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

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

#341

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 12:22 AM UTC

Alupis wrote: post #334

wwweston wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can we please stop trying to make this a "GOP is evil and hates America" and "DEM is right and loves America" thing? Whether or not the GOP is generally evil, it certainly seems to be true that their position on net neutrality has been consistently bad and if they're allowed set policy on it, they'll do it in a way that will let carriers interpose themselves as gatekeepers. >The GOP standpoint is to put policy in p…

The point is neither the GOP nor the DEM get to decide what net neutrality policy is... that is the FCC's job now that congress has given them that power. This isn't a party thing... let's not try to make it one.

> The point is neither the GOP nor the DEM get to decide what net neutrality policy is... that is the FCC's job

The members of the FCC are Democratic and Republican political appointees.

> This isn't a party thing...

Every FCC vote on Open Internet ("net neutrality") rules for the last several years has had a 3-2 divide on party lines (Democrats for Open Internet regs, Republicans against).

How is it not a party thing?

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

#342

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 12:27 AM UTC

Alupis wrote: post #306

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 am…

> the President has Zero control over what the FCC does.

Other than appointing the commissioners, and exerting both indirect (and, through the use of the veto, potentially direct) influence over legislation which controls the scope of the FCCs regulatory authority, and appointing members of the Federal judiciary who ultimately resolve disputes over the FCCs actions, sure, the President has zero control over what the FCC does.

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

#343

Post by wpietri » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 12:32 AM UTC

ejain wrote: post #283

coldpie wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don't know Wheeler, but don't understand why having been a lobbyist (or aspiring to be one again) would make him more "friendly" to that industry: The tougher he is on them, the more they should eventually be willing to pay him to switch sides again, right?

I think that assumes such a high level of venality that I wouldn't bet on it.

The people I consider most dangerous to the public in regulatory positions aren't the ones who actively aim to undermine. They're they ones who just have such a strong sympathy with the regulated that they can't conceive of other ways to look at it.

Good regulation requires both deep respect and deep skepticism. Think, for example, of people who make sure restaurant kitchens are safe for the public. They have to respect the purpose of restaurants and the people who run them; otherwise they'll be ineffectively fussy or crabby. But their whole job is to never let those people slide. So as much as they understand and empathize with how hard and expensive it is run a restaurant, they still have to be willing to take the consumer's side say, "Yes, it's expensive, but you still have to throw out that $2k of meat." And mean it.

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

#344

Post by pbz » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 12:33 AM UTC

robkix wrote: post #208

nickthemagicman wrote: post #91

Why are libertarians so pro- free market when this is a perfect example of how the 'unregulated free market' has no problem manipulating in the name of greed and control at the expense of consumers? This seems to be strong evidence that government is better at keeping trade free than an 'unregulated free market'?

Not to dive too off topic, but the telecom industry has been heavily regulated and in no way represents a free market. Through franchise fees, fighting public right of way sharing, and other forms of lobbying these large corporations have used law and regulation to their favor. This is not a position libertarians support and it is not a market anyone would point at and call "unregulated" in any sense of the term.

Is it fair to call it regulation when the corporation benefits? (regulation tends to mean "regulation against corporations")

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

#345

Post by sliverstorm » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 12:36 AM 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…

Either way you've got to admit it's one hell of an echo chamber here though.

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

#346

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 12:39 AM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #345

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Either way you've got to admit it's one hell of an echo chamber here though.

Not really. Its rare not to see multiple sides of issues represented here, and its not that uncommon to see people on opposing sides each claiming that HN is biased against their viewpoint in favor of the opposing one to the point of completely excluding their viewpoint.

HN isn't perfectly balanced -- there are certainly issues where the one-side or the other has substantially more support on HN. But its far from an echo chamber.

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

#347

Post by wyck » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 12:42 AM UTC

radioact1ve wrote: post #27

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…

Same here. It almost seems to good to be true. I don't want to sound gloomy doomy when this is excellent news, but I can't help but think what are we missing. I keep waiting for the "but...".

Its like his twitter feed is bizzaro world: https://twitter.com/TomWheelerFCC

Someone who actually makes sense.

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

#348

Post by eck » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 12:44 AM UTC

nullrouted wrote: post #216

acomar wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

> out of compliance with their peering rules

I'm not a networking expert so someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but those peering terms also specify shortest-exit routing, in which case the 1.8:1 traffic ratio is necessary to ensure that one peer does not do dramatically more "work" in terms of bit-miles.

It seems like Netflix and a consumer ISP are never going to be able to peer with traffic ratio requirements. If the consumer ISP offered best-exit routed settlement-free peering options, though, Netflix could easily comply.

It is my impression that a consumer ISPs refusing to offer settlement-free peering with a best-exit routing policy is apparently charging for access to its customers, not charging for access to its network.

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

#349

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 12:58 AM UTC

pbz wrote: post #344

robkix wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to dive too off topic, but the telecom industry has been heavily regulated and in no way represents a free market. Through franchise fees, fighting public right of way sharing, and other forms of lobbying these large corporations have used law and regulation to their favor. This is not a position libertarians support and it is not a market anyone would point at and call "unregulated" in any sense of the term.

Is it fair to call it regulation when the corporation benefits? (regulation tends to mean "regulation against corporations")

> Is it fair to call it regulation when the corporation benefits?

Yes. Most regulation benefits some corporations, because there are very few regulatory issues where there aren't corporations on all sides of the issue.

> (regulation tends to mean "regulation against corporations")

No, it doesn't. There is certainly a particular faction that sees regulation as inherently "anti-business", and a popular association of business = corporation, so I can see how that idea would come about, but its not at all what regulation means.

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

#350

Post by r00fus » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 1:06 AM 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…

> I don't see why we should stop the free market

The telecom space hasn't been a "free" market in decades... and likely never will again. The only thing that happens if you remove regulation is that eventually we'll have a telecom monopoly again, while prices go through the roof and industry profits soar.