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

281–290 of 745 posts

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

#281

Post by r00fus »

rhino369 wrote: post #248
warfangle wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 net…

> 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.

Given the great intentions that such bastions of corporate ethics like AT&T and Verizon have, is it possible that they simple held out until the got what they wanted?

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

#282

Post by paulhauggis »

chetanahuja wrote: post #201
paulhauggis wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

"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 prepared talking points without regards to actual information presented to you. As an example this was explained to you in another subthread below:"

I don't watch Fox news, sorry (I cut cable years ago). I know it may come as a shock to you that people actually think critically about a situation, but this is what I am doing. I have brought up many good points and concerns, and they seem to be getting side-tracked and you are (attempting) to discredit me.

"Seeing your ad-nauseam repetition of the same talking points while utterly disregarding cogent responses to them"

Look at my response. He said there is a 300+ page plan and now we know there are 700 regulatory rules that still have not seen. Can you show them to me? This would stop me from asking.

"As just one more examples out of dozens more, here's what tzs explained to you in another thread yesterday:"

So, I ask for more transparency and your response is another poster that basically said that it's not done this way. Can you tell me why it isn't done this way and why, going forward, it shouldn't?

Now, instead of trying to delve into my past and attack me personally (which is usually a red flag for me, but I will ignore it), tell me:

1) What are the 700 regulations and why should I not be able to see them? My business and my life runs through the Internet and I pretty much use it every day. I should have some say in rules that will now be imposed on me.

2) Even if we get to see proposals before regulations and laws are in place, it's still not a vote.

In the very beginning, we will probably see no change with the new regulations. It's 5 or 10 years down the line that's still unknown. By this time, people will not associate the higher bills and other effects with this new regulation and politicians will push the blame on something else.

I'm actually shocked that intelligent people have no problem just giving their rights away in the blink of an eye.

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

#283

Post by supergeek133 »

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…

Nah. I like it in general, I just want to see all of the regulations/impacts before making a final judgement.

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

#284

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> Also, now as a utility, internet can be regulated for content, be it decency standards or political speech.

Please point to the provision of Title II that allows content regulation, whether it be for "decency standard or political speech" or anything else?

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

#285

Post by URSpider94 »

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…

>> because they want to be able to charge a premium for some sites >Elaborate on this plan.

OK. Comcast offers their "On Demand" service over their IP network. I can consume it with their set-top box, or with an XFinity app on my XBox. The bandwidth that I use for this app does not count against any data cap that Comcast may impose, and they're also doing traffic shaping to give this on-demand content preference over what I would get with Amazon or Netflix apps sitting next to the Comcast app in my home menu. That is using their position as the last-mile provider to give their content preferential treatment.

>> 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 gives preferential routing to certain kinds of data by design.

See above. Comcast and others are already giving preferential treatment to their own video streaming services vs. other services that are streaming the same kind of content.

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

#286

Post by BinaryIdiot »

duaneb wrote: post #211
xnull2guest wrote: post #158

Unfortunately the Net Neutrality 'debate' was another lose-lose situation for the United States. What we wanted wasn't for the big telecom duopoly to be forced to either run their business as a tiered service or as a regulated utility. What we wanted was for the US Government to exercise its Anti-Trust capabilities and bust the universally hated Comcast and Time Warner into a bunch of small companies, and set "Goldil…

It's not the job of the government to make companies less shitty, it's their job to protect the free market so OTHER companies can reduce the shittiness of e.g. comcast. This is just the first step. I'd also like to point out that splitting up Ma Bell hardly solved the problem.

> It's not the job of the government to make companies less shitty, it's their job to protect the free market so OTHER companies can reduce the shittiness of e.g. comcast.

While you're correct you also need to remember that it was the government who helped create many of these monopolies in the first place. Trying to force the market to become more open for smaller companies arguably could have been the best move to make. But that doesn't really matter now.

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

#287

Post by at-fates-hands »

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!"

So this doesn't scare you at all?

The plan gives a Washington bureaucracy a blank check to decide how Internet service providers deploy and manage their networks, from the last mile all the way through the Internet backbone. Take interconnection as just one example. The plan states that the FCC can determine when a broadband provider must establish physical interconnection points, where they must locate those points, how much they can charge for the provision of that infrastructure, and how they will route traffic over those connections. That is anything but light touch regulation. And the plan extends the FCC’s interventionist gaze well beyond this part of the network. Small wonder that some pro-regulation activists are already deeming the FCC the “Department of the Internet.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pai-press-stmt-president-ob...

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

#288

Post by shit_parade »

LandoCalrissian wrote: post #198
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.

Because recent government conduct has been stellar, I really want more government regulation, government always knows best, government does an amazing job, is very fair, is very open and transparent, government is democratic and responsive to citizen concerns.

What typical myopic bullshit.

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

#289

Post by neuromancer2701 »

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…

So the better question is how did we get to this duopoly?

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

#290

Post by malchow »

stass wrote: post #44
smileysteve wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix was having to make back market deals (with companies with conflicts of interest) to have the isp's customers (who were paying for access to) have access to their service. How was this "not broken"?

Is it necesseraly bad? Netflix making deals with ISPs is exactly what market self-regulation is.

Not if the ISP is a roll up of municipal and state created monopolies.

Which incidentally is a general argument for laissez faire capitalism. And in the particular, here, is an argument for regulation.

Post reply on HN