful alternatives for service.

> It doesn't matter what the contract says if you don't have any meaningful alternatives for service.

This is conditional on resources or on the possibility of a class action. In practice I agree that this condition is almost never satisfied.

Post reply on HN