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

231–240 of 343 posts

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#231

Post by anigbrowl »

IanDrake wrote: post #222
rayiner wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 definitel…

This is something most people don't seem to get. Government control == stagnation.

It's not that simple. Europe's telecom/broadband markets are heavily regulated and yet mobile and internet services are both cheaper and faster.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#232

Post by fixedd »

IanDrake wrote: post #222
rayiner wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 definitel…

This is something most people don't seem to get. Government control == stagnation.

Except in the cases where this wasn't the case.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#233

Post by anigbrowl »

rayiner wrote: post #219
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…

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 definitel…

It's not often you express such a vehement personal opinion. I would be interested to see your argument expanded into a longer article.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#234

Post by rayiner »

gph wrote: post #224
rayiner wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 definitel…

Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street. BTW that article showing how much capital they spent doesn't say what they actually spent that money on. My bet is most of it went to their cellular networks and other business interests. Their own data shows broadband investment has fallen[1]. Only 12 billion in the last 4 years. S…

> Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street.

When capital investment into broadband is set by vote, do you think you'll be happy with the resulting level of investment?

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#235

Post by anigbrowl »

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…

I wonder if this is anything to do with the fact that the Washington post is now owned by Jeff Bezos, who would be at a disadvantage if two-tier broadband increased the cost of things like Amazon Prime video.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#236

Post by rayiner »

sandstrom wrote: post #228
rayiner wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 definitel…

I find it interesting that broadband is so expensive in the US compared to many other countries. Population density is sometimes pointed to. It may be, but I also know that even many of the most rural parts of Norway and Sweden broadband [fiber] is prevalent. I would guess competition (and less lobbying) would improve things. Perhaps Google Fiber can shake things up. - http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24528383 - http…

The U.S. is not far behind Sweden in global average connection speeds: http://www.akamai.com/dl/akamai/akamai-soti-q413.pdf?WT.mc_i... (Page 19, Figure 20).

Sweden directly subsidized deployment of fiber in rural areas: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/the-broadband-gap-w.... It also required municipalities to build certain infrastructure, which is something the U.S. federal government lacks the power to do.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#237

Post by cantankerous »

IanDrake wrote: post #222
rayiner wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 definitel…

This is something most people don't seem to get. Government control == stagnation.

By "get" I think you mean "accept". I don't think most people accept it because the evidence does not overwhelmingly support this statement.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#238

Post by fixedd »

rayiner wrote: post #66
hpaavola wrote: post #22

I don't get this whole net neautrality discussion that is going on in US (and maybe somewhere else, just haven't paid attention). Consumers pay based on speed of their connection. If ISP feels like the consumers are not paying enough, raise the prices. Service providers (not ISPs, but the ones who run servers that consumers connect to) pay based on speed of their connection. If the ISP feels like service providers ar…

> Consumers pay based on speed of their connection. If ISP feels like the consumers are not paying enough, raise the prices. Imagine you build a road. Who benefits? Drivers, obviously. But also store owners, because customers can now get to their stores. It's equally legitimate to charge the driver, via tolls, or the stores they drive to (via special tax districts). If you charge only the driver, you tap into only pa…

Both parties are already paying. Netflix, as an example, isn't getting their bandwidth free, and neither are we.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#240

Post by grumpypants666 »

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…

Ha - you mean Former FCC Commissioner and now chair of industry lobby National Cable and Telecommunications Association, and obviously not corrupt, Michael Powell, ....
Post reply on HN