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

91–100 of 286 posts

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

#91

Post by ZachPruckowski »

higherpurpose wrote: post #80
jebblue wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler_(FCC) "Tom Wheeler is the current Chairman of the FCC.[1] Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry." Wow. This looks especially bad for consumers.

There should be laws against this sort of stuff. Like you can't work for a company in a related domain for 5 years before and after taking the government job. As it is, it just leads to too much corruption.

The problem with that is that the only folks qualified for these jobs are folks with some sort of recent related experience, and the only future job that this is revenue-boosting for is in related domains.

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

#92

Post by plorg »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #56
briantakita wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A) Of course, how do you know they'll do so until you elect them? B) Many politicians who get into office are quite busy, so they tend to trust the people they actually talk to, which are often the people at campaign fundraisers. Cronies may just be people who, conveniently, are always at fundraisers, hence are familiar to politicians.

I don't think that's proper, obviously, but easy explanations rarely capture the complexity from which corruption arises.

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

#93

Post by pyre »

higherpurpose wrote: post #80
jebblue wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler_(FCC) "Tom Wheeler is the current Chairman of the FCC.[1] Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry." Wow. This looks especially bad for consumers.

There should be laws against this sort of stuff. Like you can't work for a company in a related domain for 5 years before and after taking the government job. As it is, it just leads to too much corruption.

The flip side is that you won't want someone in said position that doesn't know anything about the industry. Do you want a luddite making technology policy, for example.

Not that I'm all for regulatory capture or anything.

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

#94

Post by Brakenshire »

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…

The UK has a structural separation between retail and wholesale, and the major ISPs are still desperate to be allowed to do deals with content providers. Consumer interests are not set up to directly disincentivize ISPs from trying to charge content providers for access to them. Consumers will not police that principle.

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

#95

Post by pjlegato »

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.

Tivo's annual revenue is 406m, and the company is worth 1.45bn. (https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ATIVO) Respectable? Sure. But not even close to Netflix.

Netflix's annual revenue is 4.3 BN (i.e. over 10x higher), and the company is worth 21bn. (https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ANFLX)

Why? Sure, a relatively few people will use Tivo, but many more won't. Empirically, the convenience / lack of planning necessary to watch streaming video is worth approximately 10x more.

This illustrates the importance of using data rather than anecdotes to draw conclusions. As a HN poster, our personal experience tends to be heavily biased towards our self-selected associations with more technically oriented people rather than "normal," average people.

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

#96

Post by stuaxo »

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?

The system should work like jury duty - much like in ancient greece where they had a system of lots (based on black + white balls) - you get chosen then have to do your best for your alloted time.

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

#97

Post by dang »

NAFV_P wrote: post #85

As of 23:52 BST this article has 63 comments, 18 of which have been downvoted.

A user went haywire and downvoted a whole bunch of comments. We'll correct the damage.

All: when you notice substantive and civil comments that are unfairly faded out, please give them a corrective upvote. This is a longstanding community practice. It usually only takes one or two corrective votes to get back to par, so every user can make a significant difference.

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

#98

Post by lvs »

higherpurpose wrote: post #80
jebblue wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler_(FCC) "Tom Wheeler is the current Chairman of the FCC.[1] Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry." Wow. This looks especially bad for consumers.

There should be laws against this sort of stuff. Like you can't work for a company in a related domain for 5 years before and after taking the government job. As it is, it just leads to too much corruption.

The colloquial term for this is "revolving door."

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

#99

Post by pjlegato »

guelo wrote: post #43

In the coming decades our current golden age of internet innovation will be looked back in wonder.

Yes. It'll be like looking back on the long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_automobile_man... -- the early 20th century was a hotbed of innovation and technical progress, being carried out by hundreds of independent groups on a small scale. Then, the industry consolidated around a few gigantic players, and technical innovation ground to a halt for decades.

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

#100

Post by NAFV_P »

dang wrote: post #97
NAFV_P wrote: post #85

As of 23:52 BST this article has 63 comments, 18 of which have been downvoted.

A user went haywire and downvoted a whole bunch of comments. We'll correct the damage. All: when you notice substantive and civil comments that are unfairly faded out, please give them a corrective upvote. This is a longstanding community practice. It usually only takes one or two corrective votes to get back to par, so every user can make a significant difference.

Thank you, I will remember that.
Post reply on HN