House tells FCC to drop net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#51

Post by johngalt » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 7:29 PM UTC

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…

I doubt a highly skilled/motivated telecom team would have trouble finding capital in todays market. Millions are being handed out to teams whose infrastructure consists RoR app running on AWS.

I don't have anything specific in mind regulation wise. I have no agenda, merely that net neutrality is trying to cure a symptom not a cause.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#52

Post by trythis » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 7:34 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #50

trythis wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly does give me pause, but we also know how the Republicans will come down on net neutrality regardless of whether an overreaching regulatory body is advocating (some version of) it. That, to me, is the bigger story. As you said, the FCC can only do what Congress has authorized it to do, so we're not in any real danger of the FCC having a "broad, unchecked power to control what happens on the internet". Wha…

I didn't downvote, first of all. I upvoted! I am also disappointed to see it downvoted. There is some contention that downvoting is a valid way to express disagreement; I don't really agree. Downvotes should be reserved only for poor decorum or other disruptive behavior. The point Grellas is making is that if we let the FCC slide on net neutrality by accepting their arguments of ancillary jurisdiction and implied aut…

Thanks for the explanation, cookiecaper. I guess I should clarify that I agree with grellas' analysis, but that I think the larger issue is how net neutrality plays out in Congress, whether it involves an overreaching FCC or not.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#53

Post by lutorm » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 7:38 PM UTC

grellas wrote: post #14

The FCC's claim of authority in this instance to impose rules from on high is problematic. Here is what EFF says: "We’re wholly in favor of net neutrality in practice, but a finding of ancillary jurisdiction here would give the FCC pretty much boundless authority to regulate the Internet for whatever it sees fit. And that kind of unrestrained authority makes us nervous about follow-on initiatives like broadcast flags…

"unaccountable government regulators"?

Just wondering about this. If you think a popularly elected government is "unaccountable", can you give an example of something that is accountable?

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#54

Post by jimktrains2 » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 7:39 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #12

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.

I'm a liberal Democrat and I'm queasy about enforced net neutrality; these are rules that govern what companies can do with their own infrastructure, and rules that could unintentionally retard progress instead of protecting it. Further, Congress has a legitimate gripe here. We don't elect FCC commissioners. They're appointed. We should be particularly concerned about them overstepping their bounds. Which a reasonabl…

Wasn't that infrastructure paid for by taxes?

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#55

Post by rflrob » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 7:40 PM UTC

"But critics of net neutrality rules argue that free-market competition would prevent such abuses"

Is consumer internet really a free market? To my knowledge, most of the Bay Area only has a choice between Comcast and AT&T. If you only have 2 or 3 companies competing, it's relatively easy for them all to decide independently that traffic shaping is in their own best interest, which leaves the consumer with no real choice.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#56

Post by jimktrains2 » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 7:41 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #40

nkassis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I feel a lot of the cracks are due to misuse of the system and misallocations in the system.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#57

Post by delinka » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 7:44 PM UTC

nooneelse wrote: post #44

What about the "what is in a name" path? What if, instead of regulating what ISPs can do with their network, there were a movement (read, "lawsuits") (using some new or perhaps just existing law) to stop anything past some previously normal level of traffic management from being called "internet service". So a teleco could give preference to their own, or affiliate, traffic, but that could not be referred to by them,…

This is a good path to consider. It's not "food" if it doesn't contain the right amount of edible/digestible ingredients. It's not "octane X" if it hasn't been refined in the right method. That car isn't "safe" unless it adheres to regulatory guidelines.

It's not "Internet access" if it doesn't allow me to access resources on the Internet at my leisure and at the "broadband" speed advertised. (OK, I know that my 6Mbps connection doesn't get me 6Mbps all the way from Netflix, but you can see my point.)

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#58

Post by delinka » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 7:46 PM UTC

rflrob wrote: post #55

"But critics of net neutrality rules argue that free-market competition would prevent such abuses" Is consumer internet really a free market? To my knowledge, most of the Bay Area only has a choice between Comcast and AT&T. If you only have 2 or 3 companies competing, it's relatively easy for them all to decide independently that traffic shaping is in their own best interest, which leaves the consumer with no real ch…

I'd really like someone to take politicians to task with this.

"Mr. Congresscritter, where is the free market alternative to ISP One in Somecity, seeing as ISP One bought up all its competitors?"

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#59

Post by wmf » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 7:54 PM UTC

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?

Franchise agreements and rights of way prevent new ISPs from entering the market. If you want to deregulate, you could start there. I don't think it would help due to the incumbents' economy of scale, though.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#60

Post by delinka » Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 7:54 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #12

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.

I'm a liberal Democrat and I'm queasy about enforced net neutrality; these are rules that govern what companies can do with their own infrastructure, and rules that could unintentionally retard progress instead of protecting it. Further, Congress has a legitimate gripe here. We don't elect FCC commissioners. They're appointed. We should be particularly concerned about them overstepping their bounds. Which a reasonabl…

I think we're at a point where Internet access needs to be classified as a utility, like electricity and water.

We are indeed in a situation where many companies have invested in their own infrastructure and maybe that requires consideration. I'm absolutely certain that jimktrains2 has a point: the U.S. taxpayers coughed up tremendous amounts of money to invest in infrastructure which makes those lines ours. (Sure, 'legally' AT&T et al own title and deed, but you and I still provided the money.)

Ultimately the point is that it's time to classify access to the Internet as a utility and regulate it as such: separating ownership from operation, mandatory line sharing, various and sundry other mechanisms to make sure the consumer has choice amongst competitors. Then we can say net neutrality is not needed.