Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 343 posts

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#211

Post by dragonwriter »

sinak wrote: post #139
dragonwriter wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are reading it correctly. And the NYT seems to be reporting it correctly. While the text is not published yet anywhere I can see, the FCC fact sheet states that the proposal (direct quotes with only formatting/presentation changes) [1]: - Proposes to retain the definitions and scope of the 2010 rules, which governed broadband Internet access service providers, but not services like enterprise services, Internet t…

It's important to note that the FCC is avoiding dealing with the peering issue (so, for example, Netflix's issue) with their current proposal. Wheeler specifically said that they want to delay that part of the net neutrality debate until later. In my view that's a mistake.

I think that the concerns that the stated goals of this effort cannot be met without addressing peering is a concern that should certainly be raised in the comment period (I'm not sure I agree with it, but I'm sure that some of the people raising it have thought about it more than I have and can present an argument that lays out why that is the case so it can be evaluated.)

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#212

Post by rayiner »

politician wrote: post #163
rayiner wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those examples are funny, because, e.g. our water infrastructure is the subject of underinvestment to the tune of $55 billion a year: http://geospatial.blogs.com/geospatial/2011/12/asce-report-o... When you make an industry a public utility, and eliminate market-rate profit incentives, you get underinvestment, which is exactly what we see in water, power, etc: http://www.asce.org/failuretoact . You can talk all you w…

Investors and shareholders are not in favor of pouring billions of dollars a year into infrastructure either. That's why we're seeing this rent seeking behavior, and one reason why we have slower speeds than other modern nations. Yes, I am in favor of municipal fiber-to-the-home solutions paid for with public dollars given the critical importance of these "dumb pipes".

> Investors and shareholders are not in favor of pouring billions of dollars a year into infrastructure either.

Comcast spent $5.4 billion on capital expenditures in 2013: http://www.cmcsa.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=821438. TWC spent $3.2 billion: http://ir.timewarnercable.com/investor-relations/investor-ne....

Verizon and AT&T regularly top the list of companies with the highest U.S. capital expenditures, and Comcast and TWC are usually in the top 25: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-25-companies-investing-mo....

> That's why we're seeing this rent seeking behavior, and one reason why we have slower speeds than other modern nations.

Like? We compare quite favorably to countries like Canada and Australia, which have similar problems as we do with lack of density. According to Akamai's testing, we're in the top 10 worldwide for measured average connection speeds: http://www.akamai.com/dl/akamai/akamai-soti-q413.pdf?WT.mc_i... (page 19, Figure 20). Ookla's NetIndex puts us ahead of Canada and Australia, and only slightly behind the UK and Germany: http://www.netindex.com. Our Northeastern states, like New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which have density comparable to continental Europe, have average connection speeds comparable to France, the EU standout.

> Yes, I am in favor of municipal fiber-to-the-home solutions paid for with public dollars given the critical importance of these "dumb pipes".

You don't, because when public dollars are involved, you get "lowest common denominator" levels of investment. Comcast's average user uses 2-5 GB/month. If telecom infrastructure was provisioned according to these people voting, do you think the resulting level of investment would be at a level that would make the folks on HN happy?

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#213

Post by seanieb »

couchand wrote: post #204
seanieb wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are a very large contributor to Democratic politicians.

To be clear, the Democrat appointees are the ones pushing for a return to net neutrality.

Factually acurate. And what do Obama & Congressional and Senate Democrats have to say about it? at most feigning some concern, but ultimately doing nothing. They don't care net neutrality, having somewhat plausible deniable and making Comcast, at&t et al happy is a win win for them.

Do you really think the FCC chairman would do this or be able to do this against Obamas wishes?

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#214

Post by cookiecaper »

mortenjorck wrote: post #187
sinak wrote: post #81

The title and post are both quite misleading. The commissioners didn't approve Tom Wheeler's plan (to regulate the Internet under Section 706), but voted to go ahead with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and commenting period. Tom Wheeler stated multiple times that Title II classification is still on the table. There'll now be a 120 day commenting period; 60 days of comments from companies and the public, and then 6…

Ok. That's 120 days to make Title II a household word. Broadband's current classification as an information service, as if it's some sort of MovieFone for the 21st century, is so far removed from reality that the public should be in an uproar about it. Verizon itself has sought to classify its fiber buildouts under Title II so it can get fixed-rate access to existing right-of-way infrastructure, [1] on the technicali…

Michael Powell was himself the chairperson of the FCC not so long ago. I don't think there'd be much success waging a war against him.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#215

Post by marcosdumay »

twoodfin wrote: post #83
natdempk wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically the answer to this is yes. If Comcast spends all of this money to upgrade their network and the cost to the end user goes up for the better service, then there are really no problems here. That's basically how a market should work. That plan would actually encourage them to upgrade their networks over time and install things like fiber to meet the new demands of customers, instead of providing poor service…

The problem is that a network that can stream 20Mbit continuously to every customer (so they always can get the "advertised" bandwidth) would be absurdly expensive, and rates would have to go up accordingly. Why should someone who doesn't consume Netflix pay for this? Why should Comcast be afraid to sell you a 100MBit "bursty" connection (essentially the same kind of service they actually advertise now) because they'…

> The problem is that a network that can stream 20Mbit continuously to every customer would be absurdly expensive

Will it really? Because every time someone talks about ISP costs, they remark that what's expensive is the last mile. That's the entire reason ISPs claim to be so much more expensive than enterprize providers, so they need higher prices.

