101–110 of 745 posts
Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Reading commen…
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…
This is a huge problem. It is literally impossible for lawmakers and regulators to read everything they put into law, as many bills are hundreds of pages long.
Does anyone have any viable solutions to this problem? The only attempt to solve this problem that I know of was in early 18th Century England, when they set a limit on the word count of laws. But this was widely criticized (including being lampooned in Gulliver's Travels) and didn't last long. It seems like this is a pretty intractible problem.
Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Reading commen…
This is revisionist history. Up until very recently, Title II was the "nuclear option."[1] There's plenty of people who are pro-net neutrality who were skeptical of Title II. That's why they originally threw their support behind the FCC's last attempt at net neutrality, which tried to impose neutrality without reclassification.
The EFF only came out in favor of reclassification in June of last year, in a very measured and deliberate release: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/fcc-and-net-neutrality....
And some reasonably, technologically savvy people are opposed to net neutrality period: http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2015/02/mark-cuban-faults-... ("Mark Cuban faults ‘Silicon Valley groupthink,’ says FCC broadband rule a mistake")
[1] Conservatives don't like it because it allows the FCC to do things like rate-setting, even if this administration chooses not to use that power. Liberals don't like the specter of FCC regulation of content.
PS: The accusations of astroturfing on HN are a vile sort of rhetorical tactic.
All people have the right to connect as many devices
as they want to the internet, and connect their own
server(s) on their own network to the public internet,
and allow others to use their servers for any and all
purposes including to connect to the internet.
People have the right to serve and distribute content
on the public internet from their own network or
server and any other network/server giving them
permission to do so.
People have a right to serve and distribute content in
a way that a maximum number of devices can access it
with ease.
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 can't reach every Comcast node around the country, so it couldn't have 'bought transit' from Comcast. It did try the next best thing: colocating, at its own expense, servers at Comcast POPs with cached Netflix content. Comcast said no thanks to that one. Netflix also tried buying extra capacity from other transit providers (Tata and some others.) I think -- but am not certain -- that, when Comcast learned that that deal had happened, it began failing to upgrade those links, too.
It's hard to think of an explanation for these peering disputes between CDNs/transit providers and consumer ISPs that doesn't imply ISP hostage-taking. (Where the consumer is hostage.) These consumer ISPs have an easy job: keep these links to the middle networks and backbone networks up to date. And keep the copper in decent shape.
Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Reading commen…
Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. IBM, Intel, and Cisco are against it. My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations. It's odd that people like you can't fathom that there are two sides to this issue.
Chairman Wheeler proves that he isn't a dingo.
Actually, if you watch any of the various hearings and what-not that he's been in, talking about his plans (and previous attempts) to preserve net neutrality, I think it was pretty clear he was on the right track all along. Surprising, I know, given his background, but still.
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutra...
Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Reading commen…
Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Reading commen…
Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. IBM, Intel, and Cisco are against it. My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations. It's odd that people like you can't fathom that there are two sides to this issue.
Also, now as a utility, internet can be regulated for content, be it decency standards or political speech. Maybe not now, not next year, but what about in 5-10 years? Content is content, all bits are equal, all bits are over the same utilities. And internet as a utility is now regulated.