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

One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

sunlightfoundation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#31

Post by knightofmars »

rayiner wrote: post #17
uxp wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting reading some of the form letters in opposition. Here's an excerpt. Regulating the Internet would be a job killer. All those who are employed as tech support, companies that make and deploy servers, routers, coax and fiber-optic cable will suffer job losses if the FCC chases billions of dollars of investments away by regulating Internet services as if they were a public utility. Every time Washington…

None of that is a lie, it's just looking at particular pieces of the overall issue. Obamacare has cost a lot of people their (existing, non-ACA compliant) plans, and it has raised the cost of insurance for other people. That's inevitable with the ACA: covering people with pre-existing conditions, etc, means some people will pay more (particularly younger people). I think the ACA is a good thing, by the way, but I'm n…

I think you hit the nail slightly off center with, "...people aren't going to spend a bunch of money hiring people to build things unless there is a potential for a big payout at the end." Verizon and all other ISPs will make money and lots of it, period. Whether or not they make insane profits or more insane profits is what investors are looking at. Also, in regards to building infrastructure they already play games when reporting how much they've spent upgrading and maintaining infrastructure. Why would they do that? Because they know that the total amount is so ridiculously small when compared with their profits that they'll be laughed at if they try to make it a reason against regulation.

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#33

Post by uxp »

rayiner wrote: post #17
uxp wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting reading some of the form letters in opposition. Here's an excerpt. Regulating the Internet would be a job killer. All those who are employed as tech support, companies that make and deploy servers, routers, coax and fiber-optic cable will suffer job losses if the FCC chases billions of dollars of investments away by regulating Internet services as if they were a public utility. Every time Washington…

None of that is a lie, it's just looking at particular pieces of the overall issue. Obamacare has cost a lot of people their (existing, non-ACA compliant) plans, and it has raised the cost of insurance for other people. That's inevitable with the ACA: covering people with pre-existing conditions, etc, means some people will pay more (particularly younger people). I think the ACA is a good thing, by the way, but I'm n…

Agreed, actually. None of that was an outright lie. I spoke impulsively.

It's a lie in the sense that it takes all the benefits out of the fact. The ACA will cost many people more money, especially if they were not paying for any health insurance to begin with, but it will also help many more than those that will have to pay more be healthier. Same with telecoms: regulating last-mile networks as a dumb pipe isn't going to magically take all the profits out of consumer internet service. Verizon has been using their utility privilege (public right of way and private property allowance) in rolling out FiOS since their regulated landline falls under Title II, but their broadband falls under Title I, yet both run over the exact same wire. Moreover, cellular voice was put under Title II in 1993 with forbearance from regulations that applied to landline service, and that industry is not struggling to keep it's doors open, nor is it encumbered from some draconian price cap. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act already gives the FCC the capability to impose price caps on broadband providers to encourage network infrastructure growth as a means to an end, not as the end. The only harm that could come about from Title II to the carriers is the interconnect methods (peering), but when the FCC drafted reclassification in 2010, Section 251 was noticeably absent, and there has been no mention of that from the FCC since.

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#34

Post by mikeyouse »

In what I'm sure is just a coincidence, the group bragging about 'winning' the comment period (who are a notorious Koch front group: http://i.imgur.com/YE4kpt1.png) just happened to have written a legal opinion to the FTC in support of the Comcast / TWC merger as well:

[Warning, .RTF file download since Imgur is down, page 196:] http://www.shareholder.com/visitors/activeedgardoc.cfm?f=rtf...

Excited to see which new donors show up in their 2014 financial filings.

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#35

Post by rayiner »

knightofmars wrote: post #31
rayiner wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that is a lie, it's just looking at particular pieces of the overall issue. Obamacare has cost a lot of people their (existing, non-ACA compliant) plans, and it has raised the cost of insurance for other people. That's inevitable with the ACA: covering people with pre-existing conditions, etc, means some people will pay more (particularly younger people). I think the ACA is a good thing, by the way, but I'm n…

I think you hit the nail slightly off center with, "...people aren't going to spend a bunch of money hiring people to build things unless there is a potential for a big payout at the end." Verizon and all other ISPs will make money and lots of it, period. Whether or not they make insane profits or more insane profits is what investors are looking at. Also, in regards to building infrastructure they already play games…

I'm not sure what numbers you're looking at. The ISP business isn't that profitable. The biggest pure cable companies are TWC, Cox, and Charter. Cox is privately-held, so we don't have information about their finances, but Charter is losing money. TWC has almost 3x the revenue of Facebook, but only marginally higher net income.[1] Moreover, the pure ISP business is even less profitable. Both TWC and Charter would be $1-2 billion per year in the red if you eliminated their video programming revenues and associated costs. Verizon's FiOS is apparently profitable on an operating basis, but there is question whether the company will be able to recoup its capital costs: http://ipcarrier.blogspot.com/2014/05/would-verizon-recover-...

