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

391–400 of 745 posts

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

#391

Post by throwaway150219 »

rayiner wrote: post #309
algorias wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see, I didn't realize consumer ISPs were providing free internet access to Google and Amazon.

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

#392

Post by meragrin »

rayiner wrote: post #103
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 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

#393

Post by Karunamon »

novalis78 wrote: post #371
scarmig wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Competition requires a "free open market", which isn't a thing that exists, and it depends on a knowledgeable and informed consumer base, which also isn't a thing that exists, and this all depends upon there being choice in the marketplace, which as has been demonstrated ad nauseum, also isn't a thing that exists.

Hence regulation.

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

#394

Post by nknighthb »

gojomo wrote: post #353
wpietri wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is quite literally almost no competition in US broadband access. See the graph here: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-n... To have a robust market, you need a variety of players. Witha duopoly, you generally end up with approximately the same service as a monopoly, but with two slightly different price points. But the fast majority of the US has at best 2 choices even for a 4 Mbps plan…

The FCC had to change their definition of "broadband" to get that "quite literally almost no competition" result. The traditional 4Mbps standard found 2 or more wired and 3 or more wireless providers at about 90% of US addresses. I like ever-faster service, but the idea that's what most people need or even want – when superfast speeds cost more – isn't well-supported. 4Mbps is already plenty for HD movies and video t…

> 4Mbps is already plenty for HD movies and video teleconferencing

The last six years of my life have been consumed by work on video streaming services. While in a lab environment you would be correct, I can tell you that in the real world you are off by a factor of about 4, and will be off by a factor of about 8 for 4k video.

> Most places in the US had zero 4Mbps options 20 years ago, and now they have 5+.

I have no idea where you got that idea, unless you think wireless is a substitute for cable or DSL. It's not.

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

#395

Post by Karunamon »

meragrin wrote: post #366
copsarebastards wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps if a significant amount of the new accounts were not parroting discredited anti-neutrality talking points..

It's a pretty simple calculus. Some fairly influential people hang out here, and monied interests have been screaming their heads off that they don't want this. With that in mind, it's a lot more likely that shilling and astroturfing is going on than it is not.

Whether that applies to you or not cannot be said (it's unfalsifiable anyways), but the facts stand.

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

#396

Post by hawkice »

shmerl wrote: post #131
malchow wrote: post #92

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

#397

Post by TeMPOraL »

scottmcf wrote: post #368
jessaustin wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yup. It seems that in this case the sarcasm was too hard for me to parse :(.

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

#398

Post by 300bps »

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…

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

#399

Post by unethical_ban »

meragrin wrote: post #382
stellar678 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the accusation that this thread is full of astroturfing, the account karma and age of posters seem like very relevant information.

How is it relevant information that a certain topic brought in a new person? I could understand it if the person had been around a few years and only commented on that topic, but a new person could be just a recently inspired person.

This is a politically charged topic with powerful, malicious actors. The thread an unusually large number of green members posting mostly against what HN has been mostly for.

It's an odd pattern, and the parent above saying it's "vile" to call it what it looks like is overblowing it.

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

#400

Post by darkstar999 »

[deleted] wrote: post #345

[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.

Post reply on HN