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

461–470 of 745 posts

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

#461

Post by Frondo »

I'm in the camp that the astroturf is running high right now; but moreover, the claim that "we haven't seen it!!" is also, I think, meaningless and irrelevant.

I keep thinking about that Richelieu quote, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

My suspicion is, the people clamoring about not seeing the regulations, given a chance to see them, would still find something to object to, because, like a lot of other people here suspect, the point isn't a rational objection, the point is to collect a paycheck by faking widespread grassroots outrage.

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

#462

Post by spiralpolitik »

artemisu wrote: post #439
spiralpolitik wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this what it boils down to for the opponents of Net Neutrality ? Either they can't make as much money or they can't buy themselves advantage. Also expect to see someone like Cuban challenge this on 1st amendment grounds. Given that for the 1% mindset spending money equals speech, the government stopping them spending money to again an advantage is in their mind a restriction on speech. Sad but true.

So was this a good or a bad thing? im sensing overwhelming good

If it sticks its a good thing. My optimism is tempered the nonsensical court decisions of recent times.

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

#463

Post by grecy »

xnull2guest wrote: post #158

Unfortunately the Net Neutrality 'debate' was another lose-lose situation for the United States. What we wanted wasn't for the big telecom duopoly to be forced to either run their business as a tiered service or as a regulated utility. What we wanted was for the US Government to exercise its Anti-Trust capabilities and bust the universally hated Comcast and Time Warner into a bunch of small companies, and set "Goldil…

There are two problems, and the FCC has solved one of them perfectly.

Problem 1: ISPs trying to charge to (de)prioritize packets.

Problem 2: The two biggest ISPs suck, and should be broken up, and/or it should be mandated that competition is much easier.

Would you be happy if they solved problem 2 without solving problem 1?

Leave problem 2 for another day, and celebrate that problem 1 has been dealt with.

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

#464

Post by grmpz »

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 not enough to handle a single HDX stream from Vudu (http://www.vudu.com/faq.html) much less a family household streaming to different devices.

*edit HDX

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

#465

Post by chaostheory »

grecy wrote: post #463
xnull2guest wrote: post #158

Unfortunately the Net Neutrality 'debate' was another lose-lose situation for the United States. What we wanted wasn't for the big telecom duopoly to be forced to either run their business as a tiered service or as a regulated utility. What we wanted was for the US Government to exercise its Anti-Trust capabilities and bust the universally hated Comcast and Time Warner into a bunch of small companies, and set "Goldil…

There are two problems, and the FCC has solved one of them perfectly. Problem 1: ISPs trying to charge to (de)prioritize packets. Problem 2: The two biggest ISPs suck, and should be broken up, and/or it should be mandated that competition is much easier. Would you be happy if they solved problem 2 without solving problem 1? Leave problem 2 for another day, and celebrate that problem 1 has been dealt with.

Wouldn't drastically increased competition solve problem one over time?

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

#466

Post by anigbrowl »

baddox wrote: post #420
anigbrowl wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disingenuous to call an opposing opinion "astro-turfing" in an attempt to discredit them. There are 700 total rules to the regulation. We haven't been able to see one of them. This doesn't concern you in any way? No, because this is the norm - the commissioners draw up a proposal, vote on it, then it's published in the Federal Register as a 'notice of proposed rulemaking,' witht he text of the proposed rule in f…

> No, because this is the norm Yes, the norm concerns me.

I don't buy it.

What's wrong with the existing procedure, specifically? Why is it not adequate to view and comment on it at the time it is published in the Federal Register as a proposed rule? This is, after all, the whole point of the Federal Register.

Where was the pressure to change this rulemaking procedure over the last X years before this particular issue came up?

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

#467

Post by meragrin »

unethical_ban wrote: post #399
meragrin wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not seeing that pattern. I've seen a total of 7 green members on this topic. That to me isn't all that unusual. The vast majority of green I saw was for NN. Are you saying HN is against NN? I thought HN was for NN.

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

#468

Post by nknighthb »

ericd wrote: post #452
freeasinfree wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Under the hood, consumer fixed wireless is usually just wifi gear, but running on licensed frequencies and attached to big outdoor antennas.

If you're very, very lucky, the hardware might have been manufactured to run optimally on those frequencies, or it might just be a WAP in a different box running tweaked software.

This has the generally-crappy results you would expect.

Business gear is substantially more robust and expensive.

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

#469

Post by forgottenpass »

elchief wrote: post #438
billions wrote: post #410

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.

100% of what I've read online about the net neutrality debate was disallowing differential charges, but now it's magically about the last mile?

It is completely outside the avenue the FCC perused on this fight. However, it has not gone undiscussed over the years. It's just had lower traction at a policy level and taken a backseat to conversations on the more-likely scenarios. I'm not surprised if people comment they would have preferred that approach.

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

#470

Post by spiralpolitik »

verbin217 wrote: post #444
duaneb wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Separate infrastructure and service. Require companies to sell access to the infrastructure a wholesale price to anybody who wants in. This way it allows for new entrants to the market who can find different ways of packaging the wholesale price at lower cost to the consumer without requiring them to build infrastructure.

(The service part of the infrastructure company pays the same wholesale price as everybody else so that there are no advantages to owning both)

This is the model that a lot of European countries with post privatization telecoms monopolies went with and has worked surprisingly well and has kept prices low.

Post reply on HN