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

261–270 of 745 posts

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

#261

Post by monochromatic »

wpietri wrote: post #241
monochromatic wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I meant more about what "reasonable people" agree upon.

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

#262

Post by innguest »

unprepare wrote: post #179
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…

Forgive my ignorance, Why would i need a broadcast license? Is this to start an ISP? a website? or what?

I'll answer you because you're asking explicitly, but see warfangle's reply to my post making fun of me.

What warfangle etc don't understand is that was exactly the excuse for the FCC to get into the Radio business. Oh no, it wasn't to require licenses! It was to protect people from warfangle's "chaos" that he paints so vividly but that never happened in actual reality, you know, the one we live in. Maybe it happens inside the theoretical realities that warfangle makes up. Regardless.

So the FCC at first was all like "yeah we need to step in to protect the radio waves from jumbling". Even the president at the time said he saw no problem with just leaving it be. But the FCC got its way. But oh! We forgot. In order to protect the waves from jumbling we'll need to require that people get licenses, but you know, it's just to assign a name to a frequency. That's all! But you need a license.

The same will happen online. Not at first, but eventually. And the excuse will be the same. Netflix uses too much bandwidth? Well, they'll need a license. Suddenly all busy websites need a license, but they'll only get it if the FCC approves it. Netflix? Granted. Popcorn Time? Disallowed. Mainstream X? Granted. Controversial Y? Disallowed.

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

#263

Post by bmelton »

copsarebastards wrote: post #145
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.

user: travie7273 created: 27 minutes ago

This really isn't helpful. If you'd read his comment, it would be clear that his last account was banned, which would all but necessitate that any new accounts would be, y'know, new.

Further, it shouldn't need to be pointed out, but the insightfulness of one's posts should not be judged against how long they've been members of a website.

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

#264

Post by tdicola »

gameshot911 wrote: post #110

Amazing that a change of this magnitude rests on a 5-person vote.

Not really, there are two people in the world who have the power to completely obliterate it with a full scale nuclear strike.

A small committee of people making a proposal, giving 9 months to comment on it, then vote on it sounds like a normal procedure to me.

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

#265

Post by CamperBob2 »

droopybuns wrote: post #168
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 have looked hard at the issues & I'm not on any campaign. Paid prioritization is not a bad thing. Blocking websites is. There is a whole nascent standard called LTE direct that suddenly becomes pointless if you can't distinquish traffic priorities. There are innovations that are being cut out of the picture for entirely new m2x flows & peer to peer flows because of the desire to remove paid prioritization. It is no…

I can't help but suspect that the ultimate effect of paid prioritization would be to stifle future growth.

Say you're a mobile carrier in the not-too-distant future. Lots of your customers are addicted to the hottest new social network in the Valley, FaceFlix. Trouble is, you're catching hell from both sides -- your customers are complaining about sluggish performance, and FaceFlix is complaining about inadequate bandwidth. What's your path of least resistance? Do you spend money building out your network, buying expensive chunks of spectrum at auction and erecting new towers all over the place? Or do you choose to make money, charging FaceFlix to drop their competitors' packets into the bit bucket? It will seem like a no-brainer from your point of view, and that's why paid prioritization is a bad idea.

It just sounds like a recap of the apocryphal story from the early telephone days, where a local undertaker was said to be bribing the operator to reroute calls away from their competitor. Why is that behavior suddenly OK this time around, in your eyes?

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

#266

Post by spiralpolitik »

Spooky23 wrote: post #231
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…

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…

Isn't this what it boils down to for the opponents of Net Neutrality ? Either they can't make as much money or they can't buy themselves advantage.

Also expect to see someone like Cuban challenge this on 1st amendment grounds. Given that for the 1% mindset spending money equals speech, the government stopping them spending money to again an advantage is in their mind a restriction on speech. Sad but true.

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

#267

Post by TeMPOraL »

wpietri wrote: post #208
CzechsMix wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 slight…

The way I know that eropple knows what he's talking about is that I've been reading his comments for years, and so have a sense of his competence, interest, and manner of thinking. They reason I suspect you don't is that you've turned up with a brand new account and an apparent partisan interest. If you would like not to be suspected like that, you could, as I and eropple have, connect you account to your full identi…

Indeed. The one thing I love about HN is that it's small enough that after time, you simply get to know other commenters and you learn their areas of competence.

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

#268

Post by tsax »

copsarebastards wrote: post #210
tsax wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If content regulations happen, they'll come in with the new flavor of the month, i.e. 'social justice.' There will be vague statutes against 'harassment' I'm guessing, and anyone decrying their vagueness or broadness will be decried a racist, sexist shitlord. You won't get 80's style 'Christian moralism' language in 2020.

> Are you suggesting it's some kind of conspiracy? Despite the Tumblr feminist movement, I don't think most people are in favor of this sort of regulation, and there isn't sufficient monetary motivation that I can see for such regulation to happen. However, I do agree that this kind of regulation would also be bad. But again: we can cross that bridge when (if?) we come to it.

Your mistake is to imagine that you have any power at all to affect such outcomes and processes. They will be guided by media/PR/social forces, not your arguments. I guess it's the universal democratic conceit of the 'we.'

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

#269

Post by mason240 »

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…

Accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a paid shill is pure FUD in itself.

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

#270

Post by mason240 »

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…

Accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a paid shill is pure FUD in itself.
Post reply on HN