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

House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

boston.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 101 posts

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#31

Post by tptacek »

intended wrote: post #23
johngalt wrote: post #5

Getting the FCC to make carriers play fair is a slow road to improvement and it's filled with potholes. I'd be more inclined to support regulation changes intended to make starting a new carrier easier. Mark my words: Any net neutrality bill will benefit the existing carriers, and stifle telecom startups.

If I am not mistaken, setting up a working telecom startup is quite capital intensive, and has high running costs on top of it, just in terms of handling Marketing and competitive pressures. How would a new startup survive and scale by any change in rules? The market would still serve the incumbents more than the startups - since their scale would make them stronger bets. I'm curious to know what type of regulation w…

So is starting an airline, but deregulation still got us Southwest and Jetblue.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#33

Post by intended »

tptacek wrote: post #31
intended wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I am not mistaken, setting up a working telecom startup is quite capital intensive, and has high running costs on top of it, just in terms of handling Marketing and competitive pressures. How would a new startup survive and scale by any change in rules? The market would still serve the incumbents more than the startups - since their scale would make them stronger bets. I'm curious to know what type of regulation w…

So is starting an airline, but deregulation still got us Southwest and Jetblue.

So you are saying LESS regulation is the change in regulation you would like to see?

So what regulations would you remove?

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#34

Post by ck2 »

ascendant wrote: post #26
ck2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Net neutrality is politics. I'm just saying this is the least of our political worries right now. When the president and half the democrats are also anti-net neutrality, basically it's gone.

I thought I read that if the current bill passes the president would veto it. Is it because he's pro-net-neutrality or anti-anything-republican? The last question isn't partisan, it's a perfectly valid reason for a democrat president to veto a republican-led bill. Happens the other way, too.

He may not want this bill but he will certainly give into anti-neutrality measures in another format. Remember he listens directly to the riaa and mpaa and other such industry groups.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#35

Post by tptacek »

intended wrote: post #33
tptacek wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is starting an airline, but deregulation still got us Southwest and Jetblue.

So you are saying LESS regulation is the change in regulation you would like to see? So what regulations would you remove?

I'm saying that despite the fact that airlines are a textbook example of an industry with high capital requirements for entry, deregulation did not hand the industry over to a cartel of incumbents. In fact, air carriage is regularly shaken up by new entrants and new market forces.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#36

Post by nkassis »

tptacek wrote: post #30
ascendant wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been a mess for a long time. And it's not just the Republicans. Anyone with a brain can look back over the past 20-30 years and see the fingerprints of both parties all over the collective disaster that is the current situation politically, financially and militarily.

Every time someone says this I think back to the politics of the 19th century, or the early 20th. It's probably true that we're at a depressing ebb of productivity and good faith in national politics, but politics 'twas ever thus. You think Fox News is bad? Try Hearst's papers in the 1890s. There are 307 million people in the United States. That the three million? people of in the original colonies managed to agree o…

So, is it possible that the system is starting to show cracks where it might no longer scale very well at 307 million people. Maybe giving more powers to states could potentially work. I don't know if I like that more or less.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#37

Post by cooldeal »

tptacek wrote: post #35
intended wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are saying LESS regulation is the change in regulation you would like to see? So what regulations would you remove?

I'm saying that despite the fact that airlines are a textbook example of an industry with high capital requirements for entry, deregulation did not hand the industry over to a cartel of incumbents. In fact, air carriage is regularly shaken up by new entrants and new market forces.

Deregulation is such a blanket term encompassing so many things (especially the things regulated right now) that it by itself can't be judged a cure-all. Imagine deregulating the food industry by disbanding the FDA.

Loss of net neutrality will hurt small players in the web space(imagine a startup competitor to Netflix which can't afford deals with so many ISPs).

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#38

Post by jerf »

teoruiz wrote: post #6

From the outside it looks like the US political scene is a complete and ridiculous mess right now, led by the Republican Congress.

There's other perspectives, such as "The political scene is a complete and ridiculous mess as the bill for decades of feckless spending and promises is coming due and only one faction in one party is even capable of admitting that, and for that they are being burned at the stake." (Which I consider a plain-and-simple case of shooting the messenger.) The mess we have right now is politicians trying to follow the time-honored bi-partisan tradition of kicking the can down the road and discovering there's not all that much road left.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#39

Post by tptacek »

cooldeal wrote: post #37
tptacek wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying that despite the fact that airlines are a textbook example of an industry with high capital requirements for entry, deregulation did not hand the industry over to a cartel of incumbents. In fact, air carriage is regularly shaken up by new entrants and new market forces.

Deregulation is such a blanket term encompassing so many things (especially the things regulated right now) that it by itself can't be judged a cure-all. Imagine deregulating the food industry by disbanding the FDA. Loss of net neutrality will hurt small players in the web space(imagine a startup competitor to Netflix which can't afford deals with so many ISPs).

I'm not in favor of blanket deregulation. Quite the contrary: I'm a Democrat! Message boards tend to take everyone to extremes. I simply want to make the point that deregulation in and of itself doesn't inevitably lead to megacorporate cartels.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#40

Post by tptacek »

nkassis wrote: post #36
tptacek wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time someone says this I think back to the politics of the 19th century, or the early 20th. It's probably true that we're at a depressing ebb of productivity and good faith in national politics, but politics 'twas ever thus. You think Fox News is bad? Try Hearst's papers in the 1890s. There are 307 million people in the United States. That the three million? people of in the original colonies managed to agree o…

So, is it possible that the system is starting to show cracks where it might no longer scale very well at 307 million people. Maybe giving more powers to states could potentially work. I don't know if I like that more or less.

If it's showing cracks now, it's amazing we've held up for 100 years after the cracks we had when Teddy Roosevelt was President. I'm trying to advocate for perspective; I'm not saying things are great or don't need fixing, but remember that things have been much worse in the past.
Post reply on HN