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

231–240 of 286 posts

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

#231

Post by Corrado »

Touche wrote: post #58

Game over. The internet was fun while it lasted. Anyone want to start a mesh network startup?

I was thinking something similar while reading the article. The old adage is that "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" and in this case I think we can regard this ruling as censorship. So we should route around it.

Actually, this idea of an "alternate" network is a fairly old one but it just never materialized. I think thats because the "normal" network worked fine and wasn't too damaged for most of the people. However, this new ruling may be enough to get people (i.e. us, the technorati) to act.

chris_mahan has proposed one solution in a sibling thread. Are there others? I had a thought to use a cell phone as the mesh connector. Its something we all have in our pockets anyway and wouldn't require any new hardware. What about a company that provides the hardware for free but charges for the service? This is very similar to how the cable companies started out and it seems to have worked for them. :)

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

#232

Post by mattlutze »

emidln wrote: post #137
stuaxo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Combine this with a TTL of 10 years for all laws. Hopefully, keeping theft, rape, and murder from going legal preoccupy all of lawmakers' time.

This would result congress becoming a body whose major action was reaffirming existing laws that were expiring, and would minimize their ability to take on further responsibility.

There are many cases where they have in the past given laws a time limit, and most of those either

- get up/down extended, at which point why bother with the limit, or - mire congress for weeks because someone decided to pick a fight over a normally non-controversial law.

I'm not sure that would improve the system or help us move more power back from czars and appointed directors toward our elected representatives.

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

#233

Post by dingaling »

pyre wrote: post #93
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 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.

> The flip side is that you won't want someone in said position that doesn't know anything about the industry.

CEOs rotate into of different industries all the time without knowledge of that domain.

The top-job isn't about making policy, it's about representing the organization's interests and setting strategy.

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

#234

Post by dingaling »

higherpurpose wrote: post #23
sroerick wrote: post #10

It's so frustrating to me that this is all based around the stupid legal assumption that we have to stream everything. God forbid your user should download something to watch later, to prevent having to redownload every time you watch it. And then during peak Netflix hours, I just can't use the internet reliably. If anyone knows any source for Libre video works, that I can download and watch with complete freedom, pl…

If you had a 100 Mbps connection, like many other countries do, streaming Netflix in HD would not be a problem. So this is first and foremost a lazy monopolist problem, less so a congestion problem.

> If you had a 100 Mbps connection, like many other countries do, streaming Netflix in HD would not be a problem.

A 100 mbps connection to the ISP isn't much help if the ISP only has 1000 Mbps upstream to share amongst 20,000 subscribers.

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

#235

Post by Figs »

emidln wrote: post #137
stuaxo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Combine this with a TTL of 10 years for all laws. Hopefully, keeping theft, rape, and murder from going legal preoccupy all of lawmakers' time.

That kind of system really hasn't worked out too well with things like the debt limit in recent years...

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

#236

Post by jordo37 »

seehafer wrote: post #199
chc wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? This is true in somewhat the same way that the solution to teenage pregnancy is just to get all the teens to practice abstine…

I grant there are problems that are relatively more tractable or intractable, but I challenge the notion that limiting how much money can be spent on political campaigns is the solution to a problem of an uniformed electorate. Why does limiting every candidate to some level n of spending necessarily lead us to better governance? Further, in your analogy, I'd argue that the equivalent to teaching abstinence is the ide…

Because it limits the impact of those with immense wealth to unduly impact the funding goals of those running for office.

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

#237

Post by oneandoneis2 »

America in a nutshell: bunch of smart guys make an amazing system that changes the world; bunch of politicians cheerfully destroy it in return for a quick profit.

If Snowden's revelations weren't enough to ensure the rest of the world got busy on routing traffic around America, legislation like this will.

This move isn't just going to screw American consumers & startups. It's going to remove America from its status as the hub of the Internet.

And all thanks to a few profit-obsessed monopolists.

Yay capitalism.

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

#240

Post by xedeon »

Let's all contact the F.C.C. and let them know how we us consumers are against this! I can't believe not a single HN user suggested this on this thread yet!

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20554

To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail

Chairman Tom Wheeler: Tom.Wheeler@fcc.gov Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel:

Jessica.Rosenworcel@fcc.gov

Commissioner Ajit Pai: Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov

Commissioner Michael O’Rielly: Mike.O'Rielly@fcc.gov

Complaints: File a Complaint

Freedom of Information Act requests: FOIA@fcc.gov

Elections & political candidate matters: campaignlaw@fcc.gov

1-866-418-0232 FAX: toll-free

1-202-418-1440 Elections & political candidate matters

Post reply on HN