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

441–450 of 745 posts

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

#441

Post by shmerl »

hawkice wrote: post #396
shmerl wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And other people will never have fiber Internet, lower prices and higher bandwidth because current monopolist in their area doesn't care to do any of the above. So how do you propose to fix that? Unbundling is the only way. Not sure about Kitsap, but unbundling worked well in Europe. How weren't they scared there of the same thing?

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

#442

Post by exogen »

novalis78 wrote: post #409
tzs wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"?

I actually can't tell if you're joking or not, because, well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

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

#443

Post by bmelton »

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

He was an early entrant into the tech world, having been a software reseller and integrator, selling custom systems and maintaining them himself.

Then he joined Broadcast.com, a sort of mini-Netflix-but-audio for broadcasting sporting events, which sold to Y! for $5 billion or so dollars.

He then co-founded AXS TV, which was the first HD satellite network.

He may be wrong on this issue. He may be right. But to pretend he isn't tech-savvy is to either ignore his history or to set the bar to an absurdly elitist standard. At the least, he's likely more tech savvy than your elected representatives, and possibly moreso than Tom Wheeler.

Whether this is germane to the discussion is another matter.

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

#444

Post by verbin217 »

duaneb wrote: post #414
rsync wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'd also like to point out that splitting up Ma Bell hardly solved the problem." Really ? I'm not an expert, but one item that comes to mind is that my children have never heard the term "long distance" and never will. That's pretty swell.

Ma Bell's children went on to do the exact same thing with cable and broadband.

So... it sounds like we need to do the exact same thing again.

But you're advocating the opposite. Why?

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

#446

Post by TrevorJ »

duaneb wrote: post #414
rsync wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'd also like to point out that splitting up Ma Bell hardly solved the problem." Really ? I'm not an expert, but one item that comes to mind is that my children have never heard the term "long distance" and never will. That's pretty swell.

Ma Bell's children went on to do the exact same thing with cable and broadband.

Broadly speaking we've slowly gotten closer to the monopoly status again which is why we are seeing this now.

http://eon3emfblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ATT-Reborn...

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

#447

Post by baddox »

Karunamon wrote: post #434
baddox wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it depends on a knowledgeable and informed consumer base, which also isn't a thing that exists There's a comparable argument against democratic government somewhere in there.

Against the concept of democratic government, or against the implementation of a purely democratic government with no other additional regulations? I think it's the same thing with the "free market". The general concept is sound, but there are corner cases that must be addressed. Infrastructure, I would argue, is one of those.

Against the concept of any government whose policies ostensibly reflect the preferences of the population and whose authority is ostensibly consented to by the population, which I believe includes most modern Western nation states.

According to mainstream Western theory (as I understand it), even aspects of policy which are not directly democratic or even routinely voted on by elected representative, like the Constitution, are justified as having legitimate authority because they are consented to by the governed.

In other words, even those "additional regulations" you mention, which I assume include things like basic human rights which are supposedly not subject to reversal by normal voting, are included in my broad usage of the phrase "democratic government."

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

#448

Post by EvanAnderson »

leejoramo wrote: post #415
duaneb wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the job of the government to make companies less shitty, it's their job to protect the free market so OTHER companies can reduce the shittiness of e.g. comcast. This is just the first step. I'd also like to point out that splitting up Ma Bell hardly solved the problem.

The split up of Ma Bell was a huge part of the story of the history of computer communications. Remember, AT&T owned the whole system, including the wires in you home or office and the actual phones. Prior to the breakup, you had to be granted permission to connect any equipment to the phone system. One of the primary reasons people used Acoustic Coupled modems was so that Ma Bell did not have to get involved in the…

Actually, the Carterfone decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone#Landmark_regulatory_...) allowed attachment of lawful devices to the AT&T network.

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

#449

Post by tzs »

novalis78 wrote: post #409
tzs wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"?

Suppose my ISP has oversold their bandwidth (which they all, of necessity, do). I'm trying to watch Amazon. My neighbor is trying to watch Netflix. My ISP doesn't have the bandwidth to give us both a good video experience, and so has to choose which of us will get inferior service.

Let's say I only watch video occasionally. My neighbor watches all the time. I consume maybe 5 GB a month. He consumes 1000 GB.

Me and my neighbor have the same tier of service, and are paying the ISP exactly the same amount.

You really don't have a problem if Netflix were allowed to pay my ISP to make sure that my neighbor's video watching gets priority, so he gets a great video performance, and mine sucks?

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

#450

Post by meragrin »

Karunamon wrote: post #395
meragrin wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Here's the breakdown of new accounts I noticed:

4 for NN (not necessarily for the FCC action) 1 against 1 unknown 1 ambiguous

Unless you have a different definition of new account, it is not even close to 'all but universally'.

Edit: I'm still not seeing how your edit applies. There was only one new person I saw that would even come close to 'parroting discredited anti-neutrality talking points'.

Post reply on HN