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

241–250 of 745 posts

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

#241

Post by wpietri »

monochromatic wrote: post #175
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 sound…

There is quite literally almost no competition in US broadband access. See the graph here:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-n...

To have a robust market, you need a variety of players. Witha duopoly, you generally end up with approximately the same service as a monopoly, but with two slightly different price points. But the fast majority of the US has at best 2 choices even for a 4 Mbps plan. At 25 Mbps down, then only 2.4% of customers have three or more choices.

I would rather have a robust market, and indeed I'm one of the few people who has stuck with independent ISPs even though it costs me more. But given the oligopoly we've got, I'm happen to take strong regulation to prevent abuse.

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

#242

Post by cratermoon »

tertius wrote: post #162
cratermoon wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Up until very recently, everyone considered Title II the "nuclear option." As far back as the 90s, when Mosaic was still the most advanced browser out there, I was noting that Title II common carrier rules for ISPs were the best choice to balance free speech needs -- to prevent ISPs and Backbone providers from censoring the content they carry -- and protect ISPs from liability for their users' communications. It's…

> balance free speech needs -- to prevent ISPs and Backbone providers from censoring the content they carry Unless it's not deemed "legal." And I'm not talking about torrenting.

The big media companies have almost nothing to worry about when it comes to the legality of the content they sell. It's the individual user or small dissident group that would be harmed by repressive censorship rules. Those same interests would fair no better under corporate-controlled internet, because their views would be blocked or crowded out of access by the companies protecting their own interests.

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

#243

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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…

I guess I'm defending network neutrality again today.

> 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.

The FCC hasn't been granted any new authority, they always could have done the reclassification and then done rate-setting. The only way to change that is to pass a law, which can happen or not independent of reclassification.

> Liberals don't like the specter of FCC regulation of content.

Are they regulating content? They haven't classified it under Title III or VI.

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

I can't understand what Mark Cuban is talking about. He keeps talking about "uncertainty" and asking questions as if the presumptive answers would be problematic. What if they classify cable TV as an over the top service that can't have paid prioritization? I don't see the problem. There is no actual reason why HBO and CNN can't be delivered like Netflix.

He just seems to be confused in general. Like talking about broadcast TV indecency regulations that aren't even under Title II.

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

#244

Post by twoodfin »

warfangle wrote: post #194
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…

> 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.

I'd argue that Title II classification (along with competitive access requirements) was a huge handicap on the telcos ability to make money in DSL, so it was starved of investment, and that by 2005 they were already too far behind cable to compete.

Why won't this happen with cable? What motivation does Comcast have to keep increasing the speed of their network? Especially since, believe you me, the calls for the FCC to mandate "open networks" (i.e. competitive access) could be right around the corner.

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

#245

Post by feld »

CzechsMix wrote: post #114
innguest wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

There's very limited spectrum and if everyone is fighting to see who can broadcast the loudest the entire system will fail.

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

#246

Post by dragonwriter »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #138
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…

People aren't worried about the main gist. People are scared of the fine details that they categorically refused to release before voting.

> People aren't worried about the main gist. People are scared of the fine details that they categorically refused to release before voting.

Strangely, the people that have suddenly expressed concerned about the second thing in the major media as the vote approached are the same people that were expressing opposition on the first ground until very recently (and, many of them continued to do both.)

So, I don't think that is at all accurate.

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

#247

Post by ForHackernews »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #200
ubernostrum wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The full regulations should be published within the next few days. They won't go into effect immediately, and the public (and Congress) will certainly get to comment, and suggest revisions.

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

#248

Post by rhino369 »

warfangle wrote: post #194
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…

> 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.

The original Title II classification which included local loop bundling killed DSL investment and allowed cable broadband to take over the market. Ever wonder why America has cable broadband and the rest of the world uses some version of DSL or fiber provided by the telephone company? Title II.

As soon as it was deregulated, Verizon and AT&T began upgrades. But before then, they weren't going to build upgrades to networks that any competitor could borrow at wholesale value.

The title II being proposed is a lot lighter than the old kind applied to the DSL, so it won't necessarily destroy invesment. But the fear is reasonable.

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

#249

Post by chetanahuja »

Alupis wrote: post #223
chetanahuja wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What happened to open and honest discussions?" I just went through your recent comment history and it's pretty clear you're interested in no such thing. You've been blindly repeating Fox News style prepared talking points without regards to actual information presented to you. As an example this was explained to you in another subthread below: "Regulatory orders aren't generally published before being approved by th…

> I just went through your recent comment history and it's pretty clear you're interested in no such thing. You've been blindly repeating Fox News style > Seeing your ad-nauseam repetition of the same talking points Attack the argument -- not the person.

My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. They are here to spread FUD via talking points. I attempted to prove the futility of attacking the arguments by showing that they have been clearly countered before while failing to budge this account from their fixed talking points.

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

#250

Post by trose »

copsarebastards wrote: post #102
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…

> What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. This is a huge problem. It is literally impossible for lawmakers and regulators to read everything they put into law, as many bills are hundreds of pages long. Does anyone have any viable solutions to this problem? The only attempt to solve this problem that I know of was in early 18th Century England, when they set a limi…

The guy you're replying to is scare mongering. We're at the step now where the FCC is opening the regulations up for public comment. Obviously they aren't going to release their footnotes before they've iterated on the regulations internally. All of the negative comments on here are essentially "why haven't we seen this yet?!?!?!" on the day they decided its ready for people to see. It's all quite childish bickering bordering on obvious public opinion manipulation.
Post reply on HN