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

191–200 of 745 posts

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

#191

Post by x0x0 »

tertius wrote: post #154
ForHackernews wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 g…

The major consumer isps have been crystal clear (unless you don't wish to understand): they look at large consumer-facing internet companies and want a piece of the action. eg the recent action by Verizon to charge Netflix money to deliver Netflix to Verizon's paying customers. So if we don't want pay-to-play internet companies, we need net neutrality. Particularly given the widespread monopoly structure of home internet access.

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

#192

Post by ctl »

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…

> 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

In cable internet the average consumer has only one or two potential providers. On top of that, companies who try to break into the industry face significant political and regulatory challenges when they lay fiber.

I don't understand how you can think this kind of industry should be unregulated. There are few market forces keeping providers in line, and we see the results of that in the industry's attempts to extort internet companies with throttling.

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

#193

Post by whoopdedo »

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…

Radio is a limited resource that needs to be allocated fairly. Bandwidth is a commodity that you get as much as you pay for. Title II classification has nothing to do with radio licensing.

If anything, doesn't this make it easier to set up a home server? Current ISP contracts* include a clause saying that I'm not allowed to use a connected computer as a "server". But didn't the FCC already say that a Title II common carrier can't prevent someone from operating a telephone BBS? So if this goes through you'll be free to host a home server.

[*] I say "contract" except I and perhaps most people don't actually have a contract with your ISP. Even though they'll lie and say you do if you try to cancel service or dispute a charge.

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

#194

Post by warfangle »

rayiner wrote: post #103
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 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…

> Up until very recently, Title II was the "nuclear option."

Up until recently (2005), ADSL was classified as Title II. Reclassifying it as an information service made it so much better that VDSL2 (which can provide 100Mbps!), defined in 2005, has .... hardly rolled out anywhere.

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

#195

Post by baddox »

copsarebastards wrote: post #171
baddox wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To be fair, I can identify with the desire to place the burden of proof on the supporters of new regulations.

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

#196

Post by tertius »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #137
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…

This "we haven't even seen the rules yet" line is really just a meaningless talking point promoted by NN opponents. In the world of government regulation, is is absolutely the norm for regulations to be voted on before being made public. But that does not mean the process is not transparent: the Commission has been conducting an open proceeding for months (years, really) where they have explained their proposals to t…

Rather than being out of the ordinary it needs to pause applause until we know what the rules are. I can't make a solid determination if I agree until I have seen the rules.

From what I know already I'm not in favor. I.e. the trepidation felt vs. those who are pro-titleII.

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

#198

Post by LandoCalrissian »

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 is pretty typical for HN. You get a lot of techno libertarians who think any form of regulation is the worst thing ever. To say that the new classification is somehow going to be worse I think is a bit of a stretch.

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

#199

Post by CzechsMix »

wpietri wrote: post #142
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.

As another brand new account, I could see why you'd say that. But in practice, our understanding of what people say is rooted in who they are. If somebody wants to write a book making a formal, evidence backed argument on something, I'm less concerned with who they are. But when somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentences, asking who they are and what their motivations are is much more reasonable. Especiall…

I just feel like if he's so trivially wrong, and you're so obviously right, wouldn't it be better just to explain that? Instead of sinking so low on the debate pyramid as to only be one step above the bottom?

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

#200

Post by TallGuyShort »

ubernostrum wrote: post #97
supergeek133 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what scares me, what was there to hide?

There isn't. Everything gets published. The vote on the rule change came after a public comment period. This thread is just full of HN's intellectually-challenged users waving their hands and saying "ooooOOOOoooo GOVERNMENT! SCARY GOVERNMENT! BE AFRAID OF SCARY GOVERNMENT! ooooOOOOoooo!"

Can you provide a link to the 700 regulations? Can't find one anywhere else.
Post reply on HN