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

311–320 of 745 posts

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

#311

Post by rhino369 »

r00fus wrote: post #281
rhino369 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If so, it was a massive mistake on their part. AT&T and Verizon lost the ISP market to cable companies in the mean time.

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

#312

Post by hraedon »

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.

An "error" that only exists in the most tendentious possible reading of the bill isn't evidence of anything other than the intent of the people challenging the ACA.

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

#313

Post by chetanahuja »

Alupis wrote: post #278
chetanahuja wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. They are here to spread FUD via talking points If you feel anyone's opinion that isn't your own is somehow FUD, that's a problem. For example, you are unlikely to change my viewpoint or opinion on a great number of things, even through well thought-out and concise arguments. I also happen to believe Fox News isn't as terrible as a lot of people…

"For example, you are unlikely to change my viewpoint or opinion on a great number of things, even through well thought-out and concise arguments."

Thank you. I think this is sufficient grounds for me to avoid wasting any of my time arguing with you.

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

#314

Post by rayiner »

r00fus wrote: post #281
rhino369 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What exactly is "unethical" about not investing tons of money in something that isn't going to yield the kind of profit your investors want? People act like Verizon and AT&T have a moral obligation to spend money on telecom infrastructure as a public good at minimal price above cost.

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

#315

Post by wlesieutre »

droopybuns wrote: post #291
wlesieutre wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 posit…

Interesting that Verizon and CenturyLink focused entirely on the fact that Title II regulations are old. I'm curious what the specific issues they have with it are; after all, there are plenty of old laws that still work fine.

It's become really hard to find any actual information or discussion though. Seems like every page I find is a bunch of bullet points either saying "Regulation will stop all innovation, drive ISPs out of business, and destroy the internet" or "If we don't regulate, Comcast and TWC will stop all innovation and destroy the internet." Sheesh...

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

#316

Post by keslag »

Okay, as a Canadian with no dog in this fight, this seems to be a good thing for America. So I'm having a very hard time understanding the opposition.

The arguments for title II are pretty clear and logical. The arguments against include giving up personal freedoms (You live in America, you've been giving up most of your personal freedoms willing for the pack two decades) and this isn't one of them. There are some comments about the extra rules that no one has seen, but this is standard FCC practice. Lawsuits will bear this out. Then there are a lot of illogical arguments that don't hold up. Does anyone have a clear argument against this. My argument would be that there is no last mile access, so competition won't increase, so this is at best a half measure until we get either some disruption in the space, or they finally open up that last mile.

So what are the actual logical, non-fearmongering arguments?

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

#317

Post by tertius »

URSpider94 wrote: post #296
tertius wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TitleII is not the solution for this problem.

Can you explain why not?

The FTC exists to police competition and consumer protection.

TitleII is doomed to fail in court > http://techfreedom.org/post/110086459629/wheeler-ensures-fcc...

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

#318

Post by gojomo »

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…

"virtually no competition"?

Title II was designed for phone-line utilities in the 1930s, where there really was a total monopoly: you either got service from your single phone company, or not at all.

For broadband, most Americans had not one but zero options 20 years ago.

Now, most have 2 or more wired options (cable and DSL), and 3 or more cellular-wireless options. Some have extra fiber, cable, or DSL options. Some have other wireless options in the unlicensed spectrum. (Most people have more broadband options than smart-phone OS options; should the iOS/Android be federally-regulated as a software utility?)

There are certainly places where the options are too few and too expensive. But that's a local issue, often created by correctable local government errors. To say there's "virtually no competition… for most" is a false claim lacking perspective.

Based on that false impression, Title II puts every ISP, even where there is competition, under federal-review rules designed for the single-provider telephone monopoly of the mid-20th century. Utility-style regulation tends to lock-in incumbents: it doesn't expand competition or options, but rather gives up on competition, and just tells the presumed-permanent "monopolist" what to do.

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

#319

Post by tertius »

cratermoon wrote: post #242
tertius wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Except when their own interests do not clash with that of those trying to exercise free speech. Which is pretty universally the case. Regulation will now make it harder for those persons who value free speech, we only have "legal speech" left.

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

#320

Post by rhino369 »

warfangle wrote: post #304
rhino369 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is mostly a technology issue. There is a maximum bitrate at which the transmission line can support for a given distance. To get past that, they have to start dragging fiberoptics to nodes they build closer to your house. Before you hit that speeds, protocol upgrades were giving you faster speed.

And I wouldn't say "very select regions." At least a quarter of the country live in areas with FTTN or FTTP networks deployed by the telecoms.

Post reply on HN