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

391–400 of 437 posts

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

#391

Post by cheald »

acdha wrote: post #376
cheald wrote: 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 cloggin…

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

That's an allocation of about 450kbit/sec (~56kb/sec) down per seat on a 737 assuming the plane is outfitted with GoGo's latest tech. Upload would be a tiny fraction of that. It's in everyone's interest to disallow high-throughput usage while permitting burstable high-bandwidth low-throughput usage.

"Bright line" rules that no type or source of content may be discriminated against by carriers only make sense if bandwidth is not a scarce resource.

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

#392

Post by dragonwriter »

Alupis wrote: post #389
dragonwriter wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 thin…

> The members of the FCC are Democratic and Republican political appointees. And so are Supreme Court Justices. Once appointed, some future President can't just remove them because he/she disagrees. The President isn't a king. It's not a party thing. Stop trying to make it one.

> And so are Supreme Court Justices.

And Supreme Court Justices decisions, throughout their careers, on issues that are politically salient at the time of their appointment very closely track the positions of the President that appointed them. While lots of people like to pretend that the judiciary is apolitical and nonpartisan, all the actual evidence is that it is anything but.

> Once appointed, some future President can't just remove them because he/she disagrees.

Right, the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary in general -- while not at all apolitical and nonpartisan -- are still more insulated from partisan politics and the mood current among elected politicians than, say, members of the FCC because they have lifetime tenure rather than 5 year terms. I'm not sure how pointing this out helps your case that the current net neutrality debate, both in the FCC and more generally, is not strongly partisan.

> It's not a party thing.

I'd surely prefer that support for net neutrality -- on the FCC, in Congress, and more generally -- wasn't a strongly partisan issue, but all the actual facts show that it is an issue that is extremely partisan. You can keep repeating "it's not a party thing" all you want, but it won't stop the fact that on the FCC, support for net neutrality regulations has consistently been split with Democrats for and Republicans against, in the Congress, support for the FCC issuing net neutrality regulations, or the Congress adopting strong net neutrality regulations itself, has consistently been strongly tilted to Democrats for and Republicans against (and, conversely, support for legislation explicitly prohibitong the FCC from regulating for neutrality has been strongly tilted to Republicans for, Democrats against.)

It is a party thing, whether you think it should be or not.

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

#393

Post by rpgmaker »

tzs wrote: post #287
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.

> 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…

Oh please: stop with the revisionist BS just because he apparently came around the issue, after a very public and direct presidential nod no less. His is a classical revolving door story. He didn't intend to classify the internet under Title II but was forced to (anyone remembers his first _actual_ proposal? The internet does have a very short memory). Now, you can say that he genuinely changed his mind in the last few months or so but it's more likely that the cumulative effect of the activism around the issue (the apex probably being John Oliver's net neutrality bit) and the president's request were the deciding factors.

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

#394

Post by dragonwriter »

rpgmaker wrote: post #393
tzs wrote: 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…

Oh please: stop with the revisionist BS just because he apparently came around the issue, after a very public and direct presidential nod no less. His is a classical revolving door story. He didn't intend to classify the internet under Title II but was forced to (anyone remembers his first _actual_ proposal? The internet does have a very short memory). Now, you can say that he genuinely changed his mind in the last f…

> Oh please: stop with the revisionist BS just because he apparently came around the issue, after a very public and direct presidential nod no less.

Wheeler has been one of the three members of the FCC favoring pro-neutrality regulation for quite some time. Its true that he recently came around to the view that Title II was an appropriate vehicle for that regulation, but he's been a supporter of FCC action to enforce neutrality principles for quite some time, as demonstrated by the previous Open Internet Report and Order, the last NPRM in which he took one of the two paths toward enforcing those principles laid out in the court decision striking down the old Open Internet Report and Order, and his new move to use Title II, the other path laid out in that court decision.

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

#395

Post by aptwebapps »

rayiner wrote: post #234
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.

Note: he was a cable lobbyist from 1976-1984, long before cable internet was a thing. He was a wireless industry lobbyist from 1992-2004, but the proposed "light touch" regime looks a lot like what has been applied to the wireless industry for years.

He's been on most sides of this: http://www.cnet.com/news/why-fccs-wheeler-is-defying-the-gre...

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

#396

Post by redler »

ikeboy wrote: post #371
remarkEon wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

You've floated this idea a few times here. How would you propose this rule apply in Manhattan, where the availability of a second ISP option can vary not only block by block, but building by building?

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

#397

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rayiner wrote: post #380
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

So you're proposing there is no TV+internet package available from the ISP, they offer only internet and you get your TV from someone like Netflix.

If the ISPs at this point charge a price for just internet service that makes offering that service profitable, what are you expecting customers to do? Go without internet service?

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

#398

Post by redler »

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…

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

You've floated this idea a few times here. How would you propose this rule apply in Manhattan, where the availability of a second ISP option can vary not only block by block, but building by building? I'm not sure if this is unique to New York City, but the choice to bring a supplier into a building is often the result of an exclusive contractual agreement with that provider (I waited about five years for FiOS to arrive as the second option in my building, finally supplanting the incumbent Time Warner 10/0.5 "broadband" option).

N.B.: My initial response was to your similar comment deeply threaded below.

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

#399

Post by geofft »

dragonwriter wrote: post #249
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?"

> Does this mean that (e.g.) specific cities can petition ISPs to block (e.g.) Uber in their area because it's not "lawful?" It means that actually blocking, throttling, (or, for that matter, paid prioritization, though that will fall afoul of other laws) of unlawful content is not a violation of this particular set of FCC rules. It has no effect (positive or negative) on the pre-existing ability of ISPs, with or wit…

I had trouble understanding this comment at first, I think you're comparing "net neutrality under this rule" with "no net neutrality required by law" (i.e., status quo), whereas the comment thread is, I think, comparing "net neutrality under this rule" with "net neutrality under an even stronger rule that does not have an exception for unlawful content".

That said, I'm really curious how preemption plays into this. For instance, if federal law is silent on the selling of some particular thing, and local law says that selling that thing is a crime, and there's a federal law that e.g. makes it a crime to interfere with "lawful" interstate commerce, and I interfere with you selling that thing, did I commit a federal crime? I can see arguments both ways that make sense to me as a layman, but I'm sure there's a standard answer to this.

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

#400

Post by Dylan16807 »

gergles wrote: post #386
nullrouted wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you show where this would be true at all?

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015... , page 3, first paragraph. Thanks for the downvote.

Hey don't make it sound like you're blaming the one person prohibited from downvoting that post.
Post reply on HN