F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by alexqgb » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 9:29 PM UTC

dkhenry wrote: post #80

skywhopper wrote: post #14

The major critique quoted here comes from David Farber of Carnegie-Mellon, who worries that classifying Internet access under Title II will allow it to be taxed. If that's the worst thing you can think of, we're in good shape.

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Yes, and the power to drive a car is the power to commit vehicular manslaughter. The question is not whether a driver can use this power to kill. It's whether they are actually using this power to kill.

Needless to say, not evey tax is destructive, just as not every driver is a deadly menace who needs to be gotten of the road a.s.a.p.

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

#232

Post by chez17 » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 9:31 PM UTC

nkw wrote: post #207

skywhopper wrote: post #14

The major critique quoted here comes from David Farber of Carnegie-Mellon, who worries that classifying Internet access under Title II will allow it to be taxed. If that's the worst thing you can think of, we're in good shape.

That isn't the worst by a long shot. I'm all for net neutrality, but Title II classification for ISPs really worries me. I was co-founder of a VOIP startup in 2003, and a significant percentage of our time and resources was spent dealing with how the service was going to be classified for purposes of the Telecom Act. A bunch of the states were wanting to regulate VOIP providers as telephone companies, the FCC was on…

>It is essentially giving up and saying we are going to live with Internet access being run by monopolies like the power company. It puts us back to the Bell System in 1982, and that makes me sad.

What do you think we have now? A robust ecosystem of carriers?

Also, your post sounds a lot like you don't want Title II because you'll have to comply with regulations and you don't like the current system because instead of complying with regulations you found a loop hole and then the ISPs found a loop hole to throttle you. This whole post sounds like why it's bad for you and provides no reason why it would be bad for the vast majority of people.

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

#233

Post by WillPostForFood » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 9:34 PM UTC

lbenes wrote: post #202

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…

Yes, of course if most American were as lucky as you, net neutrality wouldn't be an issue. But the reality is that most of us are under a monopoly.[1] And it will take years and billions of dollars in infrastructure to enable the kind of competition that you are already enjoying. After suffering under Comcast's Netflix throttling last year, I don't want to hear utopian talk about encouraging competition. I want laws…

There is a real problem with lack of choice, slow build out, etc... You are clearly affected, and want action, but what makes you think this is going to help? Net neutrality is great, but it isn't going to speed things up, it isn't going to increase competition. Arguably, it will slow them down as companies invest less in infrastructure because they perceive it as less profitable.

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

#234

Post by ANTSANTS » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 9:40 PM UTC

cheald wrote: post #91

amputect wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My tap water is clean and delicious and I have never, ever had a problem with it. I have never experienced an unscheduled service interruption with my water, and scheduled service interruptions are very rare and advertised well in advance. My electricity is stable and reliable, and any power outages I've experienced have been brief, and exclusively due to exceptional weather events. I'm also a Comcast customer, and I…

Comparing Title II utilities to water and electricity is silly. How happy are you with your landline telephone and cable TV services? You know, the ones that everyone hates and is replacing with internet-carried alternatives?

I don't know of anyone that has ever experienced any kind of technical problem with their landline telephone or cable TV services. Rather, you pretty much need a cell phone and (to a much lesser extent) a home internet connection to participate in society today, and the marginal utility from having a separate home line or a cable TV service in addition to those services is not enough to justify the cost for most people.

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

#235

Post by WillPostForFood » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 9:41 PM UTC

jchendy wrote: post #210

TheHypnotist wrote: post #179

One part of me hates this because the idea of our government dipping their hands into what has become the major source of information, entertainment, conducting business, etc. is quite scary. We all know their tendency to fuck things up because of politics, money, stupidity, or a combination of any and all of these. On the other hand, I look at my other utilities and realize I have absolutely no complaints. Yeah, the…

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm honestly curious: why is pay-for-use bad for internet access but okay for water, electricity, and phone?

Pay for use for water and electricity is good because the resources are finite, and you want to conserve them. The advantage of unlimited internet use is it promotes the creation of services that need more bandwidth.

