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

381–390 of 452 posts

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

#381

Post by alexqgb »

joelhaus wrote: post #356
alexqgb wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spectrum auctions (the costs of which are passed on to the winning telco's customers) are not only a tax, they're a tax that gets marked-up by a private company before being collected.

Very skillful framing of spectrum auctions as a tax. Would love to see this view pushed more widely, as society would reap some serious benefits... primarily large swathes of unlicensed spectrum. In a light-touch regulatory framework, this could lead to innovation leaps. If anyone is familiar with the economics of Coase (generally credited with devising the spectrum auction scheme), would love to read some good count…

Thanks for the kind words. To be honest, this framing doesn't seem skillful at all. It seems screamingly obvious (at least to me). What I can't figure out is why this view should need so much pushing in the first place.

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

#382

Post by WillPostForFood »

lomnakkus wrote: post #338
WillPostForFood wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tr…

Choice means more providers to choose from. Net neutrality is about the content on the wire. If it reduces congestion between Netflix and Comcast, great. But it still means people choose between slow DSL and expensive Cable. What will help is a third, fourth, and fifth options, and this doesn't help.

You don't need to be angry about it, no one is astroturfing, and no one spat on your mom. - grab a cold danish beer and enjoy one of your 5 broadband providers. Wish I had either option.

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

#383

Post by fpgeek »

MCRed wrote: post #355
shmerl wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would want to be negative about it except monopolists' shills who are paid to do it?

People who recognize that the internet has been a free market for most of its existence, and has consequently resulted in a massive economic boom. Without which, by the way, there would not be the startup culture we have now. (prior to the internet it was all semiconductors.) YC people here are advocating literally killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Do I sound like a shill for comcast? If so, you're not real…

> People who recognize that the internet has been a free market for most of its existence

Really? ARPANET and NSFNET were big free market bastions, were they?

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

#384

Post by dang »

lomnakkus wrote: post #287
MCRed wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are there only one or two ISPs in your area? Because of regulation. Cable companies are government granted monopoly. The reason you don't have cable choice is that monopoly. Local phone service, similar thing, though regulations have opened up long distance access, only one company has the infrastructure. Wireless Broadband, similar thing, artificial scarcity created by regulation (spread spectrum would support h…

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?

> Stop spewing bullshit.

> How's that astroturfing going for you?

Personal attacks are not ok on Hacker News. Please stop.

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

#385

Post by aninhumer »

eigenvector wrote: post #144
skylan_q wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll have to agree to this. Electricity is electricity, water is water, natural gas is natural gas. But Internet traffic isn't a homogenous substance.

There are certainly detailed technical regulations about what type of electricity and water your utility must provide.

Indeed, the very fact that someone can say "water is water", shows just how successful regulation has been in that market.

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

#386

Post by pekk »

shmerl wrote: post #316
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…

Who would want to be negative about it except monopolists' shills who are paid to do it?

One of the two major political parties has a stronger interest in reducing government regulation across the board to give corporations greater scope, even if that means stronger monopolies. You don't have to assume paid shills to get this outcome.

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

#387

Post by aninhumer »

MCRed wrote: post #299
gglitch wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this argument a lot but it seems specious to me - though anyone can voluntarily overpay their taxes, the lack of a guarantee that other taxpayers will similarly be contributing more means that my personal overcontribution will be meaningless to everyone but me.

Right, the advocates for increased taxation don't want to pay more themselves-- they could do that now-- they want the other guy to pay more. How they think this won't make them poorer as well shows they aren't really thinking it thru.

There's a difference between throwing money at the government, and contributing my share as part of a larger tax system.

Unwillingness to do the former does not equate to unwillingness to do the latter.

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

#388

Post by dooptroop »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #349
rayiner wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The cable franchise agreements are exclusive. That's why you don't see two companies offering cable service. If they weren't you other companies would compete. Nope.[1] Exclusive franchise agreements are illegal under federal law since 1996. There is no competition because the business proposition sucks. The only sensible play in most places is to try and target a niche market of wealthy neighborhoods that'll pay f…

Some municipalities limit the structure of the entity offering the service however (eg. cannot be substantially and exclusively owned by the ratepayers, or their agent(s)), however the FCC seems to be working on getting those restrictions thrown out.

"... cannot be substantially and exclusively owned by the ratepayers ..."

Does that sentence mean that it's illegal for a municipality to form co-ops, and then for example lay their own fiber and then share the costs equally?

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

#389

Post by donatj »

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…

You have no complaints about your utilities sure but when was the last time home phone for instance did anything new. Have you ever been excited about your power? I know I've been excited about my internet. Regulation just stands in the way of change.

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

#390

Post by greggyb »

__david__ wrote: post #375
greggyb wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government did indeed fail to protect most of us from living under a broadband monopoly. In most cases by municipal governments granting exclusive franchises to cable (television) providers who have become our ISPs. The solution to such an exclusive contract is not to prohibit rate-limiting, but to allow competitors to enter the market. Access to utility poles, granting rights-of-way to lay wire, or if positive a…

> The solution to such an exclusive contract is not to prohibit rate-limiting, but to allow competitors to enter the market. I don't understand why it is an either-or proposition. Seems to me the correct action is to do both.

I have yet to see a convincing argument that prohibiting rate-limiting will increase competition among ISP providers.

Further, I think it's fairly obvious what I think of our government's likelihood to get any regulation regarding ISPs right. I prefer to limit the surface area of potential mistakes.

Finally, I haven't seen evidence of significant rate-limiting in areas with multiple ISPs. If this is the case, then increased competition on its own gets us both what we see as the ideal solution, whereas making rate-limiting illegal only gets you part of the way to what you want.

I am using personal pronouns conversationally, not in belief that you and I are the only people with either of these positions.

Post reply on HN