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

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#81

Post by HelloBeautiful »

lutorm wrote: post #53
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?

China also has a popularly elected government ... The fact that there are two parties in US and one in China does not make any difference IHMO.

Switzerland referendum system would be my example of accountable government.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#82

Post by alexqgb »

hammock wrote: post #68
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…

You probably got downvoted because you show a lack of understanding of what grellas was saying. What he was saying was that if the FCC had been allowed by the courts to use 'ancillary jurisdiction' to impose new rules, the FCC would indeed be in the very situation which you say is impossible, a situation of broad, unchecked power.

Upvoted for noting that simply not paying attention to what's been said good cause for downvoting.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#83

Post by pbz »

tptacek wrote: post #79
delinka wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, '…

There is no company I have to deal with on a regular basis that is worse than the electrical company. This Internet stuff is not really a voting issue for me (health care and education are the big things that make me a Dem and not a Lib), but the candidate that tells me he wants to turn AT&T into Commonwealth Edison has secured a donation from me to his opponent. Be careful what you wish for.

If they would've built the entire infrastructure without public money sure, but that's not the case. Also, when dealing with limited resources, like spectrum, regulation is necessary. We put in money to build the infrastructure, we should have a saying in how it's utilized. And, by the way, I wish dealing with most companies would be as smooth as the power company -- ymmv.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#85

Post by trythis »

hammock wrote: post #68
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…

You probably got downvoted because you show a lack of understanding of what grellas was saying. What he was saying was that if the FCC had been allowed by the courts to use 'ancillary jurisdiction' to impose new rules, the FCC would indeed be in the very situation which you say is impossible, a situation of broad, unchecked power.

You're mistaken on this point. The courts already rejected the ancillary jurisdiction rationale, and rather than wait for Congress to make a decision on net neutrality, the FCC adopted a new rationale (which, as I recall, hinged upon reclassifying broadband traffic) to justify imposing their net neutrality rules. All of this is in grellas' post. The issue grellas is raising is whether it's acceptable to let a regulatory body like the FCC make such broad assertions of authority at all. The matter of ancillary jurisdiction is already done and settled.

When I said we're not in any real danger of the FCC having a "broad, unchecked power to control what happens on the internet," my point was that irrespective of whether Congress denies the FCC this authority right now, it always has the power to do so. And though it's irrelevant to my point, if the courts had upheld the ancillary jurisdiction rationale, Congress could always strike that down, too. This situation isn't like the executive branch jockeying with the legislative branch for power: the FCC is not a peer of Congress.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#86

Post by CamperBob »

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,…

One concern is that 99% percent of users wouldn't care if they got Internet service or "Value-Added Broadband (tm)" from their local cable monopoly, especially if the latter cost $0.01 less per month.

Net neutrality strikes me as one of those cases where those who are aware of the stakes have to adopt a paternalistic attitude toward consumer protection.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#87

Post by TimJYoung »

tptacek wrote: post #74
TimJYoung wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, is your position that we shouldn't pass any laws or regulations because they may have unintended side-effects on companies that may exist in the future ? That sounds like pretty weak tea to me. What on earth is wrong with the FCC stating that no company can give precedence to any specific source/destination's traffic over another source/destination's traffic ? All it does is codify the basic principle that the In…

Listen to yourself. Where did you get the idea that I think we shouldn't pass laws or regulations at all? This is a message board political flame war rattling its cage trying to escape. Kill it. I don't particularly support this regulation (I'm not totally against it, either). Many other things, I do think we should regulate. What's wrong here is that I think it's too early in the connectivity industry to say that th…

I did not say that you were against passing laws or regulations at all. I was asking you if you were against passing laws or regulations if they might result in unintended consequences, which is what your position seemed to be, based upon your prior statement.

As for the rest, it's nothing more than a reflection upon the sorry state of affairs in Congress that we cannot get a law passed that re-affirms one of the fundamental principles that established the Internet, especially when it is clear that the major players in regional markets are already trying to prioritize traffic for their own content. My issue with your post was that it seemed to be offering another excuse for inaction, and the problem with our Congress is not that it does too much, but rather that it does too little.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#88

Post by calibraxis »

tptacek wrote: post #74
TimJYoung wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, is your position that we shouldn't pass any laws or regulations because they may have unintended side-effects on companies that may exist in the future ? That sounds like pretty weak tea to me. What on earth is wrong with the FCC stating that no company can give precedence to any specific source/destination's traffic over another source/destination's traffic ? All it does is codify the basic principle that the In…

Listen to yourself. Where did you get the idea that I think we shouldn't pass laws or regulations at all? This is a message board political flame war rattling its cage trying to escape. Kill it. I don't particularly support this regulation (I'm not totally against it, either). Many other things, I do think we should regulate. What's wrong here is that I think it's too early in the connectivity industry to say that th…

A real democracy isn't about pulling a lever for some guys every few years, then going home and letting them run wild. If citizens want their FCC to pursue certain policies, they have every right to organize against the decisionmaking of the professional politicians. They don't have to remain apathetic non-participants in politics.

People who are effective in politics, participate in it.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#89

Post by trythis »

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.

Airlines are very different from carriers. The market for air travel is dominated by frequent one-off transactions (with consumers often using multiple airlines for a single trip), and boasts several good ways to compare availability and cost. A new entrant can start off with a few routes, build a good reputation, and grow out from there.

New entrants in the telecom market are considerably disadvantaged by comparison. Consumers in this market make long-term purchasing decisions, often driven by contract pricing,and there remain no good, well known ways of comparing providers. The situation is even worse if you're a new wireless carrier, since coverage is crucial and the market is pointlessly segmented by phone tech.

I'm not saying we couldn't benefit from deregulation in some aspects of this market, but the devil is very much in the details, and simply pointing out that "deregulation" helped improve a market with high capital requirements for entry isn't saying much.

Re: House tells FCC to drop net neutrality

#90

Post by jauer »

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'm nearly 2K miles from the Bay Area but I've heard of more than 3 ISPs that serve the area.

What about Unwired, Cruzio, and Sonic?

Post reply on HN