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

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

#221

Post by hackuser » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:59 PM UTC

joshuaheard wrote: post #92

dpierce9 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FCC is an 'independent' agency which means that while congress can ask questions, make suggestions, apply pressure, and vote on members of the commission it cannot force the FCC to introduce, accept, or reject any proposed rule-making. Like most regulatory agencies, the purse power is limited since the FCC is funded by regulatory fees (I say limited and not zero because I believe the fees are paid by industry to…

The FCC exists by authority of Congress. Congress can expand or limit this authority at will, including any regulations promulgated by the FCC. So, Congress can basically do what it wants. This is true of any federal agency. The "independent" part means independent of the President, as they are not part of the executive branch. However, I don't think Congress will act in this case. One reason Congress delegates regul…

> As a Republican, it seems to me the FCC has taken a balanced approach to regulation in this case, so I don't see much negative feedback by Congress.

What about the extremist anti-regulatory positions of many in the GOP? Not every Republican thinks that way, but enough to do generate a lot of noise and elect a substantial portion of Congress.

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

#222

Post by gxs » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:59 PM UTC

I don't think I've ever cussed on my HN account, but unfuckingbelievable.

I'm in complete and utter awe that they listened to the people and not the rich corporations for once.

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

#223

Post by pyre » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:59 PM UTC

oconnore wrote: post #160

pyre wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this mean that (e.g.) specific cities can petition ISPs to block (e.g.) Uber in their area because it's not "lawful?"

If a federal/state/local government declares something illegal, they can shut it down within their jurisdiction. There is no "I'm on the internet so you can't enforce laws" get out of jail free card.

Well, the Uber site isn't distributing illegal content, so should the Uber site be shutdown or should they just be going after Uber via the courts (where a judge could order Uber to suspend operations)?

I was stating that you could see city government trying to get the Uber site blocked to local ISP customers as a way to side-step the court system.

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

#224

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:00 PM UTC

ReidZB wrote: post #178

phkahler wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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. Media conversion? Like taking HD signals, converting them to "standard definition" and putting those on the line too? So you can then charge more for higher quality "HD" signals which are still transcoded to lower bitrates? Yeah, we can do without that stuff.

That isn't what "media conversion" means at all. It is the conversion from one medium to another: for example, from fiber optic (light) to coaxial (electric). This is standard terminology: https://www.google.com/search?q=fiber+media+converter To be frank, your post is a little ridiculous, IMO.

Poster seems to have misunderstood, but:

>Like taking HD signals, converting them to "standard definition" and putting those on the line too? So you can then charge more for higher quality "HD" signals which are still transcoded to lower bitrates? Yeah, we can do without that stuff.

The cable company in my town does this. Ostensibly it was to maintain compatibility with CRT/low def. televisions as a convenience to people with obsolete equipment but the scheme persists. It seems to now serve the purpose of allowing them to advertise low prices for this subpar service and then upsell customers to much higher price tiers. Sure, that's a legal tactic, but it probably wouldn't work in a competitive market.

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

#225

Post by tootie » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:01 PM UTC

frostirosti wrote: post #19

mikegioia wrote: post #6

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, wh…

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 have this weird feeling that this whole drama was a long con by Obama and Wheeler to tease out as much vocal support as possible by playing the villain. Like Wheeler was a heel in professional wrestling. They put out a shitty proposal that the ISPs would love just to show them how strong public opposition would be so they'd be perfectly positioned to go full neutrality and claim a public mandate.

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

#226

Post by kenrikm » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:05 PM UTC

gnoway wrote: post #112

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 routin…

Yeah but the right to use land they are building on was a granted Monopoly by the local governments. If you buy all the land, install all the poles and run all the cable, sure you should be able to do whatever you want with what you build. However, their system is built on billions of dollars of public infrastructure granted to them as a monopoly "in most cases".

