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

281–286 of 286 posts

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

#281

Post by pyre »

rhizome wrote: post #262
pyre wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Should the incestuous relationship merely be noted, as you do, before dispensing with alternatives?

My thought is that saying someone can't work in the industry for 5 years prior might help with breaking up regulatory capture to a certain extent, but could have consequences on the people filling the role actually understanding the issues at hand.

Your view seems to be closer to, "things are bad now, so we certainly can't do any worse." My view is that if we're going to make the effort to fix things, let's think things through rather than throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.

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

#282

Post by rhizome »

pyre wrote: post #281
rhizome wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Should the incestuous relationship merely be noted, as you do, before dispensing with alternatives? My thought is that saying someone can't work in the industry for 5 years prior might help with breaking up regulatory capture to a certain extent, but could have consequences on the people filling the role actually understanding the issues at hand. Your view seems to be closer to, "things are bad now, so we certainly…

You're defining "the industry" as people with congruent CVs to Chairman Wheeler. And no, I'm not saying we can't do any worse, not the least because we've already had Michael Powell in this position.

I disagree that the revolving-door is equal to regulatory capture. While it may be a precursor, we do already know that supply-side policies like putting a time-lock on the door is a remedy. Note also that the door would be locked for industry to hire from the government agencies.

Revolving door people are no better apprised of "the issues at hand" than someone with a (e.g.) buy-side foundation. That's one of the places where you filter out alternatives, by assuming that the revolving door candidates are the ones who "actually understand the issues."

You also continue to perpetuate the dichotomy you said you weren't making by refraining from even acknowledging a middle ground, so maybe this is just a case of mauvaise foi on your part and poo on me for engaging.

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

#283

Post by webmaven »

sroerick wrote: post #277
webmaven wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go: http://vodo.net https://archive.org/details/movies http://www.publicdomaintorrents.info

Hey do you know any more about Vodo? I can't quite figure out what their bundles are. Are the movies and music and games in the bundle CC? I see the Free Movies page but I'm unsure what the licensing terms for the bundle are.

I am mostly familiar with the original content they have like the show 'Pioneer 1'. I haven't ever tried their bundles.

Since they redesigned their site, it is very difficult to figure out what stuff they have released in the past, but Wikipedia and the Internet Archive can help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VODO

https://web.archive.org/web/20130129195347/http://vodo.net/f...

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

#284

Post by Ygg2 »

sroerick wrote: post #276
higherpurpose wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But look at the arguments being held up by both companies. Comcast is arguing that Netflix is trying to get Comcast to build its infrastructure. Netflix is arguing that Comcast is extorting them for their infrastructure. Both arguments assume that everything must be streamed, and the only reason for that is the DMCA and our copyright culture.

> DMCA and our copyright culture.

What's easier to fix DMCA or the Net Neutred?

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

#285

Post by grandalf »

randomfool wrote: post #112
grandalf wrote: post #101

I realize this view is controversial, but net neutrality is about as logical as arguing that all residential bandwidth should be dedicated symmetrical up/down. As content + routes become mainstream (the top 1-2% of bandwidth), the price of hosting them approaches the dedicated bandwidth price. This is because the usage pattern variability is arbitraged upstream of the ISP. Preferential QoS based on content source is…

Disagree that it's comparable to symmetrical up/down- the bandwidth my ISP charges me is irregardless of the direction. Your argument would be valid if I were only paying for data that I send, but I'm not. Why can't I tell my provider that I want to minimize the latency when playing a first-person shooter, and I'm willing to pay for it?

> Why can't I tell my provider that I want to minimize the latency when playing a first-person shooter, and I'm willing to pay for it?

You certainly can. Why can't Disney tell your provider it wants to maximize bandwidth for Disney content, and offer to pay for it on your behalf?

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

#286

Post by mfisher87 »

gfodor wrote: post #228
mfisher87 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Streaming is downloading. Your computer couldn't play it if it wasn't on your computer. The argument worth making here is that content on Netflix is generally watched once, or rarely. It would be trivial to not delete streamed data if that was a good solution to a problem.

"Streaming is downloading" What was the point of this? Is your reading comprehension so poor that you didn't understand "download" to mean "download in full before playback" in this context? Or are you just trying to score pedant points?

Ten days later, but the point to this was that if there was demand for keeping the full copy of "Half Baked" that I felt like watching once last year on my hard drive, implementing that sort of feature would be a DRM problem, not a "waiting for downloads" problem. If you can stream the show once, you can keep it on your hard drive without downloading any additional data. There is no "waiting for downloads" necessary.

Nice personal attacks though. I was only responding to what you wrote, which contributed nothing to the conversation btw. So that was probably a dumb idea on my part.

Post reply on HN