F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 6:37 PM UTC

saint_fiasco wrote: post #252

anigbrowl wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you don't have an automatic right to be entertained. I might want to watch Game of Thrones , but since I haven't seen fit to buy a HBO subscription I do without, and HBO is under no obligation to give it to me. A lot of people seem to assume that HBO and similar publishers either have no interest in or no understanding of new technology, but the fact is that they're as eager to exploit it as anyone else, henc…

why do you assume you have the right to be served entertainment through the channel of your choice? You wouldn't call up your local pizzeria and demand they deliver a Big Mac and fries, would you? Because the marginal cost of a Big Mac and fries is huge compared to the marginal cost of one more person watching Game of Thrones. Not saying that's a good reason, but that's probably the reason for that assumption. People…

I think a more appropriate comparison would the marginal cost of adding another distribution channel, which was the basis of my analogy. I'm not talking about getting a Big Mac for free, but about the unfounded expectation of having one delivered to you.

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

#262

Post by rhizome » Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 7:14 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #253

rhizome wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not a flip side, it's a false dichotomy, because there is an enormous middle ground there.

I never said it was a dichotomy. Just because I presented an opposing side of an issue does not mean that I'm presenting a dichotomy. One of the reasons that people are pulled from industry to fill these roles is because there is a view that they will understand the issues at play. This is true. We don't want people making policy decisions on issues that they barely understand. At the same time, it becomes the incest…

Well yes, "flip side" implies a dichotomy. What's the middle-ground of a coin's faces?

It's not helpful to characterize alternatives as naive, ignorant, or Ludditic. The question is not one of naivety, but of actual policy, which is the stuff that affects all of us. How would the work of an outsider (or statutory redshirt) differ from a revolving-door candidate, one whose foundation is sell side? Seeing that we have a documented public history of the output of people in this role, what conclusions can we draw? Should the incestuous relationship merely be noted, as you do, before dispensing with alternatives?

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

#263

Post by unclebucknasty » Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 7:25 PM UTC

saraid216 wrote: post #258

unclebucknasty wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You were made promises, not by politicians, but by a powerless counterculture No. The promises were made by the technology and its potential. But, you're reading my statement out of context anyway. > We have the Internet now. There is no such need anymore. Wait. So, you're now a representative of the powerless counterculture? You just said "there is nothing democratizing about the Internet. Now, you're hailing it a…

> The promises were made by the technology and its potential. Still bullshit. By this measure, the machine gun and the IED are also democratizing and equalizing forces. An armed society is a polite society, yeah? Technology amplifies. A pen makes it possible to communicate with someone you cannot be face-to-face with, but it still comes down to the way you formulate and express your ideas. A sword makes it possible t…

>Still bullshit.

Really? Because immediately after you dismissed hopes that the Internet might be a force for democratization, you said the following in reference to candidates' corrupting (and incompatible with democracy) need for money:

"We have the Internet now. There is no such need anymore."

Were you thinking of something more democratizing than that?

The rest of that paragraph and the next are ridiculous strawmen.

>If you want to invoke technology, then all technology is a "democratizing and equalizing force".

That argument is just plain stupid. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Trolling? Or are you really that prone to committing such gaping logical fallacies?

FWIW, I didn't just "invoke technology". I referenced the Net.

>And money is not the biggest threat. Democracy? Doesn't exist in America. Not really. The media is right: we are a country ruled by elites

And who are the elites? The poor?

You know, this is pointless. Your entire comment is void of any introspection and is not even internally consistent. It just argues with itself. Worse, you sincerely can't seem to follow a thread. It's so bad that I really do hope that you are just trolling. But, in any case, I'll leave you to your "self-stimulation".

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

#264

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 7:25 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #104

jessaustin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This situation partially exists on the backbone in the form of paid peering.

"Paid peering" is an oxymoron.

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

#265

Post by pdonis » Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 7:54 PM UTC

higherpurpose wrote: post #15

mikeyouse wrote: post #11

This is largely due to the US Federal Courts' recent rulings that invalidated the FCC's previous attempts to guarantee Net Neutrality. 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/technology/appeals-court-r... 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/business/fcc-to-propose-ne...

