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

301–310 of 745 posts

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

#301

Post by tzs »

warfangle wrote: post #209
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…

> There are 700 total rules to the regulation. We haven't been able to see one of them. The FCC published the proposal in May. You've had 9 months to comment on it.

Wrong proposal. That's the proposal they dropped after seeing the comments.

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

#302

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> Everything is limited but the FCC only has eyes for LONG RANGE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.

Well, there's the matter of their statutory brief. There is a reason they are called the Federal Communication Commission, and not the Federal Every Limited Resource Potentially Subject to a Tragedy of the Commons Commission.

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

#303

Post by scarmig »

shit_parade wrote: post #288
LandoCalrissian wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't this argument basically, "governments are prone to being co-opted by special interests, therefore we should go ahead and give away the farm to Comcast"?

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

#304

Post by warfangle »

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…

> The original Title II classification which included local loop bundling killed DSL investment

Then why, when reclassified as an information service, did it not get better? It got better from 1999 to 2005 (768kbps -> 1-6Mbps), but only in very select regions has it actually improved beyond that in the past ten years.

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

#305

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#306

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

Simply stating a conclusion is not an argument.

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

#307

Post by 011100000110010 »

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!"

Social media personas

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/fe...

http://boingboing.net/2011/02/18/hbgarys-high-volume.html

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

#308

Post by dragonwriter »

tzs wrote: post #301
warfangle wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are 700 total rules to the regulation. We haven't been able to see one of them. The FCC published the proposal in May. You've had 9 months to comment on it.

Wrong proposal. That's the proposal they dropped after seeing the comments.

Its the only actual formal proposal that there has been. Yes, its true that it (based on the outlines provided) it differs substantially from what has been considered in recent weeks and adopted. That's the point of having an advance notice for comments as part of the regulatory process.

OTOH, its also quite common for the subsequent published act after a call for comments on a proposal to be the final decision, even if it differs substantially from the original proposal.

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

#309

Post by rayiner »

algorias wrote: post #292
rayiner wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Apple charges me for my iPhone, then takes 30% when someone sells me an app for it. Sony charges me for a PS3, then charges publishers a fee for every copy of every game they release. When your property facilitates a transaction between two parties, it's not "double dipping" to charge a fee to both.

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

#310

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN