Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 745 posts

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#51

Post by protomyth »

unprepare wrote: post #33
supergeek133 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, that's all most of us want. Transparency. The FCC is un-elected, that's always scary. Not that our elected officials know better. Haha.

I agree On one hand- the FCC is non-elected and thus the people have less control of them On the other hand, this also means they don't need to seek funding for running a campaign which theoretically could insulate them from what we see with our elected officials currently pandering to business interests. Time will tell with this decision i suppose, whats important from my perspective is that change happens quickly i…

"this also means they don't need to seek funding for running a campaign which theoretically could insulate them from what we see with our elected officials currently pandering to business interests"

Check the employment history of FCC folks after their term. It is very much like other staff members in various regulatory bodies in DC, they get high paying jobs in the industry for their work.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#52

Post by ebbv »

There's a lot of echoing of telco FUD in here. Let's get some things straight:

- The FCC is unelected, but so is the EPA, FBI, CIA, DOD, DOJ, etc. We can't elect everybody who works in government. That wouldn't work.

- This does not mean the FCC is uncontrollable or unanswerable for what it does. It answers to both the executive and legislative branches of government, and of course anything it does can be subject to the courts as well. So it is checked by all three branches of government.

- With all the shenanigans and expensive lawyers the telcos have at their disposal, it shouldn't surprise you that 700 regulations were involved in this. What do you think, a one page paper that says "The Internet is Neutral. Don't throttle traffic on it." is enough? Of course it's not. Comcast has you sign a user agreement that's dozens of pages long just to use their service.

- Regulations are not usually published before they are done. There would be little point because they are constantly changing. I can see the transparency argument that it would be nice to see the proposed regulations being worked on in "real time", but in progress documents like this have a lot of things added and taken out constantly. Something that's not going to stay in could be cited while it's being worked on by pundits to try to sway public opinion against it. There's a balancing act between transparency and muddying the waters.

- The regulations will be published. If there is something awful in there it can be dealt with. This isn't the only thing that will ever happen. Laws get repealed and changed all the time.

- This is a good thing for anyone who isn't on the board of a telco.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#53

Post by nknighthb »

paulhauggis wrote: post #36
ForHackernews wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I don't blame him. We have a GOP-controlled Congress, so testifying would just be an hours-long exercise in getting yelled at by old people who don't understand technology or believe in science, but love an opportunity for political grandstanding against an Obama-appointee.

This is a poor excuse for a lack of transparency and is unacceptable.

Congressional testimony is not the same thing as transparency. In my experience, it's just the opposite.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#54

Post by Goronmon »

stass wrote: post #44
smileysteve wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix was having to make back market deals (with companies with conflicts of interest) to have the isp's customers (who were paying for access to) have access to their service. How was this "not broken"?

Is it necesseraly bad? Netflix making deals with ISPs is exactly what market self-regulation is.

That's a nice video streaming service you have there. It would be a shame if it were to suffer from sudden 'congestion' issues.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#55

Post by mackal »

cheald wrote: post #31
smileysteve wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix was having to make back market deals (with companies with conflicts of interest) to have the isp's customers (who were paying for access to) have access to their service. How was this "not broken"?

No, they didn't. Netflix had plenty of options for transit to Comcast - they didn't have to use Cogent. But it would have cost them a lot more. Cogent is famous for both cut-rate transit and peering disputes with last-mile providers. The fact that they bought from Comcast rather than someone like Level3 or XO should tell you that they rate they got from Comcast was better than what they'd have gotten from another tra…

Netflix does use Level 3. At least for their connections to Verizon FiOS customers. Who also observe shit performance.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#56

Post by sigzero »

dragonwriter wrote: post #47
strictnein wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What word? Really no idea.

Several good candidates in that quote. "Freedom" and "intrusion" are probably the best candidates.

Except I do think he knows what those words mean.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#57

Post by ForHackernews »

paulhauggis wrote: post #45
ForHackernews wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulating the internet like a utility is quite possibly the worst thing you can imagine, and now its come to reality. Why? My electricity and water work a hell of a lot better than my cable internet.

Yes, but both electricity and water don't really require innovation in the future. I can't remember the last time I wanted higher speed water in my house.

You almost couldn't be more wrong about that. Providing electricity and water are both massively complex undertakings, and ongoing innovation[0] is crucial to providing service for a growing population, and meeting the ecological challenges of tomorrow. California is in the middle of an epochal drought[1], and you're saying we don't need innovation in water?

[0] http://energy.gov/oe/services/technology-development/smart-g...

[1] http://ca.gov/drought/

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#58

Post by Zancarius »

paulhauggis wrote: post #34
Zancarius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how something intended to prevent ISPs from throttling content turned into a debate about helping out the disadvantaged, etc. It worries me that issues like this are co-opted to turn them into a one-size-fits-all batch of regulations sidelining their original intent. On the other hand, it's my understanding that the FCC will enter a period of public comments after voting on the rules but prior to enacting them.…

I have no faith in the general public anymore. I've seen so many Twitter hash tag campaigns started on false information and lies (and even the mainstream media picks up on it and continues to spread it around as truth) that I can't expect the opposite to happen when it comes to really important things such as regulating the Internet. Anyone with a little bit of social power can convince more people to vote their way…

> It's a good example of why we have representatives representing the people and we don't have a traditional democracy.

Exactly. It's worrisome to me that nearly all political campaigns have been driven by emotional rubbish without any regard for possible repercussions. Yet, you're decried and rebuked for daring to suggest that we probably ought to stop and think very cautiously about what it is we're asking for!

On the other hand, our representatives are paid for by lobbyists and seldom appeal to their constituents even if it's in the latter's best interests.

I can only hope at this point that these regulations are not so overbearing and damaging that it harms innovation. But with 700+ regulations on the books now, I'm feeling somewhat pessimistic. I rather wish the FCC focused exclusively on what it was so-called "net neutrality" was originally intended to do. But now I'm afraid that if their language is too broad, Mark Cuban may be right, and it might affect QoS and related protocols. (I don't think that would happen--and I feel Mr. Cuban may be a touch paranoid--but politicians aren't exactly known for their technological prowess either.)

I'm truly sorry for my pessimism. I just don't have much faith.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#59

Post by supergeek133 »

lmg643 wrote: post #50
paulhauggis wrote: post #2

What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. I wouldn't sign a contract without reading it (and having the person on the other side telling me all of the reasons why I should), and neither should you. But apparently, the general population (and many here) will. I watched the entire live broadcast and the pros played only on emotion (safety, helping out the disadvantage…

Tom Wheeler was a career lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries. I assume those firms are getting what they want, sort of like how Obamacare is good for insurance companies (they are only "allowed" to sell expensive plans, with government subsidies for those who can't afford them). I liked this stat from Wheeler's bio: "Wheeler was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame in 2003, and in 2009, as a result of h…

I remember when this guy was appointed, everyone flipped out because of his history and called it a bad move. Now this happens and he's the messiah! Haha.
Post reply on HN