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

451–460 of 745 posts

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

#451

Post by scarmig »

baddox wrote: post #425
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"?

The problem of government isn't simply that they can be co-opted by special interests. It's that they have a near-monopoly on the ability to implement policies using the threat of violence, and that ability can be co-opted by special interests. The guy who runs the gas station down the street could also be co-opted by special interests, but I'm not particularly worried about that, because he has very little ability t…

Question: suppose a group of knowledgeable engineers and technicians in a city decided that they were going to run their geography's network infrastructure without the supervision of Comcast shareholders. They decide to stage a nonviolent sit-in overnight in Comcast offices to take over the extant and state-guaranteed monopoly of the network infrastructure in that area, and another group delivers food to them until Comcast gives up its claims.

Does Comcast calmly decide to talk to them about them nonviolently, or does it call in mass State violence to get back control?

You assume a separation between property rights and State power that doesn't exist. They're two sides of the same coin. Capital and property rights don't exist in opposition to the State, but in a mutually-dependent complex of institutions and learned practices.

That doesn't mean you have to throw out one or the other, or both. But it's fair for people to try to change the norms that govern relations between them in a way that generates the social outcomes they prefer.

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

#452

Post by ericd »

freeasinfree wrote: post #403
nknighthb wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

I'm no expert in this, but aren't terrestrial wireless setups (microwave relays, etc) out of reach financially for the average family?

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

#453

Post by woofyman »

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…

I remember renting my phone from AT&T. Premium colors and touchtone were extra. They would periodically ring your line to measure the voltage drop to detect unauthorized phones.

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

#454

Post by paulhauggis »

Something everyone is forgetting is the FCC regulation of radio. It was a little like Net-neutrality today. Radio stations needed to be regulated because they could crank up the wattage and overpower smaller radio stations. It needed to be regulated and the intent was to just focus on the infrastructure, not the content.

What happened? Speech deemed immoral is banned from the radio waves and content is clearly being regulated. I fear the same thing will eventually start happening with the Internet, which I personally do not want.

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

#455

Post by _ea1k »

rsync wrote: post #331
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.

"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.

"long distance" charges continued for a long time after the split up. I'm not convinced that the splitup was a causal factor at all with regards to those going away.

(As a reference, my most recent landline also had long distance charges just a couple of years ago. Getting unlimited was cost prohibitive relative to the benefit.)

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

#456

Post by joelhaus »

rsync wrote: post #331
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.

"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.

Agreed. There's a great documentary on this called "Long Distance Warrior". It's about the MCI court case against Ma Bell/ATT.

Was on PBS a while back, but think it's uploaded as a private Youtube video somewhere.

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

#457

Post by forgottenpass »

warfangle wrote: post #187
innguest wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, this is kind of a red herring. There are a few places in the telecommunications act that require the FCC to fine for indecency/obscene material. That is the true red herring we hear over and over again. Don't worry about censorship, you can still say indecent/obscene things... if you happen to have been awarded the broadcasting license . Sir, or Ma'am, please understand. The censorship problem we ant…

> not being able to get a license in the first place. Sure! You should totally be allowed to throw up a transmitter and blast white noise through fifty percent of the radio frequencies at 50 kilowatts of power! And so what if the car next to you on the highway has a transmitter that interferes with your radio tuned to the classical station by blasting dubstep. FREEDOM The problem is, that's all covered under Title II…

And so what if the car next to you on the highway has a transmitter that interferes with your radio tuned to the classical station by blasting dubstep.

Well, I'm already driving out of the state tomorrow, now I know what I'll be doing with my unlicensed FM transmitter.

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

#458

Post by derefr »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #436
derefr wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Within the US , Title II been a divisive topic. On the global stage, though, countries that have set similar policies (e.g. the UK) have ended up with much healthier broadband ecosystems.

Healthier in what way? Active government involvement in theUK has also led to a lot more invasive content restrictions than we've seen in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Unit... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_the...

"Active government involvement" isn't what we're talking about here, though; merely a rule that broadband infrastructure has to be freely sublet to resellers, producing interesting things like this[1].

Title II doesn't force the government to care about what's going through the pipes; nor did the UK's broadband law. That was entirely a separate bout of moralizing, that was no easier or more difficult to enact or enforce given the broadband law.

[1] https://www.icuk.net/broadband-reseller/broadband.asp

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

#459

Post by baddox »

scarmig wrote: post #451
baddox wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem of government isn't simply that they can be co-opted by special interests. It's that they have a near-monopoly on the ability to implement policies using the threat of violence, and that ability can be co-opted by special interests. The guy who runs the gas station down the street could also be co-opted by special interests, but I'm not particularly worried about that, because he has very little ability t…

Question: suppose a group of knowledgeable engineers and technicians in a city decided that they were going to run their geography's network infrastructure without the supervision of Comcast shareholders. They decide to stage a nonviolent sit-in overnight in Comcast offices to take over the extant and state-guaranteed monopoly of the network infrastructure in that area, and another group delivers food to them until C…

I suspect that Comcast would call the police. But imagine a similar situation happens in a hypothetical society with no state police, or better yet, in some area where there are no state police available in a reasonable time frame (plenty such areas exist, even in the USA). Don't you suppose that Comcast might have private security guards?

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

#460

Post by Zebra20 »

venomsnake wrote: post #351
baddox wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe I have enough information to conclude that classifying broadband as a Title II utility will be a good thing. My general impression is that more and stricter regulations in an industry is usually (though not always) a bad thing for consumers in that industry, so while I'm not vehemently against this NN bill, I certainly am not excited or optimistic. I consider my views reasonable, although I guess an u…

Lets scrap the USDA safety measures. We will eat so much better.

Yes, we should kill the USDA safety measures, as well as the USDA itself.

These rules should be issued at the state level, where we the people can keep a closer eye on it, rather than the federal government.

By the way, how do you like that the USDA is arming itself? Do you thing it's a good thing? Did you even know about this?

http://www.naturalnews.com/045141_USDA_submachine_guns_param...

Post reply on HN