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

111–120 of 745 posts

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

#111

Post by copsarebastards »

travie7273 wrote: post #91
chetanahuja wrote: post #76

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.

Frankly, I don't give a shit what corporations were for or against. Unless you have actual criticisms of the bill itself, I can only conclude that there are, in fact, not two sides to this issue.

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

#112

Post by smtddr »

travie7273 wrote: post #91
chetanahuja wrote: post #76

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.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/jostling-begins-as-fccs-net-neut...

"""Google has grown. And strong net neutrality rules are now no longer a top company priority. They could even be a hindrance. Officially, Google hasn’t taken a formal position on the president’s net neutrality proposal."""

I fail to understand how this could hurt Google. If ISPs start modifying speed and/or access to certain domains I can only see that as damaging for Google. The only thing I can think of is the typical pattern of a company becoming hugely successful then begin seeking to change the laws that allowed them to grow so nobody else can follow the path. Kinda like cutting the bridge after you've crossed it.

I hope that's not what E.Schmidt is thinking...

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

#113

Post by canvia »

Zancarius wrote: post #38
carlisle_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Funny how something intended to prevent ISPs from throttling content turned into a debate about helping out the disadvantaged, etc Isn't that just politics in general?

Yep. It's like everything else in the last 20+ years. Someone drafts a bill that sounds like a good idea, then before you know it, it balloons to thousands of pages of rhetoric drafted by every lobbyist in Washington. I don't know what the answer is. I can think of a few solutions, but they're impractical and would never happen.

Limit the length of bills and require them to be read out loud into public record in their entirety before passage.

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

#114

Post by CzechsMix »

innguest wrote: post #80
warfangle wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the FCC loves to censor things like television, and it wouldn't be insane to think they would consider doing the same with the internet Unfortunately, this is kind of a red herring. There are a few places in the telecommunications act that require the FCC to fine for indecency/obscene material. Cable operators themselves, for example, are not responsible for channels that display obscene material - the original tra…

> Unfortunately, this is kind of a red herring. There are a few places in the telecommunications act that require the FCC to fine for indecency/obscene material. That is the true red herring we hear over and over again. Don't worry about censorship, you can still say indecent/obscene things... if you happen to have been awarded the broadcasting license . Sir, or Ma'am, please understand. The censorship problem we ant…

How is it that nobody thinks forcing people to obtain a license for broadcasting isn't censorship, and/or forced monopoly? Like how do you reason yourself into believing those two things are false?

Like, the biggest problem is that people are unhappy with comcast and there's no alternative. Then they get the bright idea that making entry into the market harder will fix this problem?

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

#115

Post by innguest »

paulhauggis wrote: post #69
guelo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when ex-Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai said the FCC is replacing Internet freedom with government control and then blamed Obama, that wasn't playing on emotion?

"replacing Internet freedom with government control" This is what is happening. The government is now regulating the Internet. Where is the emotion? "then blamed Obama" He played a clip in which Obama talked about what he wanted. The FCC complied and now we have Internet regulation (exactly what Obama wanted). Again, these are facts, not emotion. I also think it's funny that you mention one line of potential emotion…

It boils down to that much: emotive people that can't reason without reacting are the majority, and they are easily swayed by politicians who are swayed by professional talkers (lobbyists) that know how to appeal to politicians' emotions.

We will never convince emotive people to think, because they are so overwhelmed by fear. To think for oneself means to shed cultural ties and to stop identifying oneself with a group. We are all individuals and that's the only identity we all share in the world. The minority that realizes this will forever be prisoner to the irrational mob majority that act like tribesmen and incessantly demand group privileges.

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

#116

Post by CzechsMix »

Selfcommit wrote: post #106
travie7273 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your account was created 15 min ago and has 6 Karma - Can you back up who you are at all?

That's a little Ad hom for my taste.

If he's making bad points, attack and refute those. Not him.

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

#117

Post by malchow »

cheald wrote: post #82
mackal wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The Verizon/Level3 Netflix performance issue is also the consequence of a peering dispute between Level3 and Verizon, by admission of both Verizon and Level3 - not a consequence of Verizon specifically throttling Netflix traffic. It's very important that the distinction be made between saturated interlinks and throttling of specific origins; many people seem to think that it's the latter that's been done here, when t…

"To put it another way, unless these new rules require that ISPs hook up as much interlink as their T1 peers ask for, these rules won't fix shitty Netflix performance on last-mile networks who are engaged in peering disputes with Netflix's transit providers."

100% agree. But it isn't really "as much as peers ask for;" it's more like: as much as consumers demand, keeping peak link utilization at 50% or some industry standard figure.

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

#118

Post by wpietri »

jes wrote: post #87
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.

Your comment would have been better, in my view, without the ad-hominem attack on older people. Especially if you wish to advocate for a pro-science, reason and evidence approach to argumentation.

As a relatively old person, at least for HN, I don't believe it's ad hominem to suggest that old people don't understand new things as well as younger people do. And it's clearly an issue for the Internet. Note, for example, the strong correlation between age and internet use here:

http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-age-literature/#many

There's also the term "digital native": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_native

There's always a difference between the technologies you grew up around and the ones that have emerged after you became an adult. For me it feels similar to my native language and the ones I've picked up later.

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

#119

Post by baddox »

chetanahuja wrote: post #76

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…

I don't believe I have enough information to conclude that classifying broadband as a Title II utility will be a good thing. My general impression is that more and stricter regulations in an industry is usually (though not always) a bad thing for consumers in that industry, so while I'm not vehemently against this NN bill, I certainly am not excited or optimistic.

I consider my views reasonable, although I guess an unreasonable person would consider their own unreasonable views to be reasonable. I'm definitely not astro-turfing, although if I get a check from the Ministry of Truth I will refrain from cashing it and let you know.

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

#120

Post by strictnein »

copsarebastards wrote: post #111
travie7273 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Frankly, I don't give a shit what corporations were for or against. Unless you have actual criticisms of the bill itself, I can only conclude that there are, in fact, not two sides to this issue.

What bill?
Post reply on HN