FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by droopybuns » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:58 PM UTC

wlesieutre wrote: post #202

daughart wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what point does "prioritization" effectively become blocking? People navigate away from websites that take a long time to load or have advertisements.

Not to mention that companies like Comcast have their foot in the online entertainment content game, and could very easily use paid prioritization to get an unfair advantage over competing services.

If you do a search for the net neutrality position of companies like AT&T, Verizon, Centurylink- you'll find plenty of material on their policy blogs on why this is a bad thing.

http://community.centurylink.com/regulatoryblog/ http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband-classification/thou... http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-th...

It is extremely interesting that Comcast has made no public positions on title II neutrality.

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

#292

Post by algorias » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:59 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #153

badsock wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel, Cisco, and IBM all sell deep packet inspection products. They have a material interest in not seeing NN go through.

And all of the web-tech companies who support Net Neutrality rely utterly on other peoples' wires to deliver content to their users. They have a huge interest in regulating telcos into "dumb pipes." There's huge monetary incentives on both sides of this debate.

Yes, they rely on other people's wires, namely the ones rented (i.e. paid for) by the consumers of their products. How do you justify double dipping in this case?

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

#293

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:59 PM UTC

innguest wrote: post #274

feld wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's also very limited land but land is not tightly controlled by an unelected government agency the same way radio waves are. If what you say is true then we should be able to buy and sell radio wave frequencies from each other. But radio waves are treated specially by the government because they're a long range means of communication. Same with the internet. That's why the FCC wants in. Not because "it's limited…

Aside from the fact that radio waves have strategic role for every country, it's mostly tragedy-of-commons case. You can't just let anyone start broadcasting anything at any power and frequency, because there's no way they'll themselves coordinate to use the spectrum wisely instead of trying to overpower one another until the whole thing collapses into a total and unusable mess.

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

#294

Post by URSpider94 » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 8:00 PM UTC

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…

This is exactly what Net Neutrality is trying to prevent, though not in the way you think.

Without net neutrality, we would evolve towards a pay-to-play world in which you could hook up your server to the Internet, but nobody would be able to download your content unless you paid their broadband provider for bandwidth access.

With net neutrality, the government is preserving your right to be heard just as much as the billionaire down the street. That's the entire point.

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

#295

Post by whoopdedo » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 8:00 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #256

gregwtmtno wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you'll notice, the lines of attack closely mirror the anti-Obamacare lines. "700 regulations and no one has even read it!" is very close to the "No one — not one single member of Congress — has read the bill" Michael Steel was using in 2009.

The fact that the Obamacare bill probably contains an error that might shut down subsidies for federal exchanges sorta backs up Steel's criticism.

A loophole that allows funding for health care to be cut sounds more like a "feature" to congresspersons.

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

#296

Post by URSpider94 » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 8:01 PM UTC

tertius wrote: post #237

x0x0 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you explain why not?

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

#297

Post by droopybuns » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 8:03 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #265

droopybuns wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ban…

LTE direct allows peer to peer routing of traffic over high capacity, licensed spectrum. In rural areas where a device has shoddy coverage, you could conceivably route traffic from devices with poor coverage to devices with strong coverage and then out to the Internet.

You wouldn't want to do this for streaming traffic, as it could negatively impact the experience of the device with the strongest coverage. But you could do this for traffic that has lower performance requirements.

Paid prioritization has existed over the course of the entire Internet. I happens every day- and it is known as peering agreements. Would you characterize the history of the Internet so far as "stifled growth"?

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

#298

Post by williamcotton » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 8:04 PM UTC

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…

Your comment is currently "above the fold" and even though I agree with you, I downvoted because I don't think this discussion should involve what Mark Cuban whatsoever.

Whatever dialog he spurs is going to be an intellectual dead end.

BTW, why isn't anyone talking about the Interstate Commerce Commission, the predecessor to the FCC, and the similarities between common carrier status of railways and Internet service providers?

We have over a hundred years of actual evidence to support the pros and cons of regulating public communications. Why are we choosing to instead resort to blind conjecture based on talking point samples from the last decade?

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

#299

Post by droopybuns » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 8:05 PM UTC

chetanahuja wrote: post #249

Alupis wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Let's turn the tables- I'm going to apply a hypothetical:

I find all of your arguments to be talking points. How can we possibly have a reasonable dialog? I have just insulted you by explicitly stating that you are insincere in your position.

This is how you're treating everyone who disagrees with you. It is utterly unproductive. You are executing a Denial of Service attack on any reasonable dialog.

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

#300

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 8:06 PM UTC

innguest wrote: post #262

unprepare wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wow, that "history" is so painfully wrong. The FCC didn't lobby to get involved in radio, nor did it somehow add the licensing requirement after it was granted regulatory authority over radio.

Licenses that could be denied for radio was a policy adopted by Congress in the same law that created the Federal Radio Commission, before the FCC existed. The FCC inherited its radio role from the Federal Radio Commission. Neither the FCC, nor its predecessor, could have lobbied for the power to grant and deny licenses, because they didn't exist when Congress was considering creating that power.