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

151–160 of 745 posts

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

#151

Post by forgottenpass »

rayiner wrote: post #73
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…

The final rule won't be materially different from what was in the NPRM: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017642393 . And the whole proceeding has been documented publicly in Docket 14-28: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28 . The Administrative Procedure Act, which requires the whole notice-and-comment dog and pony show, also makes it pretty easy to overturn regulations if the final regulatio…

> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28.

There it is! I found the docket number but didn't know the right website to find the filings. Thanks for the link. 99 pages tho.

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

#152

Post by eropple »

CzechsMix wrote: post #116
Selfcommit wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not for nothing, but:

   user:	CzechsMix
   created:	11 days ago
   karma:	0
People wouldn't be going "hmm, there's a lot of green names and they're all conveniently anti-NN" if there weren't. Like, y'know...you, yourself, elsewhere in this thread.

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

#153

Post by rayiner »

badsock wrote: post #122
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.

Intel, Cisco, and IBM all sell deep packet inspection products. They have a material interest in not seeing NN go through.

And all of the web-tech companies who support Net Neutrality rely utterly on other peoples' wires to deliver content to their users. They have a huge interest in regulating telcos into "dumb pipes." There's huge monetary incentives on both sides of this debate.

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

#154

Post by tertius »

ForHackernews wrote: post #126
covzzire wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is against NN. Nobody wants the internet to be less free. The problem here is that the FCC is detonating a nuclear bomb to try to put out a house fire. It's completely unnecessary and will do more harm than good.

> Nobody is against NN. Nobody wants the internet to be less free. Yes, absolutely the telecom companies are against net neutrality, because they want to be able to charge a premium for some sites, and give preferential routing to some kinds of traffic. Also, I just want to highlight that there are lot of brand-new accounts on this thread posting cable-company talking points.

> because they want to be able to charge a premium for some sites

Elaborate on this plan.

> and give preferential routing to some kinds of traffic.

This is generally how the internet works. When you say "kinds" you mean surgery in action data vs. netflix data. Or when you say "kinds" do you mean netflix data vs. ISP movie provider data. That is the same kind of data.

You need to be a little more clear.

The internet gives preferential routing to certain kinds of data by design.

* A bunch of new accounts arguing the opposite as well.

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

#155

Post by paulhauggis »

cratermoon wrote: post #147
paulhauggis wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates" It's disingenuous to call an opposing opinion "astro-turfing" in an attempt to discredit them. There are 700 total rules to the regulation. We haven't been able to see one of them. This doesn't concern you in any way? "and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US." Tell…

> We haven't been able to see one of them How is that different from the other FCC policies? It's only the opposition echo chamber repeating the "secret Obama plan to control the Internet" spin.

It's not. Things need to change.

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

#156

Post by nknighthb »

zxcvcxz wrote: post #104

What I'm worried about is that the internet could become like radio, requiring anyone who wants to broadcast (hook up a server) to obtain a license to do so. 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. P…

"Broadcast" and "hook up a server" are in no way similar under the relevant laws and regulations.

Radio broadcast is licensed because of the general problem of limited spectrum. The Internet's point-to-point nature has no such problem.

Meanwhile, the FCC already regulates all electrical devices -- including servers, your PC, and even light bulbs -- to prevent interference.

So, bad news, your fear came true -- in 1934.

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

#157

Post by unprepare »

warfangle wrote: post #63
unprepare wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grass is always greener. Seriously though, I think there was a lot of hype built up around net neutrality(for good reason) and it ended up clouding the discussion. Quickly it became a dichotomy, you must be either for Title II and whatever the FCC decides that entails, or you must be against any change to the status quo. Now that we are passed that dichotomy, we are faced with the reality that we have little cont…

> 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…

This is awesome information, thank you!

Other than censorship, do you foresee any major gotchas in the upcoming regulations?

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

#158

Post by xnull2guest »

Unfortunately the Net Neutrality 'debate' was another lose-lose situation for the United States. What we wanted wasn't for the big telecom duopoly to be forced to either run their business as a tiered service or as a regulated utility. What we wanted was for the US Government to exercise its Anti-Trust capabilities and bust the universally hated Comcast and Time Warner into a bunch of small companies, and set "Goldilocks" regulation so that it's easy for small and new ISPs to compete on both price and service. Additional laws preventing corporations from discriminating by content, protocol, or customer may also have been nice, but would have been that extra nice something.

Are Comcast and Time Warner going to be somehow less shitty now? Are they going to monitor our communications less? Are they going to provide better prices and better customer service? Are they going to cease fraudulently charging customers? No.

Of the two options the FCC chose the better one. But it's America's fatal flaw that all problems have two political solutions, neither of which address real issues or people's needs.

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

#159

Post by cheald »

malchow wrote: post #105
cheald wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 didn't buy transit from Comcast; they paid Comcast some large fee to upgrade links to one or more transit providers that Comcast would in the ordinary and traditional course of business done itself, so as to continue delivering its traditional unrestricted internet product to customers. Netflix can't reach every Comcast node around the country, so it couldn't have 'bought transit' from Comcast. It did try the…

> they paid Comcast some large fee to upgrade links to one or more transit providers

Do you have a link for that? I was unaware of any of that happening. It was my understanding that Netflix is engaging in paid peering directly with Comcast now (http://bgp.he.net/AS2906#_peers).

You're right that Netflix isn't technically buying transit from Comcast, but they replaced their transit purchased from Cogent with paid peering purchased from Comcast; the net effect is the same.

> 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.

I think that's exactly what's happening here, but it's done as a bargaining chip in the never-ending peering wars, rather than Comcast specifically engaging in rent-seeking from Netflix. The history of settlement-free peering is long and sordid, and last-mile providers have been at odds with the T1s for decades. Netflix massively amplified that dispute simply by virtue of the amount of bandwidth they consume.

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

#160

Post by rndmind »

zxcvcxz wrote: post #104

What I'm worried about is that the internet could become like radio, requiring anyone who wants to broadcast (hook up a server) to obtain a license to do so. 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. P…

Although I am similarly skeptical, this type of regulation would be next to impossible when considering the architecture of computer networks.
Post reply on HN