Now they claim that the backbone is the expensive part?

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#216

Post by [deleted] »

opendais wrote: post #207
rayiner wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The people at the FCC are saying the opposite of what they mean. No, net-neutrality proponents are saying the opposite of what they mean. They couch this in terms of "protecting the open internet." Except there never was an "open internet." Before the short-lived net neutrality regulations, cable companies were allowed to do whatever they wanted with their network. And that's true now that the regulations have been…

If the government blocks fair competition in a market [through controlling who can provide last mile connections by right of way], they need to provide regulation to enforce fairness on the other end [those that provide last mile connections can't pick and choose whose packets they carry and at what QoS]. There used to be counterweights involved [e.g. Comcast had to play ball fairly] which effectively forced neutrali…

[deleted]

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#217

Post by jeffasinger »

pit wrote: post #186
roc wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more like conditionally charging people more to drive on the roads that already exist, based on destination, rather than vehicle. And it's pretty easy to see where that could lead to discrimination.

This is exactly how toll roads work. You get on, and then pay when you get off based on how many miles travelled. So, if you were starting in New York City, it would cost a lot more to travel to Buffalo than it would to White Plains.

Let's say that roads out of residential areas are owned by some company named R, and the residents pay R a fee to get access to the main arteries.

Some roads are used more by people of some cultures than others, sometimes roads get congested when lots of people in one neighborhood are all trying to get to the same place at the same time.

Would it be discriminatory for R to spend more on upgrades to the roads to some locations than at other locations? What if all the roads that were best to get to Chinatown were completely neglected?

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#218

Post by dllthomas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #194
mortenjorck wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. That's 120 days to make Title II a household word. Broadband's current classification as an information service, as if it's some sort of MovieFone for the 21st century, is so far removed from reality that the public should be in an uproar about it. Verizon itself has sought to classify its fiber buildouts under Title II so it can get fixed-rate access to existing right-of-way infrastructure, [1] on the technicali…

> People should be holding signs outside the FCC building with "Title II" on them. Or, you know, submitting comments to the FCC answering the question explicitly raised in the call for comments as to whether Title II or Section 706 is the most appropriate authority for Open Internet regulations with clear, specific, and coherent reasons why Title II is the right answer and how it should be applied. The battle over ge…

Or both and more!

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#219

Post by rayiner »

mortenjorck wrote: post #187
sinak wrote: post #81

The title and post are both quite misleading. The commissioners didn't approve Tom Wheeler's plan (to regulate the Internet under Section 706), but voted to go ahead with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and commenting period. Tom Wheeler stated multiple times that Title II classification is still on the table. There'll now be a 120 day commenting period; 60 days of comments from companies and the public, and then 6…

Ok. That's 120 days to make Title II a household word. Broadband's current classification as an information service, as if it's some sort of MovieFone for the 21st century, is so far removed from reality that the public should be in an uproar about it. Verizon itself has sought to classify its fiber buildouts under Title II so it can get fixed-rate access to existing right-of-way infrastructure, [1] on the technicali…

You really do not want broadband classified under Title II. You will get the war you want, but it will be a war everyone loses.

Why do you think DSL is such a ghetto? It's because it's subject to a higher level of regulations, and nobody wants to invest money in such a highly-regulated industry: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Veriz....

Classifying cable broadband under Title II will definitely have the effect of killing Comcast and Time Warner's profit margins. Hooray! Your tribe wins, and the big evil telecom companies will be cut down to size!

Except the telecom companies make up 6 of the top 25 companies with the highest U.S. capital expenditures: http://news.investors.com/technology/091913-671712-institute.... You think they're going to keep pouring all that money into low-margin heavily-regulated infrastructure? No, they'll do what Goldman wants and divest themselves of regulated business lines, and take that money and put it into a profitable business sector.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#220

Post by rayiner »

adventured wrote: post #200
rayiner wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if people would get away from this nebulous message that mostly seems to benefit for-profit companies, and focus on issues like ensuring access for non-profits and educational organizations, that there would be a lot more bi-partisan traction. Right now, the optics, for those not invested in the issue, come across as being mostly about Comcast and Netflix bickering over profits.

If you focus the issue on non-profits and edu orgs, all the people trying to get this through will do is write a tiny little exclusion just for that concern (ie no slow lanes for non-profits). That's what they do every time there's a narrow concern raised against terrible legislation. It'll backfire big time, and waste valuable time.

First, you have the posture wrong. If there's no "terrible legislation" then Comcast and TWC can do whatever they want. What you're asking for is "terrible legislation" to keep them from doing whatever they want.

Second, at least to me, the non-profits and .edu orgs are the ones that implicate the most substantial public interest concerns. I don't really care about Netflix's profit margin.

Post reply on HN