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

161–170 of 286 posts

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

#161

Post by quaunaut »

dragonwriter wrote: post #17
ihuman wrote: post #4

I don't have the best knowledge about the FCC's plan for Net Neutrality, but doesn't this go against everything that the plan stood for?

If it was as the NY Times piece (which seems to be fairly heavy on editorializing and weak on facts for a straight news piece) describes -- "will allow a company like Comcast or Verizon to negotiate separately with each content company [...] and charge different companies different amounts for priority service." However, the other reports on this have not described it that way -- e.g., the WSJ report [1] (which also…

Honestly, hell no, we need to raise hell now. If they're even thinking about this as a realistic possibility, the entire notion needs to be burned from their minds. Purged.

Edit: Normally, I'm an arbiter of the 'wait and see' variety, but this is such a horrible, unethical, undemocratic, un-American idea that it cannot possibly for a moment be considered.

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

#162

Post by ademarre »

marshray wrote: post #133
ademarre wrote: post #67

Are there to be any regulations to prevent ISPs from artificially degrading delivery of low-priority content providers? Prioritizing content is one thing, but artificially withholding or delaying delivery of content is quite another.

There's no difference. TCP/IP works by gradually increasing transmit speed until packets are lost. Making traffic 'faster' for one set of connections is accomplished by dropping packets on others.

Fair enough, but what about periods where there is little or no competition between connections of different priorities? Could low-priority transmissions be throttled well before they begin to experience packet loss?

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

#163

Post by pushedx »

I'm the lead developer at a video startup. This policy may make our concept economically infeasible. I'm so angry that I can't even think straight right now. I thought we won this battle. I thought it was over. I want to take to the streets. We need to do something. We can't let this happen.

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

#164

Post by gnoway »

dragonwriter wrote: post #27
gnoway wrote: post #25

Well it is a little premature to cry doom before these guidelines are even adopted. But if they are, it will be kind of funny to read in a few years the comments from ISPs re: anti-neutrality policies stifling 'new' streaming services: "Our research shows there is weak to no consumer demand for alternative services"

> Well it is a little premature to cry doom before these guidelines are even adopted. It might not be before they are adopted, but it is before they are proposed and, particularly, before the news stories based on inside leaks are even consistent about what the rules are in the area of concern. EDIT: Not sure why the downvotes, but as I point out in another comment on the thread (with links to sourcs), there are at l…

I don't really get the downvotes either, although it took me two readings of your comment to understand what you were saying.

FWIW, here's what the FCC has actually published so far:

http://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-chairman-tom-wheel...

Unfortunately it doesn't actually say much.

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

#166

Post by turing »

ZachPruckowski wrote: post #91
higherpurpose wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that doesn't mean that we have to appoint from within industry. There are probably many academics who would be just as qualified or more than former industry lobbyists. Moreover, these people would probably be more than happy to return to academia and research after serving their tenure.

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

#167

Post by turing »

seehafer wrote: post #153
dsr_ wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money. There are 100 senators. 34 or so come up for election every two years. Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. The most expensive campaigns spend about $20M; the tenth most expensive campaign spends about $5M. The margin between D and R in the Senate is 8. Form a SuperPAC and fund it with about $75M. Ensure the election of a crop of senators who know what the key issue…

> Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. Source? Tell that to Meg Whitman. The biggest problem I have with the argument about limiting the amount of money that can be spent in elections is that it essentially implies that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. So shouldn't the solution be a more informed (however you want to do accomplish that) electorate?

I imagine it's a whole lot easier to pass campaign finance regulation than it is to transform a population of hundreds of millions of people into an intelligent, knowledgeable, rational group.

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

#168

Post by LandoCalrissian »

seehafer wrote: post #153
dsr_ wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money. There are 100 senators. 34 or so come up for election every two years. Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. The most expensive campaigns spend about $20M; the tenth most expensive campaign spends about $5M. The margin between D and R in the Senate is 8. Form a SuperPAC and fund it with about $75M. Ensure the election of a crop of senators who know what the key issue…

> Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. Source? Tell that to Meg Whitman. The biggest problem I have with the argument about limiting the amount of money that can be spent in elections is that it essentially implies that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. So shouldn't the solution be a more informed (however you want to do accomplish that) electorate?

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-ho...

Here are quite a few numbers that back his claim. There are of course exceptions, but for the most part the candidate with the most money wins.

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

#169

Post by marshray »

ademarre wrote: post #162
marshray wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no difference. TCP/IP works by gradually increasing transmit speed until packets are lost. Making traffic 'faster' for one set of connections is accomplished by dropping packets on others.

Fair enough, but what about periods where there is little or no competition between connections of different priorities? Could low-priority transmissions be throttled well before they begin to experience packet loss?

Packet loss is the way that TCP/IP transmissions are throttled by the network. It's beautiful in its simplicity that way.

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

#170

Post by zdrummond »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #147
mrslx wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax pay funded campaigns with a ban on all other spending to promote candidates.

How do you ban a random person from spending to promote candidates?

They don't get access to the 'no strings' super-fund if they take money or favor from other lobbyists.

Still not going to solve the revolving door, but might make thing a bit more fair.

Post reply on HN