Live data from Hacker News

FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

bloomberg.com

191–200 of 302 posts

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fact is that they CAN, and to be so deliriously ignorant as to believe that “it didn’t happen yet, so it will never happen” is just… what is happening here? What is happening here is see you are disingenuously misrepresenting the opinion of those who disagree with you, and then dehumanizing them by comparing them to robots. Both of these are gross and should stop. The actual argument is something like this: 1. I…

> ISPs have had the opportunity to "turn the Internet into subscriptions for different cloud providers" in the United States for not just the last six years, but rather throughout most of the life of the Internet. The FCC was acting under net neutrality principles in broadband actions starting in 2004, when its initial non-regulatory enforcement approach became legally problematic, it immediately turned to regulation…

This is largely correct, though I would add that prior to 2004 nearly all broadband was delivered over telephone wire. That made it Title II.

The first real net neutrality enforcement action was when FCC chairman Michael Powell under George w bush stopped Madison River from blocking a VoIP provider. Powell used Title II.

It took about a month from complaints to action because the FCC had clear authority.

That's why an agency needs clear authority.

If the FTC would have had to act, it would have taken 2 years and the FTC would have had to approve him that that provider had some sort of monopoly power.

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did the mega providers so desperately want net neutrality to die? Why did so many lobbyists work to kill it? "I really don't get what all the fuss is about." This is a bit like the Y2K bug. There was a huge amount of noise and fear-mongering, and millions of developers spent an enormous amount of time fixing code and preparing systems. Y2K came and suddenly everyone is sure it was all just drama for nothing. What…

>Why did the mega providers so desperately want net neutrality to die? Why did so many lobbyists work to kill it? because they want more leverage in their negotiations with netflix, amazon, google, spotify etc. That's all it boils down to, how much one major corporation has to pay another major corporation. There's a reason why they're only pushing for neutrality on the ISPs, if they were actually concerned about lar…

Sounds like a great idea to me. Compute neutrality, storage neutrality, etc. Bits are bits, don't look any deeper!

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#193
Seems like the headline is misleading. The FCC is a tool of political will. Some politicians who will determine future FCC rule-making wish to reinstate net neutrality.

Seems like this back and forth could go on for some time. It would probably be better to come up with a solution that can supported across changes in control.

Given the discussion here it isn’t clear to me what the middle ground might be other than some scorched earth. Maybe net neutrality for consumer benefit only on a non discriminatory basis?

For example, a MVNO could not penalize any Internet traffic but they could offer a no capacity cap service as long as any other comparable service had the same access. Such a setup would probably be cause for a large number of lawyer billable hours which will make lawyers in both sides happy.

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#194

interesting that nobody is talking about how net neutrality is needed to prevent censorship anymore

It's predictable from the title. HN is an intensely conservative site.

A ton on here like to pretend to take a moderate viewpoint when espousing strictly conservative views or talking points.

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have gotten it, but with services not websites. Mobile providers will sell you an "Unlimited" data plan that throttles everything after 25GB a month. Streaming Spotify and Apple Music won't count against that soft data cap. Streaming other music services will count against it. Video streaming over YouTube, Netflix, etc is capped at 480p levels. If you pay an additional monthly fee, you get upgraded to "Unlimited P…

In a more potent example, AT&T did a similar thing with streaming TV service, but they only exempted their own TV service. Using Hulu? Data cap. Fubo? Data cap. AT&T TV Now? Highest quality, no cap.

And that's no "cap".

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have gotten it, but with services not websites. Mobile providers will sell you an "Unlimited" data plan that throttles everything after 25GB a month. Streaming Spotify and Apple Music won't count against that soft data cap. Streaming other music services will count against it. Video streaming over YouTube, Netflix, etc is capped at 480p levels. If you pay an additional monthly fee, you get upgraded to "Unlimited P…

I don't really see a problem with this. Bandwidth is finite and if you have a little more money, you should be able to pay for it. The alternative is that everyone has data caps

One problem is that it's anti-competitive in the sense that a new video streaming service cannot compete because an ISP will charge extra to use them but not for (eg.) Netflix.