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

#227

Post by mikeyouse » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:06 PM UTC

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #209

mikeyouse wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love HN, but the echo chamber here about how Wheeler was some crony of the NACTA was impossible to drown out. If you look at the bottom of many of the previous Net Neutrality threads, there will be heavily downvoted posts (some of mine included) that Wheeler was previously an entrepreneur who was trying to disrupt traditional service providers, he was a VC who backed truly disruptive companies, and he had already b…

It is not ignorant to be sketical of a political appointee, on the contrary, anyone is wise to be skeptical. Observe the tremendous difficulty of either political party to find and appoint suitable people to these positions. Color me cautiously optimistic, but not yet ready to abandon all Wheeler/FCC skepticism. There are so many things in politics that are not what they appear to be; and, there has to be a tremendou…

It's ignorant to seize on one line of a political appointee's 40-year resume to insist they'll be corrupt when there is considerable evidence to the contrary.

Wheeler kept a blog for years about all of his thoughts regarding telecom regulation, but it's much easier to call him a dingo and assume he's evil than it is to do research and develop a true picture of his intentions.

Unfortunately, his blog has lapsed, but some of the posts are still available via Archive.org. Some Good posts;

* Networks are More Important than Nations - https://web.archive.org/web/20110205091739/http://www.mobile...

* How SOP was Undone by SOPA - https://web.archive.org/web/20120625185358/http://www.mobile...

The 2nd is particularly interesting since he explicitly supports the anti-SOPA movement:

    The policy matter is not whether copyright holders 
    should receive recompense for their products (they 
    should), but whether legislation to protect that right 
    is aircover to perpetuate old practices at the expense 
    of new networks. There is no doubt there are honest-to-
    God Web pirates operating in China, Russia, and 
    elsewhere who are stealing copyrighted product. These 
    pirates should be stopped. But SOPA’s effort to 
    accomplish this – which also just happened to strengthen 
    the hand of content companies in other regards – applied 
    concepts more applicable to the command and control 
    networks of yesterday than to the open access networks 
    of today. 

    The power of the Internet is its lack of centralized 
    control. Its distributed architecture means the network 
    functions at the edge rather than at a central point.
    That edge activity, in turn, creates what the SOPA 
    supporters were trying to constrain: access they can’t
    control. While its goal of stopping piracy is laudable 
    and important, SOPA’s practical effect was to
    restructure through law the functionality of the 
    Internet.

Call it ignorance or call it lazy cynicism, but it's clear the blind Wheeler hate was completely unfounded.

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

#228

Post by Apocryphon » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:08 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.

"Only Nixon could go to China." - Vulcan proverb

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

#229

Post by orthecreedence » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:09 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #217

remarkEon wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This would work great! Except that there aren't 20 providers to choose from, there's usually one, maybe two. And the two providers you generally expect to have do not care anything for consumer experience. They also lobby for other companies (or even townships) to not be able to set up their own fiber/cable connections.

The lack of regulation you want already exists, and it's starting to strangle free and open communication as we know it.

Also, not sure if this is clear, but net neutrality doesn't regulate prices. Companies can charge whatever they want for their service. The only thing that's regulated is how they treat data...all data must be treated the same. Other than that restriction, companies can do whatever they want. I don't really see how this could be viewed badly. Yes, people seem to really like the "regulation is bad" argument lately, but it doesn't really apply here, nor does it work as a blanket statement.

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

#230

Post by rayiner » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:10 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #174

rayiner wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My complaint is that everyone's ignoring the economics of the situation. What becomes apparent if you dig into the numbers is that there's no money in building these networks, at least at scale--they are justified only when there's a money-making opportunity with respect to the content flowing through them. Historically, this has been the cable video service that brings in the lion's share of revenue. Even with Googl…

> What becomes apparent if you dig into the numbers is that there's no money in building these networks, at least at scale--they are justified only when there's a money-making opportunity with respect to the content flowing through them. It seems like the crux of your argument is that it costs something like $60/month to provide internet service and $20/month on top of that to provide TV service but they charge $50/m…

The market sets the prices of the services at what people are willing to pay. If the cable companies could charge more for internet than they are now, don't you think they would? People are willing to pay a lot more for television service,[1] so if the product you're selling is TV+internet, you can charge enough to justify building a modern fiber/coax network. If it's just internet, you probably can't, at least not in many places.

[1] In my building, in downtown Baltimore, I can get 50/15 FiOS for $50/month, no cap but no TV service, or triple-play cable at 50/5, capped for $109 per month. Almost everyone subscribes to cable rather than FiOS.