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

331–340 of 452 posts

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

#331

Post by lomnakkus »

MCRed wrote: post #293
lomnakkus wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop spewing bullshit. I don't even live in the US. I have lots of choice. EDIT: Btw, love how two commenters pounced on my post immeditaely even though we're in a 280+ comment thread. How's that astroturfing going for you?

We're talking about the US government regulating a US industry. You say you live outside the USA and you have lots of choice and therefore what I say is "bullshit"? Really? That's your only attempt at an argument? Especially after you talk about your one or two possibly colluding providers? I think it's unfortunate that anti-intellectualiosm has become so prevalent that you feel comfortable with a post that consists…

Learn to read separate statements as separate. Oh, and I was only using my particular situation as an example from which, perhaps, the US could learn a little bit.

In my particular country of residence, industries (including ISPs) are regulated quite heavily, and I hope I might be forgiven for thinking that this might have something to do with the rampant lack of monopolies in the ISP sector (in my particular country).

(I readily acknowledge that my original post was perhaps a little hasty and inflammatory, but one gets tired of this shit.)

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

#332

Post by CamperBob2 »

gglitch wrote: post #328
CamperBob2 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we maybe try cutting back on optional trillion-dollar wars instead, and see how that goes? Just as a temporary experiment? If it doesn't work out, you can always raise my taxes later. When someone misuses their money, you shouldn't react by giving them even more. Really, is this such a radically-offensive position for me to take?

No of course not, and I'd like to see less tax money spent inefficiently as well. My point was simply that it's specious to tell any one advocate of increased taxation that they should just foot the bill out of their own private pocket. That's not the point of taxation.

What is the best way to answer people like that, then?

I think it's specious for him/her to ask other people to pay more money when the existing funds are being managed so badly. Clearly he/she wholeheartedly approves of the current Federal budget, but it's not valid to assume that the rest of us feel that way. It's just another case where people cut the government some slack that they'd never grant to a corporation.

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

#333

Post by [deleted] »

bequanna wrote: post #330
droopybuns wrote: post #227

Netflix traffic and some hypothetical future tech like Surgery-over-IP traffic should not be prioritized equally.

Yes they should. Usually, I don't like making the 'slippery slope' argument, but it is quite appropriate here. The dangers are real. We can allow nothing less than forcing IPSs to maintain complete neutrality on traffic type. In your scenario, an ISP will determine that an organization is using their internet connection for this high-priority operation. The ISP then realizes that they can essentially extort the surge…

[deleted]

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

#334

Post by droopybuns »

bequanna wrote: post #330
droopybuns wrote: post #227

Netflix traffic and some hypothetical future tech like Surgery-over-IP traffic should not be prioritized equally.

Yes they should. Usually, I don't like making the 'slippery slope' argument, but it is quite appropriate here. The dangers are real. We can allow nothing less than forcing IPSs to maintain complete neutrality on traffic type. In your scenario, an ISP will determine that an organization is using their internet connection for this high-priority operation. The ISP then realizes that they can essentially extort the surge…

You pay to guarantee availability. The urgency of netflix is not equivalent to a surgery. The netflix traffic is a threat to the surgery traffic.

The ISP doesn't extort- the customer pays for service guarantees. This is already what happens today in MPLS vpns.

Savvy technologists are going to demand guarantees that other tenants can't disrupt their service.

This is in no way a mafia-like protection scam. There is a certain allotment of bandwidth available at any given time at any given link. You can allow for reservations so that some tenants cannot encroach upon your guaranteed bandwidth for that link. This shit is already happening all the time on amazon aws, azure, google app engine, etc. These are not new concepts.

Mafia protection is- pay us or we take you down. What I'm describing is- you pay so that a netflix premier doesn't disrupt your service.

I'm having a hard time understanding how you can feel a service like cloudflare is not mafia-like protection.

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

#335

Post by [deleted] »

lomnakkus wrote: post #331
MCRed wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about the US government regulating a US industry. You say you live outside the USA and you have lots of choice and therefore what I say is "bullshit"? Really? That's your only attempt at an argument? Especially after you talk about your one or two possibly colluding providers? I think it's unfortunate that anti-intellectualiosm has become so prevalent that you feel comfortable with a post that consists…

Learn to read separate statements as separate . Oh, and I was only using my particular situation as an example from which, perhaps, the US could learn a little bit. In my particular country of residence, industries (including ISPs) are regulated quite heavily, and I hope I might be forgiven for thinking that this might have something to do with the rampant lack of monopolies in the ISP sector (in my particular countr…

[deleted]

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

#336

Post by lomnakkus »

MCRed wrote: post #293
lomnakkus wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop spewing bullshit. I don't even live in the US. I have lots of choice. EDIT: Btw, love how two commenters pounced on my post immeditaely even though we're in a 280+ comment thread. How's that astroturfing going for you?

We're talking about the US government regulating a US industry. You say you live outside the USA and you have lots of choice and therefore what I say is "bullshit"? Really? That's your only attempt at an argument? Especially after you talk about your one or two possibly colluding providers? I think it's unfortunate that anti-intellectualiosm has become so prevalent that you feel comfortable with a post that consists…

> "I think it's unfortunate that anti-intellectualiosm has become so prevalent that you feel...".

This has got to be the height of irony. See my posting history to see why you're Oh So very wrong.

Goodbye, I'll stop replying or acknowledging you from now on.

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

#337

Post by cypher543 »

greggyb wrote: post #283
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…

> Edit: Oh, and as long as censorship never becomes a thing. It is literally illegal to say certain words on television....

It is literally illegal to say certain words on free-to-air television between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

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

#338

Post by lomnakkus »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #286
lomnakkus wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because clearly one-or-two possibly-colluding ISPs in your particular area are driven existentially towards increasing the value for you , the customer. Get real. Besides, there's very little innovation in the actual IP layer anymore -- though, perhaps you could point to some? It's basically (by sheer domination) not displacable at this point. Hence QUIC and such things which could probably be done (even) better…

You are right, there is no competition without choice. That has nothing to do with net neutrality. If this was the "encourage more local competition" act, then Farber probably wouldn't be worrying. Setting aside innovation at the IP level, has your internet access improved over the years? Even in the Verizon/Time Warner duopoly I'm stuck in, I've gone from 768kb DSL to 10mb cable, to 75mb fios. Companies are driven e…

> You are right, there is no competition without choice. That has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Well, except it does. It has everything to do with NN. If you can't choose your ISP unless said ISP has agreements with, oh I don't know, the WB or Netflix or HBO (or whatever) then the competition has been stifled, or in terms your sponsors might understand better: freedoms have been curtailed. So, in short: Stop trying to mislead people.

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

#339

Post by mariodiana »

tomphoolery wrote: post #321
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…

"Politicians must think the tech community is a frustrating beast to work with." Smart people are less predictable than those they have been marketing to previously. The biggest downside to this decision comes from the following line: "But Tom Wheeler, the F.C.C. chairman, will advocate a light-touch approach to Title II, they say, shunning the more intrusive aspects of utility-style regulation, like meddling in pric…

> To me, this is proof they are still in bed with the ISPs

The established players are quite often in favor of regulation, since it stifles up-and-comers who might out-compete them.

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

#340

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

adventured wrote: post #308
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Serious question - how do the median consumer bandwidth speeds in the US compare to France?

According to [this](http://dailyinfographic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/the-b...) France is faster by a large margin.
Post reply on HN