> Bandwidth is finite and if you have a little more money, you should be able to pay for it.

That's fine, but there's a difference between paying for bandwidth and having different rates for bandwidth depending on the destination.

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UPS doesn't care. The sender/receiver care and may want to use the insurance option. But UPS knows the value / type of passage, not the contents.

UPS literally asks you what it is! They ask if its a weapon, has lithium batteries, etc. This analogy is bad.

UPS cares if you are shipping something that is a physical or legal hazard for them, because they are responsible for the safety of their employees, facilities, and the other packages.

If you can make a reasonable argument that one kind of data or another creates a meaningful hazard for the pipe that carries it, please do.

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have gotten it, but with services not websites. Mobile providers will sell you an "Unlimited" data plan that throttles everything after 25GB a month. Streaming Spotify and Apple Music won't count against that soft data cap. Streaming other music services will count against it. Video streaming over YouTube, Netflix, etc is capped at 480p levels. If you pay an additional monthly fee, you get upgraded to "Unlimited P…

>We have gotten it, but with services not websites. Misinformation. Under all previously proposed NN rules, throttling is always allowed for network congestion and mobile actually does have a legitimate network congestion issue. I personally would rather T-Mobile make a promise about the speeds for the first 25GB rather than say "UNLIMITED*" and make that asterisk any time they feel like it. Likewise, they could alwa…

There's a difference between throttling with the network is at capacity, and throttling youtube at 480p because you offer a different service. Or just simply throttling video.

Data isn't being treated as just data.

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have gotten it, but with services not websites. Mobile providers will sell you an "Unlimited" data plan that throttles everything after 25GB a month. Streaming Spotify and Apple Music won't count against that soft data cap. Streaming other music services will count against it. Video streaming over YouTube, Netflix, etc is capped at 480p levels. If you pay an additional monthly fee, you get upgraded to "Unlimited P…

>We have gotten it, but with services not websites. Misinformation. Under all previously proposed NN rules, throttling is always allowed for network congestion and mobile actually does have a legitimate network congestion issue. I personally would rather T-Mobile make a promise about the speeds for the first 25GB rather than say "UNLIMITED*" and make that asterisk any time they feel like it. Likewise, they could alwa…

You didn't address anything after the first two sentences.

> Streaming Spotify and Apple Music won't count against that soft data cap. Streaming other music services will count against it. Video streaming over YouTube, Netflix, etc is capped at 480p levels. If you pay an additional monthly fee, you get upgraded to "Unlimited Plus" which will increase your soft cap to 40GB a month and your video streaming quality to 1080p. It'll also bundle in Netflix's basic level and give you 6 months of Apple+ for "free".

What they are saying is, even in times of low/no congestion, select services are not being counted against a consumer's data cap.

Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

#200
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. This thread is getting to me. Okay. Net neutrality died and ISPs didn’t immediately turn the internet in to subscriptions to different cloud providers. The fact is that they CAN, and to be so deliriously ignorant as to believe that “it didn’t happen yet, so it will never happen” is just… what is happening here? Is this thread just ChatGPT bots? Regardless of if Microsoft, google, Amazon and ISPs have not yet ma…

>The fact is that they CAN, and to be so deliriously ignorant as to believe that “it didn’t happen yet, so it will never happen” is just… what is happening here? What is happening here is see you are disingenuously misrepresenting the opinion of those who disagree with you, and then dehumanizing them by comparing them to robots. Both of these are gross and should stop. The actual argument is something like this: 1. I…

So why not just ban the practice in the first place? What’s the harm? That’s what I’m not following here.

“It’s not profitable to do so” can be true for a given time horizon and untrue for another, or if circumstances change.

Post reply on HN