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

301–310 of 437 posts

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

#301

Post by orthecreedence »

ikeboy wrote: post #271
orthecreedence wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free market is great if there are problems to solve and they require creative solutions. When an optimal solution is found, competition based on that one aspect of the market doesn't make sense anymore. In this case, I truly believe net neutrality is an optimal solution for consumers. The goal of society is not to make things easier on companies, the goal is to advance society as a whole. Freedom of speech and expres…

Would you support the following proposal? I would: The FCC allows companies to throttle whatever they want, but requires all the data to be provided publicly, and they make press releases every so often specifying which companies throttle and which don't. That would solve your not knowing problem. In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies, which would solve the problem…

> The FCC allows companies to throttle whatever they want, but requires all the data to be provided publicly, and they make press releases every so often specifying which companies throttle and which don't. That would solve your not knowing problem.

Ok, so we're back to regulating again? Do you want a free market or not? I don't understand how forcing companies to provide transparency data is not regulation. How is this any better in your eyes than forcing them to treat all data the same?

> In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies, which would solve the problem of choices.

So regulation in some instances, but not in others. A known, well-established regulation is now much more complicated to a) understand and b) enforce.

> You also rule out the obvious loophole of having multiple related companies operating under different brands to get around this.

Much harder than it sounds, I believe.

Your solutions are band-aid fixes for the fact the the free market is not equipped to handle this problem. Not only that, but you are attempting to work around regulation by creating even more complicated regulations on top of the original.

When you have to jump through a tangled mess of hoops to get to a solution that has an obvious, simple answer then you are doing something wrong.

I just don't see what the big deal with regulation is. The only ones who get hurt by this are telecoms.

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

#302

Post by delinka »

ikeboy wrote: post #271
orthecreedence wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free market is great if there are problems to solve and they require creative solutions. When an optimal solution is found, competition based on that one aspect of the market doesn't make sense anymore. In this case, I truly believe net neutrality is an optimal solution for consumers. The goal of society is not to make things easier on companies, the goal is to advance society as a whole. Freedom of speech and expres…

Would you support the following proposal? I would: The FCC allows companies to throttle whatever they want, but requires all the data to be provided publicly, and they make press releases every so often specifying which companies throttle and which don't. That would solve your not knowing problem. In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies, which would solve the problem…

"...but requires all the data to be provided publicly."

Looks like regulation to me.

"In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies..."

More regulation.

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

#303

Post by djur »

pyre wrote: post #123
myth_buster wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reads exceedingly well but the devil is in the detail. As we have seen countless times that there is significant difference between what gets proposed and what gets passed. As others have stated > will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. the keyword here is lawful. Will all content be lawful unless proven otherwise?

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

Probably not. It would be an exceptional deviation from existing understanding of the First Amendment, to put it lightly. The cases where blocking speech is permitted in the US involve distributing material that is illegal to possess or distribute (stuff distributed in violation of copyright, for instance).

In the case of Uber, what might be illegal is purchasing service from them (or them selling it to you). Them telling you about their service, even if it's illegal in your jurisdiction, is protected speech.

Cannabis is currently illegal to possess or purchase in my state (although not for long). It's still legal for me to read High Times or websites selling commercial products that are legal in Colorado. It'd be illegal for me to place an order.

(And if it's permitted under the proposed regulatory environment, it's probably permitted now, too.)

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

#304

Post by lutorm »

rayiner wrote: post #260
OrwellianChild wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-setti…

Public utilities are a big reason the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates we have a multi-trillion backlog of infrastructure capital expenditures.

That's an interesting notion, given that market pressure would be to invest as little as one possible can while extracting as much cash as possible. I certainly have the impression that, in Sweden, the public utilities, which were making sure the power grid had adequate excess capacity and good reliability because this infrastructure is in the "national interest" did a much better job in that respect than the market-based solution. There is simply no comparison between power reliability in the U.S. and in Sweden.

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

#305

Post by delinka »

ArsTechnica's article[0] mentions this:

"To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century..."

This concerns me. What kinds of changes are coming to Title II?

0 - http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/why-the-ex-cable-lob...

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

#306

Post by Alupis »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #268
Alupis wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if Wheeler says thats how it is, then that's how it is Not entirely. It's a proposal, which must be voted on by the rest of the FCC committee. It's unlikely everyone on the committee will agree 100%, but I'd also contend it's unlikely for this to not pass in and around it's current state.

He got a 3/2 split on the redefinition of broadband with one of the yeas publicly admitting that she would have rather seen 100Mbit as the threshold. It stands to reason that this will pass too with the current committee makeup. If the GOP wins 2016, however, the future may not be so bright once they install their pro-business people and fix all of this "Socialist" claptrap.

