FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by supergeek133 » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:48 PM UTC

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #200

supergeek133 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some areas, that might be the case. But then there is routing, provisioning equipment, people to handle customer support, modems themselves, etc. Not to mention all the old wiring in everyone's house, especially in the city. Oh and if for some reason you actually do decide to invest in infrastructure, you get to fight local, city, county, AND state government for permits, taxes, etc. Sometimes government good, som…

The point here is internet infrastructure is in no way a natural monopoly like sewage or water. The margins are plenty high and there's no physical problem having two or three competing physical networks most places. The only reason we don't have competing local networks is artificial entry barriers.

I agree, but the financial barrier to entry is pretty high. Even if you remove the bureaucracy.

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

#212

Post by potatolicious » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:49 PM UTC

jrochkind1 wrote: post #140

smutticus wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a decision the FCC gets to make. Congress and the courts ultimately decide what is considered lawful content. These rules need to withstand changes that Congress might enact in the future. If Congress decides to force ISPs to block a certain kind of traffic, the FCC cannot disallow ISPs from blocking it with their rules. They basically just include the word 'lawful' to allow ISPs to block unlawful traffic.…

Right, but what we're worrying about is an ISP blocking, say, all torrent traffic. Hey, it's obviously 'unlawful' right? We will see. Overall, I am very optimistic about this announcement.

They might - some already do (block or throttle torrent traffic, that is).

The difference is that right now if your ISP blocks torrent traffic you have literally no recourse besides going to a competitor (if one exists, which odds are one does not). You are after all not legally entitled to torrent traffic.

The change here is that if an ISP unilaterally starts blocking torrent traffic, you (or more likely, the EFF or similar org) can sue to have torrent traffic declared lawful, after which the ISP is legally bound to open the traffic.

The trick here isn't that ISP shitty behavior will be impossible under the new rules, but rather that there will be more power to the citizenry to combat many categories such shitty behavior.

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

#213

Post by morganvachon » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:50 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #142

frostirosti wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tom Wheeler has really outdone himself with this announcement. It'll apply to mobile networks as well! Turns out this dingo knows how to stand up for what's right! I know it's early but this is a great step forward.

I'm really impressed with Wheeler. When he was nominated, all the news was about how he was a lobbyist for the cable companies, and it was a perfect example of cronyism. But he's really been knocking it out of the park. Aggressive on net neutrality, redefining broadband, trying to restore municipal Internet. I'm very glad to have been wrong about my initial impressions.

I had the same initial impression. All I can think is that he was in "the business" for so long, he was able to see its pitfalls and shortcomings, and chose to take the high road and do right by The People. He sounds like a genuinely good person, rare in American politics.

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

#214

Post by TheRealDunkirk » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:50 PM UTC

notdonspaulding wrote: post #96

The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. By the 1960s AT&T was a well-established government-sanctioned monopoly [0]. It's a bold claim that says we wouldn't have gotten an internet without FCC regulation of AT&T. An easier conclusion…

You're obviously much more versed in this than I am, so I'm probably missing something here. But your comment reminds me that, if we could get the cables to stop killing muni wifi initiatives, that'd be a great start.

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

#215

Post by andrewfong » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:51 PM UTC

obsurveyor wrote: post #183

metaphorm wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this isn't an act of congress though. its regulations that the FCC has the authority to create and implement. if Wheeler says thats how it is, then that's how it is. regulations can be challenged at court but until that happens they will stick.

Congress can gut FCC's power to decide these things though, that's what the Republicans want.

The President can still veto though, and Obama's been pretty supportive of net neutrality recently. So we'll at least have net neutrality around for a little under two years. After that, the hope is that sheer inertia keeps things from reverting.

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

#216

Post by nullrouted » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:54 PM UTC

acomar wrote: post #167

nostromo wrote: post #129

Apparently I'm in the minority here, but I have some concerns. 1) The problem this fixes is largely non-existent today. The threat of fast and slow-lanes is one I've yet to experience. 2) Opening the door for more internet regulation seems risky. At first, things may go swimmingly, but I suspect regulatory capture will creep up on this industry, just as it has so many others. You may trust Obama and the current FCC h…

> 1) The problem this fixes is largely non-existent today. The threat of fast and slow-lanes is one I've yet to experience. Verizon is already throttling Youtube and Netflix traffic because the content providers refuse to pay extra for normal delivery. > 2) Opening the door for more internet regulation seems like a bad idea. At first, things may go swimmingly, but I suspect regulatory capture will creep up on this in…

I just want to reply to your first point. Verizon is not "throttling" traffic to youtube/netflix, it is just allowing peering links to be saturated because the providers are out of compliance with their peering rules.

You can read their peering rules here: http://www.verizonenterprise.com/terms/peering/

We can argue that it is just semantics but it is more in-depth than "throttling."

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

#217

Post by ikeboy » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:55 PM UTC

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?

I'm against net neutrality. To me it looks like more regulation for not enough gain.

I don't see why we should stop the free market; if one internet provider is doing things you don't like, another one will open and the consumer can change to that one if they care. I also feel that companies should have a right to provide some websites at higher speeds. There will always be a trade off; perhaps you could get cheaper internet if you only care about the top few sites.

If they charge the same as internet providers that do have net neutrality, then they will quickly lose market share, and I believe that should be the market's choice, not the government.

Imagine if all those people who signed the petition for new regulations instead signed a petition promising not to use any provider that throttled some websites. That would make a strong market incentive not to throttle sites.

And if the consumers can't do that, why should the government step in to save us?

If you argue that it's very hard to open a new cable internet company (which is the argument I got last time I brought this up), my answer is that enough rich people would be interested enough to open a competitor if there was demand.

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

#218

Post by jrochkind1 » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:56 PM UTC

ddingus wrote: post #169

jrochkind1 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but what we're worrying about is an ISP blocking, say, all torrent traffic. Hey, it's obviously 'unlawful' right? We will see. Overall, I am very optimistic about this announcement.

Torrent traffic is lawful on a basic level. There are works being distributed via torrent that are intended to be there.

I know that, and you know that. I'm not so sure about Comcast or Commissioner Wheeler.

But potatolicious's comment about is good.

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

#219

Post by IanDrake » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:57 PM UTC

Randgalt wrote: post #166

Make a deal with the Devil and you'll only get burned. The FCC regulating the internet, what could go wrong?

Future HN comments when things go wrong:

This isn't what we wanted...

We never indented for X to be interpreted that way...

It would have worked, but they didn't go far enough...

It would have worked, but they went too far...

We need this new law X to protect the cable companies because upstart Y's new technology doesn't have to deal with FCC regulation which gives it an unfair advantage...

Give it ten years and the FCC will be about as popular as TSA or the NSA on HN.

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

#220

Post by mathattack » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:58 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #147

mathattack wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a large strain of the population who thinks, "If Obama is behind it, it must be part of a Muslim Socialist plot." They listen to radio and TV that feeds this narrow worldview. For context, I'm neither for nor against Obama - I just think people who take a position of "It's an idea from the other political party so I don't like it" cause more harm than good. (See belief in vaccination, evolution, and…

You may notice which party represents the "wrong side" of each of those issues. If they're clearly wrong on so many issues, what are the odds they're right on any given issue?

They're wrong on every issue if you assume that Obama is right no every issue. My sense is that Obama is right on some, wrong on some. On most of the issues that he's wrong on, the Republicans are right purely for allowing him to set the agenda.