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

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

#251

Post by dublinben » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:40 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #236

orthecreedence wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 commun…

I know in my area there's more than one. >And the two providers you generally expect to have do not care anything for consumer experience. In a free market, this fact means that people don't care enough about their experience. If they cared enough, they would choose based on that, instead of on price. >They also lobby for other companies (or even townships) to not be able to set up their own fiber/cable connections.…

>In a free market

Internet access isn't a Free Market anywhere in the US, that much should be clear. There is no consumer choice going on here.

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

#252

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:41 PM UTC

jrochkind1 wrote: post #218

ddingus wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Since FCC action against Comcast for blocking Bittorrent -- including the idea that Bittorrent, whatever unlawful content might be distributed by that means, was itself not unlawful and that Bittorrent traffic included lawful content -- was one of the starting points of net neutrality regulation at the FCC, I'm pretty sure that Wheeler, the FCC in general, and Comcast are all aware of that.

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

#253

Post by rhino369 » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:41 PM UTC

pmontra wrote: post #4

No last mile unbundling: does it mean that every operator has to deploy its own cable from street to home?

Last mile unbundling destroys any incentive to invest in network deployment.

Worse, the way title II is written, the FCC can only unbundle the local telephone company. So the cable network that provide broadcand service to most Americans can't be unbundled at all.

Last mile unbundling only works when you have a very strictly regulated monopoly providing the network.

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

#254

Post by ikeboy » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:41 PM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #251

ikeboy wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know in my area there's more than one. >And the two providers you generally expect to have do not care anything for consumer experience. In a free market, this fact means that people don't care enough about their experience. If they cared enough, they would choose based on that, instead of on price. >They also lobby for other companies (or even townships) to not be able to set up their own fiber/cable connections.…

>In a free market Internet access isn't a Free Market anywhere in the US, that much should be clear. There is no consumer choice going on here.

So the solution should be to take away the regulations that made it so, not add on more as a patch.

"Here, there's a problem because regulation has made the market not free enough."

"I know, let's fix it with more regulation!"

Also, freeness isn't binary, it can be more or less free. It's free enough that Google Fiber can exist. As long as it's possible to open something given enough money, there will be an upper limit on how much companies can screw their customers, which doesn't seem too high to me.

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

#255

Post by wtallis » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:43 PM UTC

rmac wrote: post #125

wtallis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That proposal seems to be for a 150MHz block. If you try to offer broadband speeds to multiple customers simultaneously with that little spectrum you'll end up needing to use cell sizes so small that it would essentially become a fiber to the curb deployment, at which point you might as well finish off with a handful of ethernet segments instead of several radio links that won't work well.

LTE seems to work well enough with less bandwidth (~60MHz). However I'm not sure what kind of range you can get with 3.5ghz. Surely at least a few city blocks?

LTE works well by the standards of its predecessors, when constrained by draconian data caps and overage charges. It is completely unsuitable as a replacement for wired connections like VDSL and DOCSIS.

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

#256

Post by rayiner » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:43 PM UTC

foobarqux wrote: post #231

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…

I know you use Verizon as evidence of poor profitability, have you looked at other providers? I calculate 20-25% gross margin for TWC if I attribute all operating costs, some of which should be shared with TV and voice, to Internet.

TWC's financial disclosures: http://ir.timewarnercable.com/files/2014%20Earnings/4Q14/Q4-....

Cost of programming content is $5.2 billion, but video programming generates $10 billion in revenues. Operating income is $4.6 billion. Obviously there's marketing, sales, and operational costs that also go away if you don't have video service. But there's also $1.1 billion in advertising revenue that probably goes away too. And really, the numbers are totally incomplete without looking at capex and depreciation too.

Analysis is similar for Charter, except they're running a net loss straight-up.

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

#257

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:45 PM UTC

smutticus wrote: post #105

shmerl wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. My concern is, how are they going to define lawful content and services, and more importantly, how are they going to determine it in practice? It can easily translate into some heavy handed surveillance systems which analyze the lawfulness of the whole network.

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.…

> That's not a decision the FCC gets to make. Congress and the courts ultimately decide what is considered lawful content.

Actually, once the FCC adopts a no-blocking-lawful-content rule, any alleged violation of that rule is potentially a subject of FCC action, which means that the FCC will, in the first instance, determine all relevant questions, including whether particular content is lawful. They will, of course, look at and apply court precedent and statute law to determine that, but the FCC absolutely will be called on to make that decision.

Those decisions, of course, may be appealed to the court in the same way as any other enforcement action by a regulatory body.

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

#258

Post by dublinben » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:46 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #254

dublinben wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In a free market Internet access isn't a Free Market anywhere in the US, that much should be clear. There is no consumer choice going on here.

So the solution should be to take away the regulations that made it so, not add on more as a patch. "Here, there's a problem because regulation has made the market not free enough." "I know, let's fix it with more regulation!" Also, freeness isn't binary, it can be more or less free. It's free enough that Google Fiber can exist. As long as it's possible to open something given enough money, there will be an upper lim…

What regulations do you think caused the current lack of competition? How can the FCC change them?

The FCC is doing what it can within its legal jurisdiction to improve the actual reality of internet access in the US.

The one dimensional perspective of 'more regulation bad, less regulation good' is completely unhelpful in this situation.

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

#259

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:48 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.

> Right, but what we're worrying about is an ISP blocking, say, all torrent traffic.

You do know that that's one of the earliest things the FCC addressed in the "net neutrality" / "open internet" space, even before the first attempt to adopt generally-applicable rules rather than case-by-case enforcement of net neutrality principles?

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.p...

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

#260

Post by rayiner » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 7:51 PM UTC

OrwellianChild wrote: post #239

potatolicious wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are working on a different notion of "bundling" than rayiner. He's not talking about selling you TV with your internet. Bundling, in the sense that the FCC is referring to it, is the bundling of internet service with the physical infrastructure it's delivered on. Un-bundling in this case doesn't mean they have to sell you ESPN without HBO, it means they have to let third-party operators operate on their wiring, s…

Thanks for the clarification, though I'm not sure if that's exactly what rayiner meant, considering his comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8998934 Given your premise: I can imagine that, with improper price setting by the FCC, this mandatory wholesale infrastructure sharing could be problematic (long-term unprofitable and thus discouraging towards infrastructure investment). Priced appropriately to th…

The hard part is pricing it appropriately. When the government gets involved in price-setting, there's huge political pressure to extract discounts and generally keep the rates artificially low: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140... ("The mayor recognizes this as an economic justice issue, and economic justice issues tend to be fought in the courts.").

People who think that either rate-setting in the context of unbundling or in the context of municipal-fiber will be based on a rational analysis of how much revenues will be needed to justify investment are delusional. Rates for everything from electricity to sewage are artificially low, and consequently in many cases utilities are stuck with century-old infrastructure. Public utilities are a big reason the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates we have a multi-trillion backlog of infrastructure capital expenditures.

The folks who think we should upgrade the fiber networks to enable cloud services will have to get in line with the folks who think we should upgrade our power plants and get rid of century-old polluting coal ones, or upgrade our sewage systems so they don't dump raw sewage into rivers when it rains. And they'll be shouted down by the folks complaining that grandma's electric/water/internet bill is too high, and asking "how can you afford fiber service when you can barely feed your family?"