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

F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 452 posts

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#181

Post by warfangle »

rhino369 wrote: post #170
djrogers wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most municipalities grant monopolies to cable providers based on the theory that it's the only way to get someone to build and maintain the cable infrastructure. Granted monopolies do not allow for market forces...

Granting a monopoly to telecoms have been illegal for over 20 years, nationwide. It's just not profitable to lay a second or third network. It's a natural monopoly. In fact, it's a coincidence that we have two networks in teh US. The telecom and the cable company.

> Granting a monopoly to telecoms have been illegal for over 20 years, nationwide.

Unfortunately, granting monopolies to information services is not illegal.....

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#182

Post by magila »

dublinben wrote: post #133
ancap wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a libertarian who knows tech, I'm on the government's side here That's an oxymoron. The core reason internet service sucks for the vast majority of Americans is because state and local governments grant monopoly status to the ISP cartels. This move by the FCC does nothing to remedy that and consequently will not solve the problem. If they require higher "standard" of internet without doing away with the monopolie…

There are no government granted ISP monopolies.

There are no de jure ISP monopolies, but municipalities routinely demand franchise terms which only the incumbent provider could possibly satisfy (100% coverage, large up-front fees, etc).

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#183

Post by thissideup »

thissideup wrote: post #5

Yeah the government's goal is totally a "free and open Internet." Except that part of the government dedicated to vacuuming up and storing and analyzing every signal from every network-enabled device on the planet.

It would be more accurate to say that regulation is an avenue for legitimizing surveillance.

It's purpose is to turn an unconstitutional program into a legal system for enforcing regulatory compliance.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#184

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

skylan_q wrote: post #107
dkhenry wrote: post #94

I understand the desire to regulate the internet as a utility, but are they going to actually regulate it like a utility or are they going to call it a common carrier and then just make up a few BS rules that need to be followed. I have a sinking feeling that all this will result in is a situation where monopolies are given out to the existing players and no one is forced to do anything to upgrade the existing servic…

I have a sinking feeling that all this will result in is a situation where monopolies are given out to the existing players and no one is forced to do anything to upgrade the existing service. It's naive to think it would be anything but this. We like the Internet as it is today but for some reason we need to have the FCC control it in order to try to keep it the way it is.

>We like the Internet as it is today

Who likes the way things are? I'd like it a lot better if it was more like in Japan, Korea, Latvia, Hungary, Finland, Sweden, France, ...etc.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#185

Post by logn »

cubano wrote: post #157

I think the radio analogy is spot on, and I really believe that the endgame to all this government interest may very well be the same sort of regulatory control that the FCC now imposes in radio stations and content via the [1] Communications Act of 1934. This can easily been seen as a power grab by plutocrats who want to start filtering and controlling the money making and informational aspect of the web, and while…

The FCC is able to regulate broadcast content because the courts found it constitutional due to the pervasive nature. Reclassification of ISPs does not affect the pervasiveness.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#186

Post by nemo »

emcrazyone wrote: post #148
emcrazyone wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is a ridiculous comparison. You can't compare water, gas, and electrics to the likes of providing Internet. Gas, electric, water are either on or off. Internet connections come with tons of setup pitfalls. A bad DNS can make it appear your Internet is out in one way, while a broken cable inside the house can make it look broken another way and a virus on a computer is another. It's just not a simple check and yo…

I can except down votes; I just know it's folks who don't know how an ISP works - sort of a personal indicator of how ill informed a lot of people are on how things really work. I actually own two companies. One is an ISP and the other is a PCO (Private Cable Operator) where I provide Internet over DOCSIS along with CableTV. I also have had experience dealing with right of way like utilities for putting fiber in the…

The real answer is that you're assuming the wrong thing.

Yes, networks are complex and require skilled techs to keep running, but that's completely irrelevant to the F.C.C. classifying Internet access under Title II. ISPs will not have any notable new burdens regarding customer service/support/troubleshooting, but will have restrictions on being permitted to engage in a few predatory practices.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#187

Post by kyrra »

Does anyone know if this would impact the issues we saw between Netflix, Level3 and Verizon? My understanding of the original issues with Netflix and Verizon was that the interconnect between Netflix's peering company (Level 3) and Verizon wasn't big enough to handle the bandwidth that Netflix was attempting to pump out.

In this case, Verizon was just refusing to upgrade that path and wanted to force Netflix to connect with them directly (get them to pay more money in some way.

Is that the general problem Netflix had with Verizon? If so, how would Title II help this situation? Does Title II require these various companies to maintain the interconnects between their networks and other companies out there?

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#188

Post by chc »

IanDrake wrote: post #165
chc wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From all I have heard, places with better-regulated ISPs or even municipal broadband (gasp!) tend to have better service. You seem to be grinding a political axe rather than considering what the evidence says about the real-world effect of this particular change. The simple fact is, getting approval to put your network somewhere is not only really expensive, but already heavily regulated, and this grants a de facto r…

>The simple fact is, getting approval to put your network somewhere is not only really expensive, but already heavily regulated Very true. How does adding more regulation make things better? Are you telling me that the new FCC ruling will make all those existing regulatory problems go away? If so, that might help. But if we agree the problem is regulation, I would hope we agree the solution can't be more regulation.

> Very true. How does adding more regulation make things better? Are you telling me that these new FCC ruling will make all those existing regulatory problems go away?

It could. For example, the FCC could force companies to lease their last-mile infrastructure out to competitors, which could add meaningful competition to the ISP space.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#189

Post by alchemism »

IanDrake wrote: post #66
freehunter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>market forces that encourage those improvements. Like a Comcast monopoly? You mean those market forces?

Comcast is not a monopoly. This is the sort of misunderstanding that I'm talking about. AT&T was a monopoly and the USPO is still a first class mail monopoly. I suspect Comcast is just the best option in your location and you're dissatisfied with it. Bummer for you, and I sincerely mean that. When industries get regulated by the government they get "protected". Protected from upstarts with new and better technology,…

That's playing semantic games though.

If someone wants broadband at their house and the only possible provider is Comcast, then to them it may as well be called a monopoly.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#190

Post by zenogais »

greggyb wrote: post #169

To me, net neutrality is pretty much a red herring. I have had good and bad internet service in my life. The least reliable was at my somewhat rural childhood home from TWC. The best is my current connection from that most reviled of companies, Comcast. I have had no service interruptions, and I get a reliable 50Mbps at all times of day (I check regularly with speed tests and checking Torrent activity). The reason my…

Unfortunately some things fall into the naturally monopoly category (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly). Figuring out what those are is an ongoing process. Government regulated industries get a bad rap these days - mostly because deregulation has been an ongoing fad for the last 30 years or so - but a lot of these have great track records. The California electricity crisis provides an instructive example of what kinds of effects deregulating an industry that was previously govt regulated can have - in short, significantly higher prices for badly degraded service [1]. Many of the proposed fixes are further govt intervention, but this time in the form of subsidies to businesses rather to incentivize necessary expansions rather than outright re-acquisition of the industry.

So in short, competition isn't necessarily always good and doesn't always produce better results. In addition, de-regulated industries aren't necessarily free from government intervention and are opened up to market manipulation and exploitation.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

Post reply on HN