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

FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 437 posts

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#111

Post by evanb »

innguest wrote: post #62
evanb wrote: post #45

I violated Responsible Reading Of The Internet Rule #1 and accidentally looked at the comments. I am having a hard time reconciling the vehement anti-net-neutrality anti-government hair-on-fire screaming there with the reasoned discussion and general attitude here---I would have thought the majority of readers of Wired would be of similar mind to HN readers.

You thought Wired readers were as naive and as communist as you and you're disappointed they are smarter and more cynical. Boo. Hoo. There's no reasoned discussion in HN as discussions get downvoted. There's only a huge circle back-patting which your comment is a part of.

Well that's the first time I've been called a communist!

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#112

Post by gnoway »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #66
supergeek133 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stuff like that is pretty interesting to me too. It's also a nice real-world description of why there is little to no competition in the market. The only reason Google accomplished it is by throwing money at the problem and laying new infrastructure, bypassing the existing in most cases. The barrier to entry of a competitor is so high from the infra cost alone.

It's said a lot that infrastructure cost is the barrier to entry but I don't think that's true. Tacking cable to telephone poles is not terribly expensive. There's no good reason a great many households couldn't have two or three different cables running past their homes. As I understand it the issue is the local governments that issue permits for such things are bought off by the providers. It's a problem of corrupt…

There may be corruption involved, but the infrastructure costs are not imaginary.

Modern cable infrastructure is not a big coaxial cable strung along telephone poles. It's often buried fiber with media conversion for a local loop. Either way it costs money to roll out, and where poles are involved there are ongoing leasing fees for those.

This is only part of the infrastructure anyway. You've still got all the routing, switching, media conversion, etc. to make that cable do something useful.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#114

Post by jaynos »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #66
supergeek133 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stuff like that is pretty interesting to me too. It's also a nice real-world description of why there is little to no competition in the market. The only reason Google accomplished it is by throwing money at the problem and laying new infrastructure, bypassing the existing in most cases. The barrier to entry of a competitor is so high from the infra cost alone.

It's said a lot that infrastructure cost is the barrier to entry but I don't think that's true. Tacking cable to telephone poles is not terribly expensive. There's no good reason a great many households couldn't have two or three different cables running past their homes. As I understand it the issue is the local governments that issue permits for such things are bought off by the providers. It's a problem of corrupt…

Many areas don't have telephone poles. Digging trenches and ripping up roads to lay cable is where that gets more expensive.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#115

Post by dragonwriter »

sp332 wrote: post #33
mikecb wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have a veto-proof majority.

Congress only needs a simple majority to prevent a bill from being passed in the first place. It will never hit the President's desk.

> Congress only needs a simple majority to prevent a bill from being passed in the first place.

Yes, but the bills that needs to be passed were already passed (most significantly in 1934 and 1996.)

In order to stop the FCC taking this action under existing law, Congress would have to pass a new bill, which mean that the filibuster in the Senate and veto by the President are real issues.

Wheeler isn't proposing a new law, he is proposing an exercise of the FCC's regulatory authority under existing law.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#116

Post by wnevets »

remarkEon wrote: post #103
innguest wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You thought Wired readers were as naive and as communist as you and you're disappointed they are smarter and more cynical. Boo. Hoo. There's no reasoned discussion in HN as discussions get downvoted. There's only a huge circle back-patting which your comment is a part of.

So did you have a thoughtful, reasoned argument against this proposal or what?

"government bad, me sad"

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#117

Post by colinbartlett »

evanb wrote: post #45

I violated Responsible Reading Of The Internet Rule #1 and accidentally looked at the comments. I am having a hard time reconciling the vehement anti-net-neutrality anti-government hair-on-fire screaming there with the reasoned discussion and general attitude here---I would have thought the majority of readers of Wired would be of similar mind to HN readers.

I highly recommend this Chrome extension:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/shut-up/oklfoejikk...

Basically hides the comments on every site unless you enable them. It's a little aggressive and sometimes if you notice something weird on a site you just need to disable it for that site.

But it honestly improves the entire internet experience exponentially.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#118

Post by sp332 »

michael_h wrote: post #80
droopybuns wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvoting statements that are accurate and contribute to the discussion is a hallmark of this topic. Hacker news cannot have useful discussion here because it's all orthodoxy. I always marvelled at historical hatred between protestants and catholics during and prior to the enlightenment. I now realize that this is a symptom of human nature. Humans apparently have to hate the other guys no matter what. In the past it…

Wow. It is an accurate assessment of how our legislative system works, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The FCC is not putting a bill up for a vote by congress, they are proposing telecommunications rules that an internal commission will vote on.

johncp brought up Congress, not me. I'm just pointing out that vetos aren't relevant (although mikecb's clarification helped). So why am I getting downvoted instead?

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#119

Post by orthecreedence »

innguest wrote: post #62
evanb wrote: post #45

I violated Responsible Reading Of The Internet Rule #1 and accidentally looked at the comments. I am having a hard time reconciling the vehement anti-net-neutrality anti-government hair-on-fire screaming there with the reasoned discussion and general attitude here---I would have thought the majority of readers of Wired would be of similar mind to HN readers.

You thought Wired readers were as naive and as communist as you and you're disappointed they are smarter and more cynical. Boo. Hoo. There's no reasoned discussion in HN as discussions get downvoted. There's only a huge circle back-patting which your comment is a part of.

Weird, I didn't know protecting free speech was considered communist now. It's almost like I need a personal "American Culture Consultant" to stay on top of all these shifting rules.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#120

Post by mark-r »

dragonwriter wrote: post #73
gtaylor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the most likely possibility is that the telcos attack this to the point where it gets de-fanged or turned away entirely. Part of congress is already mobilizing against this movement.

Opponents of net neutrality can probably get a majority in the House, but probably not a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and in any case not veto-proof in either House, which, given that the President has made this publicly a priority, limits the prospect for any legislative rollback.

New elections for a President and 1/3 of the Senate are less than 2 years away.
Post reply on HN