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

401–410 of 745 posts

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

#401

Post by Karunamon »

tertius wrote: post #319
cratermoon wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there a substantive difference between the two? Free speech has always been subject to a handful of legal regulations.

In any case, this is a red herring.

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

#402

Post by remarkEon »

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.

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

#403

Post by freeasinfree »

nknighthb wrote: post #394
gojomo wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

Fixed terrestrial wireless is indeed a substitute to cable and DSL (especially DSL)

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

#405

Post by novalis78 »

droopybuns wrote: post #343
CamperBob2 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, "net neutrality" arguments are not really about peering agreements. They are a consequence of a deeper, unfortunate reality: anyone who uses a packet-switched network to emulate a circuit-switched one is in a state of sin. Streaming applications like to pretend that they have a dedicated circuit connection to their peer, whether that peer is a centralized service like Netflix (or their CDN provider), or…

I conceptually agree with the problems you're describing. I have absolutely no faith that the government is capable of responsibly managing this ecosystem. Let the nerds work. Do not bring regulators in whenever architectural decisions need to be made.

Amen. Isn't Google Fiber an attempt of the market responding to a lack of competition? It's probably more likely for a company to go out of business / lose market share than for a government agency to give up power.

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

#406

Post by [deleted] »

morsch wrote: post #348
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...

Relax -- the grandparent was being facetious.

[deleted]

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

#407

Post by Karunamon »

crazy1van wrote: post #357
droopybuns wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's turn the tables- I'm going to apply a hypothetical: I find all of your arguments to be talking points. How can we possibly have a reasonable dialog? I have just insulted you by explicitly stating that you are insincere in your position. This is how you're treating everyone who disagrees with you. It is utterly unproductive. You are executing a Denial of Service attack on any reasonable dialog.

> I find all of your arguments to be talking points. Please define "talking points"... I find it often means an often repeated argument that my side doesn't agree with.

The same arguments being repeated again and again, usually by multiple different people (almost as if the arguments have been disseminated from the same source), with any rebuttals or addressing of those points by people opposing the central point being ignored or not addressed in good faith.

See upthread for an example of this.

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

#408

Post by commandar »

Ilverin wrote: post #373
coralreef wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Netflix has been pushing NN.

They've had trouble getting cooperation from ISPs even when they've gone as far as offering free caching devices to ISPs to minimize their interconnect traffic. This should be a pretty big win for them.

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

#409

Post by novalis78 »

tzs wrote: post #359
droopybuns wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your use of the Internet limited to websites? If you play video games, use realtime video services like facetime, or use a VPN for mission critical work, do you really want your traffic flows to be identical to something that delivers content to a rendering engine? Different traffic has different requirements & performance characteristics. From a pure engineering perspective, this is a very poor decision and treat…

> Different traffic has different requirements & performance characteristics. From a pure engineering perspective, this is a very poor decision and treating all traffic equally provides artificial and often unnecessary constraints. Banning paid prioritization does not stop the ISP from prioritizing traffic for engineering reasons. What it bans is prioritizing traffic because a content provider paid for their traffic…

what would be so bad about that? doesn't that mean that we would have to "regulate" every successful business, because they could use their additional profit to gain "unfair market advantages"?

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

#410

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.

Post reply on HN