[1] It's very profitable when your users generate your content for free, and you can shift tax liability overseas.

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#36

Post by themartorana »

refurb wrote: post #23
themartorana wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Republican Party and to a greater extent, the Tea Party, have mobilized a mostly-white, mostly-male, mostly-middle-to-lower-class pool of voters who are in many cases irrational - voting against their better interests in the name of conviction, mostly based on race and religion. It's why there is constant saber-rattling about "wedge issues" like abortion and "takers" despite a significant portion of Tea Party vot…

mostly-white, mostly-male, mostly-middle-to-lower-class This is a laughable statement. Let me address each point directly. During the last election, 33% of Hispanics voted for the Republican party[1]. 44% of women voted Republican[2]. And "mostly lower to middle class"? I though the Republican's were the party of the rich? Who do the rich vote for then? I strongly suggest you take a more open-minded approach to polit…

I invite you to read the article I posted before commenting next time.

I also invite you to understand that 33% in politics is a huge minority. 67% of Hispanics voting Democrat, in an election, make the Democrats the clear winner of that particular demographic.

Finally, the "rich" are the top 10%, or 1%, or even 0.1% based on what particular income inequality chart you're looking at, leaving the entire bottom >=90% available for the demographics I mentioned.

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#37

Post by refurb »

themartorana wrote: post #36
refurb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mostly-white, mostly-male, mostly-middle-to-lower-class This is a laughable statement. Let me address each point directly. During the last election, 33% of Hispanics voted for the Republican party[1]. 44% of women voted Republican[2]. And "mostly lower to middle class"? I though the Republican's were the party of the rich? Who do the rich vote for then? I strongly suggest you take a more open-minded approach to polit…

I invite you to read the article I posted before commenting next time. I also invite you to understand that 33% in politics is a huge minority. 67% of Hispanics voting Democrat, in an election, make the Democrats the clear winner of that particular demographic. Finally, the "rich" are the top 10%, or 1%, or even 0.1% based on what particular income inequality chart you're looking at, leaving the entire bottom >=90% a…

33% Hispanic and 44% women (I noticed you didn't address that), don't constitute "mostly white and mostly male".

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#38

Post by themartorana »

refurb wrote: post #37
themartorana wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I invite you to read the article I posted before commenting next time. I also invite you to understand that 33% in politics is a huge minority. 67% of Hispanics voting Democrat, in an election, make the Democrats the clear winner of that particular demographic. Finally, the "rich" are the top 10%, or 1%, or even 0.1% based on what particular income inequality chart you're looking at, leaving the entire bottom >=90% a…

33% Hispanic and 44% women (I noticed you didn't address that), don't constitute "mostly white and mostly male".

I said the Republican and Tea Parties are predominantly white male. When you show me that minority amounts of women and minorities voted Republican, it only reinforces my point that the Republican and Tea Party bases are predominantly white and male.

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#39

Post by refurb »

themartorana wrote: post #38
refurb wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

33% Hispanic and 44% women (I noticed you didn't address that), don't constitute "mostly white and mostly male".

I said the Republican and Tea Parties are predominantly white male. When you show me that minority amounts of women and minorities voted Republican, it only reinforces my point that the Republican and Tea Party bases are predominantly white and male.

You and I have different interpretations of minority. Apparently 44% women is regarded as a "small share"?!?

Re: One group dominates the second round of net neutrality comments

#40

Post by themartorana »

refurb wrote: post #39
themartorana wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said the Republican and Tea Parties are predominantly white male. When you show me that minority amounts of women and minorities voted Republican, it only reinforces my point that the Republican and Tea Party bases are predominantly white and male.

You and I have different interpretations of minority. Apparently 44% women is regarded as a "small share"?!?

Statistically speaking, that's a 12 point spread - 44% and 56%. Indeed, that's huge in politics. Most modern Presidential elections are won with 52-53% of the popular vote at best. [0]

Hispanics, as you noted, are over a 30 point spread.

So politically speaking, having only 44% of the female vote and still winning requires a very large (political) majority of voters voting Republican to be male. Add to that age, and again we're seeing clearly that old white men are the key demographic. [1]

It's not that you and I see percentages differently. It's the political significance of the margins that define the argument.

[0] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_preside...

[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/05/as-gop-celeb...

Post reply on HN