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

#236

Post by lbenes » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 9:43 PM UTC

greggyb wrote: post #218

lbenes wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course if most American were as lucky as you, net neutrality wouldn't be an issue. But the reality is that most of us are under a monopoly.[1] And it will take years and billions of dollars in infrastructure to enable the kind of competition that you are already enjoying. After suffering under Comcast's Netflix throttling last year, I don't want to hear utopian talk about encouraging competition. I want laws…

The point of my post is not "Hooray for me!", but was to point out that my good service comes from competition, and that the focus on rate-limiting of net neutrality is just a red herring. The thing with regulation is that it is pernicious, and once created becomes very difficult to get rid of. Let's walk through a hypothetical: Rate-limiting becomes illegal today, and simultaneously some arbitrarily effective incent…

> New entrants are trying to compete in the market place. One proven effective way to gain a foothold in a market with entrenched players is to offer a loss leader.

We could more than make up for this hypothetical disadvantage by regulating the big players to share their last mile infrastructure like we've done with cell towers and land lines. A MUCH bigger issue than ISPs startups is that the next Facebook, Twitter, or Netflix will never even get their chance because they can't compete on an Internet that doesn't offer net neutrality. Netflix paid off Comcast for their "high speed track". But no small startup could have afforded this extortion.

> The thing with regulation is that it is pernicious

Yes, regulations and big government suck. I get it. But how do you propose to fix the deeper problem that we're mostly all living under a monopoly? How long will this take?

> You aren't upset because Comcast offers _a_ plan that throttles Netflix, rather you are upset that you did not choose that plan.

Yes, I don't have a choice. Thanks again for the reminder. So what's you solution again? You remind me of my family in Florida calling to today to tell me how bad the snowstorm is outside my house. Wouldn't it be so much better if we all lived in Florida with multiple broadband ISPs to choice from?

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

#237

Post by zkhalique » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 9:43 PM UTC

The real solution to all this is more competition. Stop the states from suing cities to prevent them from implementing municipal fiber. Open up the field to companies like Google to come in and partner with cities who can provide the last mile, competing with businesses. Even libertarians should say, "well, a city is a large organization and a giant corporation is a large organization, and both are kind of monopolies at this point..."

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

#238

Post by alexqgb » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 9:43 PM UTC

skylan_q wrote: post #104

dkhenry wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

I don't understand how people can disagree with this. He's perfectly correct. How often does one cite the price of cigarettes to quit smoking them?

It's not that he's incorrect. It's that his observation is generalized to the point of being a useless distraction from this particular conversation. Had he indicated how the potentially destructive power of taxation is actually being used destructively and deliberately in this particular case, he'd have said something knowledgeable and interesting. But of course, that's not what happened.

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

#239

Post by lkbm » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 9:45 PM UTC

xamuel wrote: post #167

nickff wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree entirely, it is comparable to a power outage (, which happens quite often both at my residence and place of work).

Do you live in a jungle or something? Everywhere I've ever lived, including California during the Enron scandal , power outages were an order of magnitude less common than (non-power-outage-related) internet outages.

My power outages here in Austin seem to be around a couple per year. I think my Internet outages (outside of those resulting from me not having power) are less frequent, though I don't have logs checking.

Now, my Internet being slow...that's not uncommon at all. I've also had them randomly charge me an extra $50 "by mistake", as well directly and repeatedly lying to me about what services/packages are available.

I'm in central Austin, and so ready for Google Fiber. My parents live out in the middle of nowhere, and Internet outages are quite common for them, easily exceeding power outages.

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

#240

Post by marcosdumay » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 9:46 PM UTC

jkn wrote: post #221

Pretty impressed with the negativity here. Just a year ago, I remember all the stories on HN with people lamenting that the FCC doesn't have the guts to regulate broadband as a utility under title II [1,2,3] (admittedly with a minority speaking against title II, most prominently rayiner, whose comments I generally look forward to for an interesting contrarian view). Y Combinator even published an open letter[4]. Quot…

Look at it this way:

People that want FCC to classify ISPs as a utility got what they want, and are pretty secure that things won't change, so they stopped making noise. People that don't want it didn't got what they want, and are at the last moments they can do something before it's definitive, so they are making a LOT of noise.