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

161–169 of 169 posts

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

#161

Post by snisarenko »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #125
thrtythreeforty wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's "slightly" easier for a local monopoly to write a check to bribe a politician than to "squeeze out" or "collude" with a "new competition". (it's simply a path of least resistance). But either way the monopoly will win.

I think the flaw in your reasoning is the "genetic" logical fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

Just because someone "bad" doesn't want something, doesn't make that thing automatically "good"

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

#163

Post by Treblemaker »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #110
xkemp wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that has anything to do with NN. NN is when you can't get to "Social Media Startup X" because they didn't pay your ISP. You are unlikely to even notice this, because only newcomers would be required to pay ransom. Blocking existing sites would lead to customer complaints and actual competition.

> NN is when you can't get to "Social Media Startup X" because they didn't pay your ISP. That sounds bad! Any examples of that ever happening before or after NN?

This is the case that first brought it to my attention:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/fcc-rules-against-comc....

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

#164

Post by Treblemaker »

propogandist wrote: post #139

Last time, Net Neutrality had clauses that would provide the government and corporations the ability to effectively establish a firewall that would Only Allow "Lawful internet traffic" and "Lawful applications, services or nom-harmful devices..." previous Net Neutrality text: > § 8.5 No blocking. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not bl…

It does no such thing. All ISPs and public wifi I have ever connected to have terms of service that prohibit illegal activities.

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

#165

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

Treblemaker wrote: post #163
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NN is when you can't get to "Social Media Startup X" because they didn't pay your ISP. That sounds bad! Any examples of that ever happening before or after NN?

This is the case that first brought it to my attention: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/fcc-rules-against-comc... .

Ok, so YEARS before Net Neutrality and the FCC fined them for doing it.

So, in no way supportive of the NN argument.

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

#166

Post by Treblemaker »

IggleSniggle wrote: post #146
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Netflix that pays whatever rate the teleco thinks it can insist on in order to install their CDN in your ISPs hub No, that’s not a fast lane nor would be stopped by NN. You just explained that Netflix made an investment to get CDNs where they would be effective. So, I’m still curious to know where these priority traffic fast lanes are.

Netflix pays Comcast in order to have that fast lane. It's more than just an infrastructure investment.

It is just an infrastructure investment. It's no different from Amazon building a local distribution center in your city.

An "internet fast lane" would be like the city government saying to Amazon, "and also, all traffic lights will immediately switch to green for amazon delivery vehicles."

No, they're still using the same roads as everyone else, they're just starting from a lot closer to the destination.

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

#167

Post by dingo_bat »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #152
dingo_bat wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

This is certainly a valid observation, I don't necessarily agree that "why" would be ranked as most important. And why I don't agree with that could use some elaboration. I see governance as having two primary missions, preventing harms and preserving rights. That said, rulemaking is a policy action, it creates rules much like a programmer does, that are provided input and act based on that input. An example of the l…

I don't think the "why" is implicit in this case. I agree generally with the principle that policy should prevent harm and preserve rights. But I don't see how forcing arbitrary rules on ISPs telling them how to operate their own infrastructure does either of those. It harms the ISPs and doesn't do anything to preserve any customer's rights.

> "Hmm, he has a point, it is just like spectrum and we treat people who interfere there as the 'bad guys', why should it be ok here?"

I don't think the RF analogy works here. ATT is not allowed to cut up Verizon's fiber. That's what your wifi jamming analogy would map to. Instead of spending so much time and words to offer an obscure analogy, why not just plainly state "why nn must be imposed on ISPs"?

> I don't necessarily agree that "why" would be ranked as most important.

Spamming FCC with opinions not backed by reason will not do anything to bring about the change you want to see. The "why" is of supreme importance here, because this is not an election. And I've yet to see a reasoned argument for nn that actually makes sense from the perspective of someone who wishes to protect rights.

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

#168

Post by wilc0 »

exabrial wrote: post #151

My opinion on this is really unpopular on HN, but I still hold it's the correct approach: Net Neutrality is a policy destined for continuous failure and we need to abandon it. * Creating competition is the only surefire path for improvement * State/Local governments should not subsidize players to avoid entrenching ISPs and creating local monopolies. * In areas with entrenched ISPs, the only way to break the cycle is…

Google Fiber is essentially dead. It halted expansion in 2016 and has only supported its existing locations since then. Even for a company as rich as Google, it wasn't financially feasible for them. How are companies smaller than Google even supposed to compete?

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

#169

Post by dgzl »

Treblemaker wrote: post #162
dgzl wrote: post #126

Sometimes I feel like the only tech nerd who doesn't support NN.

Why do you not support it?

It's been a while since I've looking into the subject, but from what I remember... the idea was that Telecom could sell slow-lane service at a discount. This would benefit people who would rather save money than purchase fast-lane service, which I imagine is more people than you'd think. If fast-lane public WiFi is available pretty much everywhere in town, and you're really trying to not spend money, then you might opt for slow-lane traffic at a discount at home and use public internet for you're more demanding transfers. Alternatively if you only want access to specific services and you can save money for doing so, then... same idea.
Post reply on HN