Even so, there are two other solutions: 1) immediately remove all regulations that might block new competition from coming into the market, and competing locally with the big local monopolies 2) call them common carriers, and then they'd be able to regulate them however they want, and that's what the judge basically said, too. I'd prefer 1) over 2), but at this point either one would be better. But right now FCC/US g…

In a perfect world I would prefer 1) as well, but realistically I think 2) is the only option. I don't understand why it's taking the FCC so long to take the hint; IIRC the number of judges that have basically told them "make them common carriers and you can regulate them however you want" is now three.

(Actually, my cynical side does understand; but I have been hoping against hope that for once reasonableness would win out over cynicism.)

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

#266

Post by AlexLord » Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 11:25 PM UTC

falsecelaona wrote: post #139

AlexLord wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Streaming is seen, by many content creators, as a way to fight piracy.

Steam streaming games is seen, by many content creators, as a way to fight piracy. Streaming (as a means of protection) is as useless as DRM except they're too stupid to not do that dance for their legal departments. It hurts legal consumers and doesn't punish non-legit consumers. It prevents you from using content you've paid for & used previously when your internet goes down. Not to mention the enormous waste of el…

I never said it was an effective strategy. I just said that it is seen as a means of fighting piracy. People go to large extremes to protect themselves from a perceived loss, even if their actions are more harmful in the long term.

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

#267

Post by massappeal » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 1:17 AM UTC

webXL wrote: post #224

massappeal wrote: post #165

if these rules are actually implemented, Silicon Valley will cease to be Silicon Valley.

Not sure how that's possible exactly, but some might argue that's not such a bad thing, WRT to leveling the playing field a bit and avoiding investment bubbles. People argued that Detroit would cease to exist if the government did x, y or z, but I think technology and competition had more to do with its downfall.

And arguably Detroit did cease to exist. The auto industry that was based there is much more dispersed. The same thing would happen to Silicon Valley. Capital will be focused in markets where new companies can reach consumers fairly, leaving the US bereft of an innovative digital economy.

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

#268

Post by betterunix » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 2:22 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #261

saint_fiasco wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why do you assume you have the right to be served entertainment through the channel of your choice? You wouldn't call up your local pizzeria and demand they deliver a Big Mac and fries, would you? Because the marginal cost of a Big Mac and fries is huge compared to the marginal cost of one more person watching Game of Thrones. Not saying that's a good reason, but that's probably the reason for that assumption. People…

I think a more appropriate comparison would the marginal cost of adding another distribution channel, which was the basis of my analogy. I'm not talking about getting a Big Mac for free, but about the unfounded expectation of having one delivered to you.

It's more like asking your neighbor to fetch two burgers, and then give you one of them. Except that your neighbor has a burger-multiplying-machine that can keep giving you burgers once your neighbor gets their first one.

There is no reason we should sit around worrying about HBO. HBO pays people lots of money to figure out how to monetize their entertainment. Let them figure out how to monetize BitTorrent and similar P2P systems. If they choose instead to ignore those technologies, well, they can suffer the consequences when someone else figures it out. The rest of us should not have to worry -- we do not worry when we turn on the radio or use a VCR, so why should we be so concerned here?

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

#269

Post by sroerick » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 3:36 AM UTC

lotu wrote: post #28

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…

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.

How about smart caching? Why can't netflix automatically preload 3 episodes ahead in a show that you're watching?

Consumers might not want to have to deal with HDD storage, but I would bet you dollars to donuts that they want 4K without buffering issues.

EDIT: Also, I just wanted to mention that maybe our companies should be inventing new ways of storing things (like TiVo did with remarkable success), instead of spending all of their resources aquiring the rights to hit movies and extorting each other.

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

#270

Post by sroerick » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 3:38 AM UTC

betterunix wrote: post #172

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.

That is why distributed storage would be so much better. You know, if 10 people download a movie, I should be able to download it from any of those 10 people. Or all of them could send me part of the file, improving throughput. Oh, wait, we already have that technology. Too bad we have people who have worked for twenty years to kill it.

People espouse the benefits of FLOSS all the time, but I don't understand why no one cares about libre content. I want to watch videos that I can do whatever I want with.

I don't give a damn about NBC shows.