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

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

#361

Post by Spooky23 » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 8:56 PM UTC

williamcotton wrote: post #298

Spooky23 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I mentioned Mark Cuban in context of the parent comment. Whatever our opinion of Mr Cuban, his arguments are essentially the same as the telecom people.

If we had a functional market, the excesses of the ICC would be a cautionary tale of great impact. Unfortunately the behavior of the ISPs has illustrated that we don't have that functional marketplace. I think we should follow the path successfully implemented (in most places) for utilities like water, electricity and the legacy telephone service.

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

#362

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 8:59 PM UTC

tertius wrote: post #162

cratermoon wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Up until very recently, everyone considered Title II the "nuclear option." As far back as the 90s, when Mosaic was still the most advanced browser out there, I was noting that Title II common carrier rules for ISPs were the best choice to balance free speech needs -- to prevent ISPs and Backbone providers from censoring the content they carry -- and protect ISPs from liability for their users' communications. It's…

> 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.

What are you referring to? And surely this is orthogonal to whether it's Title II or not; not being title II does not magically prevent anything.

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

#363

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:00 PM UTC

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #273

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…

What exactly makes Mark Cuban tech savvy other than: 1) He's loud 2) He's reasonably well known

[deleted]

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

#364

Post by Shivetya » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:00 PM UTC

eli wrote: post #341

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 sort of comment is a huge pet peeve of mine: you're accusing people who disagree with you of not just being wrong, but being maliciously and intentionally wrong . As if alternate viewpoints can only be explained by a literal conspiracy theory designed to mess with people like you. It's a lazy way to avoid acknowledging that alternate viewpoints even exist, let alone considering whether they have merit. (But then…

but this is the standard method Democrats have employed for years. They take any debate and make it personal. No longer is the discussion of the subject at hand but the persons involved. This allows all sorts of toxic labels to be branded about, racist, bigot, for the rich, elitist, and more. They don't want to debate facts, the fastest way to avoid facts is to brand the other side with a label associated with hate and/or stupidity.

I just want to know, what takes so many pages as to describe these rule changes? Why was it so important to pass changes without public review? What part of transparency don't people get?

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

#365

Post by feld » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:01 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…

It's pretty easy to identify when land is in use, but not so much when it comes to radio spectrum.

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

#366

Post by meragrin » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:01 PM UTC

copsarebastards wrote: post #204

covzzire wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how you refuted my points with logic and reason and didn't try to cop out via some lame method like clicking a green link.

Stick around and be a productive member of the community and I'll happily engage you in debate. But I don't see much point debating with < 1 hour old accounts spitting ISP talking points -- so far it's most likely you're just an astroturfing corporate shill. I can't prove it of course, I'm just playing the odds.

Why would people want to stick around and be a productive member if they are immediately branded as a shill?

This topic has certainly brought out the worst. It seems like everyone is accusing everyone of being an astroturfing shill.

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

#367

Post by emcrazyone » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:01 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…

"The capital investment issues the ISPs face have nothing to do with interconnect -- their dollars are spent in the last mile."

So very true. I'm an ISP owner. The other factor is peering agreements over those last miles but, yes, totally agree.

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

#368

Post by scottmcf » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:02 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #350

TeMPOraL wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an European and it's the first time I hear about us being sent to gulags for making infrastructure that actually works . BTW. In Poland, infrastructure was all fine until they started to privatize it. Now our trains barely work, and public transport companies like to compete with each other by showing which one sucks at doing their job more...

Ummm, I thought Europeans were supposed to be better than us poor simple Americans at dry wit and irony? It sounds as if you might want to reinstate your previous system.

It's not always easy to pick up sarcasm in a second language.

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

#369

Post by cpeterso » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:02 PM UTC

pdabbadabba wrote: post #163

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…

> Conservatives don't like it because it allows the FCC to do things like rate-setting, even if this administration chooses not to use that power. Liberals don't like the specter of FCC regulation of content. This is a funny line of reasoning on the part of Conservatives. Reclassification under Title II is supposedly bad because it allows future Commissions to impose rate-setting requirements. But, in the absence of…

True, but reclassifying now is one step in that direction, making rate setting easier in the future.

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

#370

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:03 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #303

shit_parade wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

[deleted]