Live data from Hacker News

FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

wired.com

371–380 of 437 posts

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

#371
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting you mention Netflix; you may find these informative. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netfl... http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-a... I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where Netflix is completely inaccessible or heavily throttled in an area and the public outcry can't stop it. The problems Netflix complained about were fixed by the free market without…

This I think is the difference. If Comcast starts throttling Netflix in my area there would be a huge public outcry...but there is no other option. None. I Can't just "switch" providers (jesus even if I wanted just to cancel, Comcast gives me hell). And even if we all get on twitter/facebook/LastWeekTonight Comcast will not care - they have no incentive to care because, again, there's no other option.

I said above that that I do support net neutrality for any location with only one ISP.

At the same time, the government should make it easier for new ISPs to open, by relaxing the regulations.

Remember the days when a college kid could run an ISP out of their basement?

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

#372
post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...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 abou…

I'm reading you as very anti-regulation, which could certainly be my own fault. Many conservatives simply talk "anti-regulation" without giving credit to beneficial regulations.

I'm not the one to which you raised your question. I think your suggestion is a fine one except that I wouldn't use it in place of protecting us from the monopolies we're experiencing, but in addition to net neutrality.

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

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

I don't get your argument. You seem to be saying that if the internet-only plan is made too expensive then customers will subscribe to the not very much more expensive TV+internet plan. Isn't that what they want customers to do?

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

#374

> ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. Too bad the regulation isnt simply this one line of text without the "lawful" caveat

It also protects blocking or throttling a DDoS, spammer, malware scans, etc. This kind of protection is necessary but we really need to see both the actual rules and what the actual enforcement will look like.

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

#375

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.

Big mistake. Government regulation kills innovation. Do you really want the technology sector to end up looking like the healthcare system or the state run education system? Everything government touches turns to crap. To believe that government regulation with make anything better is not very intelligent.

In contrast, I'd suggest that in this case, government regulation might actually promote innovation. It'll help get rid of the dirty money-milking schemes and promote increasing revenues with real forward progress

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

#376
post #323

So, will this make it illegal for GoGo to block streaming video sites on airplanes during domestic flights? 200 people trying to stream Netflix over a satellite downlink? That should be a riot .

> So, will this make it illegal for GoGo to block streaming video sites on airplanes during domestic flights?

It should allow them to be consistent about it and rate-limit everyone evenly, which would have the same effect.

The really interesting question would be what happens with their on-plan video systems – my understanding is that they cache a selection of videos on the plane which are pre-seeded to avoid clogging the connection. Even running a public proxy wouldn't help with that unless everyone is watching the same Netflix/Hulu/etc. videos. I'm not sure whether they could get some sort of waiver but it's definitely something to look for as the policy details emerge.

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

#377
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. It is an accurate assessment of how our legislative system works, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The FCC is not putting a bill up for a vote by congress, they are proposing telecommunications rules that an internal commission will vote on.

johncp brought up Congress, not me. I'm just pointing out that vetos aren't relevant (although mikecb's clarification helped). So why am I getting downvoted instead?

Because your argument has a giant hole in it. Suppose, for argument's sake, that there is big political opposition to this rule. It's reasonable to think that most of this opposition would come from the GOP, going by comments on news websites and so on, and the GOP's demonstrated preference for opposing policies backed by the President (eg the 56th(!) house vote yesterday to repeal Obamacare).

If the GOP really decided to make an issue out of this, they have majorities in both houses fo Congress and thus could, in fact, pass a bill that would require a Presidential veto if their caucus were sufficiently united and worked up about the issue. Realistically they probably won't bother, but your claim that it would be impossible to get even a simple majority is unfounded.

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

#378
post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 That's because much of the tech press prefers sensationalism to get clicks over accurate reporting to inform readers. Here's a comment I made last week on another forum that covers what the tech press should have told us about Wheeler a long time ago, but didn't. ----------------- It…

> That's because much of the tech press prefers sensationalism to get clicks over accurate reporting to inform readers. s/tech press/press/

This is a more politically correct restatement of #allLivesMatter.

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

#379
This, to me, is one of the most interesting topics of our time, and I find it fascinating the similarities (both philosophically and economically) to that of the railroads at the turn of the 20th century.

Much like net neutrality is the topic of the FCC, cargo neutrality on rail lines was the topic of the ICC [1] in their day. The problem of the early 1900s began with a bounty of riches in the highly competitive American Railway sector. Merchants using the railways were demanding "rebates" from railway companies for large shipments threatening to take business elsewhere and driving their shipping costs down. Of course, the same leverage was not available to smaller shippers, making their rates much higher and forcing them to raise the prices of their goods. The system was out of balance.

In 1903, congress and President Theodore Roosevelt, passed the Elkins Act [2], which eliminated rebates, but had the unfortunate side-effect of increasing price collusion between shippers and the railroads. The Elkins act did not establish a fixed rate, leaving interests to make deals that, again, were disadvantageous for smaller businesses. The only metric of discrimination was the diverting from a fixed railway schedule [3].

To correct the problems of the Elkins Act, the Hepburn Act was passed in 1906 greatly expanding the power of the ICC to regulate the Railroad Industry. The result was fixed prices on shipping deemed "just and reasonable" by the ICC, increased penalties for non-compliance, and an open and standard accounting system for the railroad companies. (As an aside, the depreciation of railway companies contributed to the Panic of 1907. A good word on that here: [4])

If all this back and forth sounds familiar, it is because we are facing the same problem today shipping bits that we were shipping coal and shirts all those years ago. The idea of prioritized delivery is not new or novel, but was dealt with before Netflix and Verizon began suing one another. What interests me is whether we will see legislation similar to the Elkins and Hepburn act for digital goods and services. I doubt very seriously that we will get fixed $/(Mbps) or $/GB mandates from the FCC, but already we are seeing definitions being made and lines being drawn [5]. There is already language from Wheeler about "responsibility to the 20 percent [without 25down/3up]", just as there was strong language from Roosevelt about the railway industries.

2015 will be an interesting year indeed.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission [2] http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Enc... [3] http://books.google.com/books?id=g-pCAAAAIAAJ&dq=elkins%20ac... [4] http://books.google.com/books?id=R3koAAAAYAAJ&hl=en [5] http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/broadband-now-defined-25-...

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

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I don't get your argument. You seem to be saying that if the internet-only plan is made too expensive then customers will subscribe to the not very much more expensive TV+internet plan. Isn't that what they want customers to do?

No, in this hypothetical the net neutrality advocates have won decisively and the cable companies are in the business of building "dumb pipes."
Post reply on HN