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

231–240 of 745 posts

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

#231

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

Mark Cuban's position isn't technically savvy, it's an opportunity for him to make more money. He says flat out that the Internet model that has worked for decades is broken now, because Netflix. Oh, and QVC should have a right to pay for preferred treatment and lower latency.

The reality is that building core network capacity to handle the likes of Netflix and 8k television is possible and gets cheaper as time goes on. I just participated in the buildout of new datacenter... The cost of building densities of network interconnect and compute unfathomable in 2005 is actually lower than the old 1gb stuff. WAN and telecom equipment that used to take up 10k ft^2 now take two racks and cost 80% less.

The capital investment issues the ISPs face have nothing to do with interconnect -- their dollars are spent in the last mile.

The public interest isn't compatible with Mark Cuban's ability & desire to throw millions of dollars at telcos to give his ventures an advantage. Market forces don't apply when the ISP business is slowly consolidating into a circa 1965 AT&T redux.

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

#232

Post by dragonwriter »

warfangle wrote: post #212
paulhauggis wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. Things need to change.

Then be prepared to change the rules that _all_ independent regulatory bodies with a voting commission operate under. Because this is SOP.

> Then be prepared to change the rules that _all_ independent regulatory bodies with a voting commission operate under. Because this is SOP.

Its actually pretty much all regulatory bodies -- its just there is no formal "vote" in regular executive branch hierarchies before a regulatory action is adopted. But they still don't publish the internal drafts that are considered before they are adopted (they do sometimes publish NPRMs before final rules, but the FCC did that in this case, too.)

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

#233

Post by pastProlog »

mudil wrote: post #16

FCC has now "fixed" something that was not broken, and gov't is now regulating internet. I am on this one with Mark Cuban, who is scared shitless of this gov't take over. Speaking of shitless, is everyone ready for decency standards?

> government is now regulating the internet...government takeover

Who do you think we are, a bunch of Fox News watching yokel fools? I was on the Internet back when the NSFnet AUP banning commercial use was in effect in the early 1990s. So were a lot of us.

The Internet was a creation of the government, and remained a government funded project from the 1960s until the 1990s. Then CIX came along and eventually NSFnet and ARPAnet were decommissioned.

This type of telco/cable astroturfing talk is for uneducated rednecks who get their news from fundamentalist preachers and Glenn Beck. Not for people who maintained machines which switched from using /etc/hosts to translate IP address, to name resolution via sri-nic.arpa (and then nic.ddn.mil, etc.)

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

#234

Post by surrealize »

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…

> ("Mark Cuban faults ‘Silicon Valley groupthink,’ says FCC broadband rule a mistake")

Ha, cable network owner Mark Cuban is totally unbiased, of course.

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

#235

Post by iterationx »

mwsherman wrote: post #149
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 argument is the essence of ad hominem. First, that disagreement is unreasonable. Second, that those who disagree have ulterior motives.

fake outrage is a very effective tactic on public forums

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

#236

Post by iNate2000 »

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…

Re: lack of competition: In my neighborhood there is only one real broadband ISP: Comcast. The recent re-definition of "broadband" may have caused some other providers to improve some of their offerings.

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

#237

Post by tertius »

x0x0 wrote: post #191
tertius wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 inte…

TitleII is not the solution for this problem.

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

#238

Post by natmaster »

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…

Astroturfing? Your account is only 771 days old.

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

#239

Post by cubano »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #26
shmerl wrote: post #5

Congratulations, but it's far from enough to improve things. It will just prevent some abuse. Now, as a next step they should pass unbundling of the last mile.

Really, that's the only regulation that was needed. All the other concerns that the other regulations targeted would be taken care of.

Exactly.

Disbanding the last-mile monopolies would introduce the market forces needed to fix almost all the problems that most people think need fixing, although the corporate plutocrats would quickly scramble to consolidate things again, as they did during the cell phone explosion.

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

#240

Post by orthecreedence »

mudil wrote: post #109
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.

Precisely. 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.

So government censorship vs corporate? At least the former is a body controlled (indirectly) by public votes/opinion, whereas the latter is a monopoly that's either unaware or indifferent to consumer opinion.

If the telecoms hadn't pushed their luck by starting the censorship process to begin with, we could have all sat pretty with the status quo for a while.

Post reply on HN