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

171–180 of 745 posts

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

#171

Post by copsarebastards »

baddox wrote: post #119
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 u…

> I don't believe I have enough information to conclude that classifying broadband as a Title II utility will be a good thing.

It seems like we don't have enough information to say it's a bad thing either, but that's not stopping these < 1 hour old accounts from saying it.

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

#172

Post by Zigurd »

cheald wrote: post #95
Goronmon wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is there any evidence of that actually happening? By that I mean Netflix being specifically throttled. To date, we've yet to see any evidence that Netflix-originated traffic has been targeted. The interlink capacity has been under dispute, but all traffic carried by those interlinks is subject to congestion, not just Netflix.

> Is there any evidence of that actually happening?

Yes. People are buying VPN service to get adequate NetFlix performance. SPs are running a protection racket.

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

#173

Post by [deleted] »

copsarebastards wrote: post #133
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.

user: covzzire created: 19 minutes ago

[deleted]

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

#174

Post by Varcht »

paulhauggis wrote: post #132
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…

"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…

Apropos "Soros, Ford Foundation shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House" : http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-mill...

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

#175

Post by monochromatic »

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…

> This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates.

Anybody who disagrees with you must have been bought and paid for by your evil opponents, huh.

> 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.

Honestly, this kind of statement is what sounds like ridiculous astroturfing.

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

#176

Post by [deleted] »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #163
rayiner wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing. 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 o…

> 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. This is a funny line of reasoning on the part of Conservatives. Reclassification under Title II is supposedly bad because it allows future Commissions to impose rate-setting requirements. But, in the absence of…

[deleted]

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

#177

Post by CzechsMix »

eropple wrote: post #152
CzechsMix wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, I happen to be anti-NN, no, I do not think that the way things currently are works. No I do not think the cable companies operate fairly in a free market.

Sorry, I'm anti-NN, sorry I joined only 11 days ago. I can assure you. the two are not related. Again, if elsewhere in this thread, I'm making points you disagree with. attack and refute the points themselves. How else can anyone ever think you have the slightest idea you know what you're talking about, if all you can do is spout people's account age and karma ratings? if being anti-NN is so trivially stupid, shouldn't you be able to point this out quite simply?

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

#178

Post by api »

Zancarius wrote: post #71
walexander wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget the MPAA and RIAA.

You know, it's funny you mention this... I was thinking last night about how I haven't heard much from these two organizations over the whole net neutrality debate. But then I started wondering why the FCC commissioners kept using the phrase "legal content" in the context of these regulations. Maybe I'm a touch paranoid, but it almost sounds too coincidental. Gosh, I hope it's not true, but now that you mention it, t…

Even if such a thing were included, it is utterly unenforceable without breaking encryption and rendering all e-commerce and other secure uses of the Internet compromised.

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

#179

Post by unprepare »

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…

Forgive my ignorance, Why would i need a broadcast license?

Is this to start an ISP? a website? or what?

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

#180

Post by tertius »

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.

* The FCC cannot pass bills, they're generally referred to as rules/regulations.
Post reply on HN