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

371–380 of 745 posts

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

#371

Post by novalis78 »

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"?

Wouldn't it be: "governments are prone to being co-opted by special interests, therefore we rather allow companies to compete with each other freely in an open market and let consumers make the choice"

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

#372

Post by Shivetya »

Curious how the American Disabilities Act will be applied to the internet through these regulations. It could mean anything from requiring all content providers to meet unknown rules to providing special equipment in homes as part of service requirements. Let alone, what is protection from discrimination when it comes to the internet?

This is the problem with such open ended rules, there are no real limits. Why no public review?

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

#373

Post by Ilverin »

coralreef wrote: post #260
surrealize wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ("Mark Cuban faults ‘Silicon Valley groupthink,’ says FCC broadband rule a mistake") Ha, cable network owner Mark Cuban is totally unbiased, of course.

He also owns a large position in Netflix (at least 50k shares, but "a lot more" = ~$170m+???). Don't know what AXS TV is worth Src: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102097968

For those who might not know, it's possible Netflix could benefit from paid prioritization: it would protect Netflix from start-ups aiming to take the place of Netflix.

I'm not sure what Netflix's official stance is on net neutrality, but it's possible Mr. Cuban thinks this way.

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

#374

Post by ebbv »

cubano wrote: post #323
ebbv wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? The regulations will certainly be released in the next couple weeks. Yes, that's also when the lawsuits will start. But I was talking about the regulations being released (since that's what the comment I was replying to was talking about.) Feel free to take your terrible attitude elsewhere.

You ad hominem attack aside, whatever wording may or may not be in the regulations will not matter near as much as how things will actually be implemented, and how these implemented changes will affect us all here on the web. For example, there are 1000's of crazy laws on the books here in the US. Plenty of websites document "laws" like "it's a misdemeanor to walk your dog on Sunday within 100 feet of a church" Since…

I repeat your attitude sucks. That's not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is an attack directed at your person, I'm attacking the nature and premise of your comments; they come from a place of useless negativity.

Your attitude is basically "This means nothing because only the implementation and enforcement means anything." Which is just absurd.

Of course the implementation and enforcement matter, but the regulations matter as well.

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

#375

Post by serge2k »

copsarebastards wrote: post #164
travie7273 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you're telling me to criticize a "bill" that hasn't been published yet? Are you kidding? You do know that this "bill" with its 70+ regulations was passed in private, right?

> Wait, you're telling me to criticize a "bill" that hasn't been published yet? Are you kidding? You do know that this "bill" with its 70+ regulations was passed in private, right? Which kind of begs what exactly you think you're criticizing. All the statements by the FCC leading up to this bill have been ones I would consider positive. So until I actually see the bill, I'm not criticizing it. Also: user: travie7273…

Great argument, next time call him 12 years old.

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

#377

Post by [deleted] »

bcheung wrote: post #360

Can someone clarify "paid prioritization" and "fast lane"? If I buy the 50Mbps ISP plan and someone else buys the 10Mbps isn't that a faster lane / paid prioritization? What about if a company decides to put their server in a datacenter instead of hosting out of their office? Aren't they paying for better access? What about CDNs? Aren't those "fast lanes"? It doesn't seem like this is the intent but based on how it i…

[deleted]

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

#378

Post by malchow »

I would be curious to get emails from network ops people who really think today's move was not a good idea, but who do support the traditional, open, handshake peering internet. (I am asking because I am advising a very senior policymaker in Washington.)

ji -at- malchow -dot com-

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

#379

Post by woah »

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…

Really? That's all you've got? If someone disagrees with you it's "astroturfing"? I bet you really have some compelling arguments.

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

#380

Post by orblivion »

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…

It very well could be that Comcast or someone else hired a bunch of people to flood comments (though it's strange timing to do it afterwards rather than before). But can you acknowledge that at least some of us have honest disagreements with you on the issue? Or should this opinion really be anathema to this community?
Post reply on HN