> If the GOP wins 2016, however, the future may not be so bright

Can we please stop trying to make this a "GOP is evil and hates America" and "DEM is right and loves America" thing?

The GOP standpoint is to put policy in place that naturally overtime encourages small business to bring competition to the bigger guys. The problem with this plan is it takes time and people want an immediate result.

That's not "hating america" and it's not "doomsday" if GOP wins in 2016.

Nor is the President a king -- ie. the President has Zero control over what the FCC does. So it really doesn't matter who wins in 2016 since you already have a strongly led GOP congress... who does have power over the FCC.

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

#307

Post by EpicEng »

wnevets wrote: post #186
EpicEng wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that too bad? Do you think that the rules would stand of that caveat weren't present? Do you think that ISP's should not have the ability to block illegal traffic? What happens when they receive a court order to do so, yet doing so would violate FCC regulations? Don't be naive; that exception must be there, and out changes nothing in regards to the current situation.

My biggest problem with that caveat is that its really just a foot in the door for further regulation by the federal government, none of which has anything to do with network neutrality. Network neutrality by definition is about all packets being treated equally regardless of the source or destination.

It's not though because it changes nothing. The government can already stop traffic via a court order. Besides, the FCC is not a legislative body. A set of rules which allowed, for example, unimpeded access to child pornography would never be allowed, nor should it. Net neutrality can exist alongside the laws which govern what is and is not ok to do on the internet.

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

#308

Post by EpicEng »

wnevets wrote: post #186
EpicEng wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that too bad? Do you think that the rules would stand of that caveat weren't present? Do you think that ISP's should not have the ability to block illegal traffic? What happens when they receive a court order to do so, yet doing so would violate FCC regulations? Don't be naive; that exception must be there, and out changes nothing in regards to the current situation.

My biggest problem with that caveat is that its really just a foot in the door for further regulation by the federal government, none of which has anything to do with network neutrality. Network neutrality by definition is about all packets being treated equally regardless of the source or destination.

It's not though because it changes nothing. The government can already stop traffic via a court order. Besides, the FCC is not a legislative body. A set of rules which allowed, for example, unimpeded access to child pornography would never be allowed, nor should it. Net neutrality can exist alongside the laws which govern what is and is not ok to do on the internet.

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

#309

Post by ikeboy »

delinka wrote: post #302
ikeboy wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you support the following proposal? I would: The FCC allows companies to throttle whatever they want, but requires all the data to be provided publicly, and they make press releases every so often specifying which companies throttle and which don't. That would solve your not knowing problem. In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies, which would solve the problem…

"...but requires all the data to be provided publicly." Looks like regulation to me. "In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies..." More regulation.

I did say I'm not opposed to all regulation. Free markets only work perfectly with perfect information, so I support almost any regulation that's about making information public. I've got no problem with forcing companies to put nutrition information on all their products, for example.

I'm not the one who's deciding on things solely based on whether they are regulation or not.

Also, you didn't answer my question about whether you would support my proposal over the net neutrality one.

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

#310

Post by ikeboy »

orthecreedence wrote: post #301
ikeboy wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you support the following proposal? I would: The FCC allows companies to throttle whatever they want, but requires all the data to be provided publicly, and they make press releases every so often specifying which companies throttle and which don't. That would solve your not knowing problem. In addition, in any location where a company is the sole provider, net neutrality applies, which would solve the problem…

> The FCC allows companies to throttle whatever they want, but requires all the data to be provided publicly, and they make press releases every so often specifying which companies throttle and which don't. That would solve your not knowing problem. Ok, so we're back to regulating again? Do you want a free market or not? I don't understand how forcing companies to provide transparency data is not regulation. How is t…

>Do you want a free market or not? I don't understand how forcing companies to provide transparency data is not regulation. How is this any better in your eyes than forcing them to treat all data the same?

I explained this in my other comment so I'll just paste it here:

>I did say I'm not opposed to all regulation. Free markets only work perfectly with perfect information, so I support almost any regulation that's about making information public. I've got no problem with forcing companies to put nutrition information on all their products, for example. I'm not the one who's deciding on things solely based on whether they are regulation or not.

The reason this is better is because you're only forcing them to provide information, not change business practices.

>Not only that, but you are attempting to work around regulation by creating even more complicated regulations on top of the original.

I'm supporting making the info public, which is needed for markets to be truly free.

>When you have to jump through a tangled mess of hoops to get to a solution that has an obvious, simple answer then you are doing something wrong.

I went through some of the problems with the obvious answer above.

>The only ones who get hurt by this are telecoms.

I gave use-cases and reasons why a consumer might want it. Why are you ignoring those?

Post reply on HN