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 490 posts

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

#311

Post by meragrin »

rayiner wrote: post #99
chetanahuja wrote: post #75

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 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…

> PS: The accusations of astroturfing on HN are a vile sort of rhetorical tactic.

I'm glad someone with a history agrees.

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

#312

Post by hawkice »

shmerl wrote: post #125
malchow wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shmerl, love to learn more about what you mean by this. Do you mean a rule that a network could not sell to consumers both TV and internet access and phone?

No, that competitors should be allowed to use the last mile to provide service. See: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_local_exchange_car...

A rural Washington state regulatory and infrastructure organization, KPUD, is attempting to encourage access to the fiber they've added to the Kitsap county area. They have implemented this rule in a fairly watered down sense. The result is that, years after the large federal government grant to help high speed rural internet access, and almost two years after construction has been completed, no one in Kitsap county has access to fiber internet.

I have spoken to entrepreneurs and investors, and the reason they refuse to get involved is, without exclusive access to the last mile infrastructure, they would be spending thousands of dollars per building and be immediately replaced by anyone who could bankroll loss-leading services the longest (notably Comcast, who is setting up Fiber in Seattle).

This issue may be politicized, but I've run the unit economics with these people. The people of Kitsap county will simply not have fiber internet until this rule is removed.

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

#313

Post by 300bps »

Spooky23 wrote: post #198
rayiner wrote: post #99

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…

Mark Cuban's position isn't technically savvy, it's an opportunity for him to make more money.

An update to original article lends evidence to what you said:

Note: 2:08 pm. Thursday. As readers have noted, Cuban has been a celebrity spokesman of sorts for AT&T, appearing in a series of commercials for the wireless giant.

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

#314

Post by darkstar999 »

[deleted] wrote: post #276

[deleted]

> if I'm paying extra for a service - I should get extra, and this prevents it.

No it doesn't. ISPs can still charge you for the bandwidth they provide. If you want gigabit service, that's going to cost more than megabit service.

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

#315

Post by remarkEon »

rhino369 wrote: post #218
gregwtmtno wrote: post #138

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.

Not entirely. If you read the lower court ruling [0] you'll see that the argument made against allowing the subsidies is pretty tortured. You have to read the statute in the most literal and least interpretive way possible to think that the original intent of congress was to bar subsidies for states that opted not to set up exchanges. But hey who knows. SCOTUS season isn't until June. As it applies to NN, it is perhaps appropriate to note the different processes the ACA when through compared to whatever regulations the FCC ends up adopting. We shall see.

[0] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1673339.html

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

#317

Post by [deleted] »

morsch wrote: post #278
TeMPOraL wrote: post #216

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...

Relax -- the grandparent was being facetious.

[deleted]

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

#318

Post by billions »

Unpopular opinion below - downvote constructively!

Last mile deregulation was the only thing that was needed. 10s of last mile providers would have battled for that $50/month. Comcast would be irrelevant in 10 years. Tom Wheeler knew this and this was what he fought to keep. In the mounting public pressure, this was the compromise.

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

#319

Post by Zebra20 »

tzs wrote: post #188
paulhauggis wrote: post #2

What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. I wouldn't sign a contract without reading it (and having the person on the other side telling me all of the reasons why I should), and neither should you. But apparently, the general population (and many here) will. I watched the entire live broadcast and the pros played only on emotion (safety, helping out the disadvantage…

> I wouldn't sign a contract without reading it (and having the person on the other side telling me all of the reasons why I should), and neither should you. But apparently, the general population (and many here) will. You were told this was wrong yesterday, and I know you saw that because you responded. Why are you still repeating it? Once again, we will all have plenty of time to read these regulations before they…

1. This is the news release from today: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-ru... on the last page, you can see the docket number, which is 14-28. 2. This is the docket page for 14-28. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28 3. In the FCC filings section, you can see that the NPRM was filed May 2014. This sets the comment period to July 2014, and the comment reply period to September 2014. 4. There is an order issued in July 2014 that denies extension of the comment period. 5. I conclude that we are in fact, on step #7, and are just waiting on the Report and Order to be filed, at which time the regulations are enacted. 6. Furthermore, Wheeler's statement talks about an 'Order'. http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a2

Am I wrong in my reasoning? Aren't these rules, whatever they are, about to become active?

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

#320

Post by mark-r »

anigbrowl wrote: post #270
rayiner wrote: post #99

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…

Reasonable people can disagree about Title II, but there's no getting around the fact that just in the last few weeks the issue has been turned into 'Obamanet' as a political football.

You might not believe it, but it's true. Just yesterday at lunch I overheard a bunch of old (retired?) guys at the next table repeating that tired line "Obamacare of the Internet".
Post reply on HN