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

F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 286 posts

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#51

Post by jessaustin »

dragonwriter wrote: post #32
mikeyouse wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2002, Colin Powell's son, Michael, was the Chairman of the FCC. He determined that broadband services weren't covered by Title II, and that they could be regulated 'better' under different statutes. That is the genesis for all of these problems. Today, Michael Powell is the President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.[1] Of course, today's FCC could walk that Title II ruling back, and reclassi…

Whatever the FCC does (well, except maybe not regulating at all) is going to be met with lawsuits for years.

I'm pretty confident there would be lawsuits following a decision not to regulate at all, as well.

"But, but, if the FCC isn't there to slow down unlicensed spectrum tech, all our exurban and rural customers will just sign on with their local WISP, and we won't be able to charge them lots of money for crappy service anymore! Then after that tech is in use for a couple of years, pretty soon it will be good enough even for densely-packed suburbs, and there goes that captive market! What would be left for us, running fiber to the inner city? What have we been paying you people for?!"

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#52

Post by ama729 »

quotemstr wrote: post #12

Decisions like this lend a certain credence to recent studies showing that only the desires of the economic and political elite actually affect policy.

Study cited (I think): http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/04/is...

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#53

Post by nardi »

chc wrote: post #39
devnill wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? If the ISP's push the issue too hard, the public will be up in arms for net neutrality. If they just push hard enough to keep small companies from competing it will be a win/win for everybody since the ISP's make even more money, and the internet companies get to avoid new players.

I'm not sure how you'd categorize Google, Apple and Netflix generally as "ISPs."

"...and the internet companies get to avoid new players."

I think you missed that part of GP's comment.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#54

Post by jessaustin »

Zigurd wrote: post #48
dandrews wrote: post #30

Legislating "net neutrality" is a crude hack. The real problem is telco hegemony in the ISP space, as pointed out in John Gilmore's 2010 essay at http://www.nnsquad.org/archives/nnsquad/msg04177.html

That isn't really true. Let's say we get structural separation and retail competition (which is a fantasy in our current situation). The backbone providers could still become rent-seekers by putting the arm on whatever service lacks technical alternatives to large amounts of bandwidth (which the retail customers already pay for). The retailers have more negotiating power than consumers do, but there is still a place…

What would stop backbone operators from doing that? I'd guess the same thing that's stopping them from doing it now: actual competition. The monopolists are only a problem at the edge.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#55

Post by briantakita »

parfe wrote: post #9

In six months FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will be a VP at NBC Universal/Comcast. Not a bribe; just coincidence.

What would it take to get someone who cares about the greater good (not an industry crony) appointed to these key roles?

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#56

Post by AndrewBissell »

briantakita wrote: post #55
parfe wrote: post #9

In six months FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will be a VP at NBC Universal/Comcast. Not a bribe; just coincidence.

What would it take to get someone who cares about the greater good (not an industry crony) appointed to these key roles?

Stop electing the politicians who appoint cronies?

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#57

Post by nfoz »

pessimizer wrote: post #46
lotu wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly the assumption that we want to stream everything is a really good assumption. People are lazy and setting up a proper storage is tricky and costs money. This means 99.9% of people don't want to do it. Yes being in the .1% it would be nice if we were catered to but that's life.

In my experience people seem to be able to use TiVos just fine.

People could use Napster just fine, too.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#59

Post by HillRat »

jthomp wrote: post #35

Looks like I wasted my time writing Mr. Wheeler an email on this very subject a few weeks ago.

Yeah, good luck with that; regulatory capture has effectively killed any attempt at citizen influence of state and federal agencies. And, in addition to the revolving door at the FCC -- which is uniquely shameless even by iron triangle standards -- Big Cable is excellent at targeting its political donations. They're increasing cable prices faster than inflation, and using the proceeds to hire key FCC officials and donate wads of cash to any politician -- federal, state and even local -- that might be involved in oversight. Your silly little attempt at exercising your rights as an informed citizen doesn't even register.

I would argue that the cable industry is pretty much the perfect example of an industry that should be held at arms' length by its regulators; the entire industry has a history of significant and intentional corruption of the political process, particularly at the local level. It's instructive, if you have the time, to check out the story of Cablevision's efforts to get the cable franchise in Queens in the early 1980s: it's essentially a blueprint for how the industry acts across the board.

Re: F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane

#60

Post by rayiner »

People say: this could hurt startups. Which makes me think: so? Isn't it inherent to startups that they have a competitive disadvantage in areas where expensive infrastructure is required? Isn't it an inherent advantage big businesses have over startups?

Let's take the history of telco monopolies off the table for a minute. Let's say these are purely privately funded networks with no government sanctioned subsidies. Is net neutrality still a good idea? Does't artificially take away an advantage big companies inherently have?

Post reply on HN