FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote • Hacker News Board

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

#491

Post by bduerst » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 10:35 PM UTC

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.

Totally agree. We can harp on the FCC for their performance with a wide range of issues, but at least here we have them [finally] taking action on one of them.

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

#492

Post by Alupis » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 10:35 PM UTC

loqi wrote: post #358

Alupis wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thank you. I think this is sufficient grounds for me to avoid wasting any of my time arguing with you. Conversely, has anyone managed to change your mind here in this thread? Probably not... The point of good argument isn't to convince the other party they are woefully wrong and everyone should just eventually come to the same conclusion. Some debate for sport/fun, others to make a point. In the end a good debate s…

> The point of good argument isn't to convince the other party they are woefully wrong and everyone should just eventually come to the same conclusion. Applied to both parties in the argument, yes it is. Argument is digging for truth. The most productive outcome is for some or all of the parties involved shift their beliefs to more accurately reflect reality. Just to clarify - when you argue, are you attempting to pr…

> > Some debate for sport/fun

> In the context of a serious discussion, I believe the term for this is "trolling".

That's not always true. Have you never had a sporting debate with a friend who's opinion you knew full well going in?

In addition, a common debate preparation tactic for "serious" debates is often to argue from the opponent's side. This forces one to better understand the opposition's stance, better prepare for common responses and assertions, and discover potential logic flaws in one's own position.

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

#493

Post by dang » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 10:36 PM UTC

CzechsMix wrote: post #184

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.

My what a wonderful ivory tower you must live in. I just think it's weak. If being anti-NN is so incredibly stupid, shouldn't refuting the points they make be trivial? why not just do it, and safe yourself the trouble of being accused of sitting one-step up on the debate pyramid from "Name-calling"?

> My what a wonderful ivory tower you must live in.

Accusations of astroturfing without evidence are not ok, but personal attacks such as this are not allowed on Hacker News either. Please review the site guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

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

#494

Post by bmelton » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 10:36 PM UTC

copsarebastards wrote: post #102

paulhauggis wrote: post #2

What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. I wouldn't sign a contract without reading it (and having the person on the other side telling me all of the reasons why I should), and neither should you. But apparently, the general population (and many here) will. I watched the entire live broadcast and the pros played only on emotion (safety, helping out the disadvantage…

> What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. This is a huge problem. It is literally impossible for lawmakers and regulators to read everything they put into law, as many bills are hundreds of pages long. Does anyone have any viable solutions to this problem? The only attempt to solve this problem that I know of was in early 18th Century England, when they set a limi…

> Does anyone have any viable solutions to this problem?

Lawmakers could either abstain or vote No until they've read and understood the legislation. The problem is that votes aren't generally cast on understanding, or even how the law will affect the welfare of the populace, but on party lines, with not enough exceptions.

On the cure for that, I am equally clueless.

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

#495

Post by spacemanmatt » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 10:37 PM UTC

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.

I'd like to argue that splitting up Bell succeeded so utterly that it's time to break up some of the modern incarnations of the Baby Bells.

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

#496

Post by oceanstone » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 10:37 PM UTC

bobbles wrote: post #476

grecy wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The headline could say that world hunger was cured but the top comment on HN would still be something like "yes, but X people are still dying in car crashes every year"

There does seem to be a bias towards overly worded critical comments.

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

#497

Post by bsder » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 10:38 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #94

carlisle_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Funny how something intended to prevent ISPs from throttling content turned into a debate about helping out the disadvantaged, etc Isn't that just politics in general?

Telecom is peculiarly mired in it. By and large, here is the mainstream positions of the two major parties on telecom: Republicans: Want the government out of it. Democrats: Only care about it to the extent that it's a nexus of class/race warfare.

> Republicans: Want the government out of it.

Only when it benefits big business. Republicans are more than happy to stick the government into your religion, your health decisions, your recreational drug use, etc.

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

#498

Post by s_q_b » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 10:38 PM UTC

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…

Absolutely spot on.

The FCC even tried to create a net neutrality rule without reclassifying broadband providers under Title II, but it was struck down by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Verizon v. FCC (2014)[0]

Nobody really wanted to impose the Title II regulations, which were written for a different technology and era, on broadband providers. But absent new legislation, which is a no-go in today's Congress, it was the only way for the FCC to establish the legal authority to promulgate the rule.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._...

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

#499

Post by xrange » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 10:38 PM UTC

keslag wrote: post #316

Okay, as a Canadian with no dog in this fight, this seems to be a good thing for America. So I'm having a very hard time understanding the opposition. The arguments for title II are pretty clear and logical. The arguments against include giving up personal freedoms (You live in America, you've been giving up most of your personal freedoms willing for the pack two decades) and this isn't one of them. There are some co…

As an American, with an uncertain dog in this fight, could someone explain the pro side to net neutrality? I can certainly see that in theory if your ISP is providing you a bit pipe, they shouldn't treat different bits differently. But the status quo seems like it has been working remarkably well for the last 20 years (at least from my perspective). It seems like the big hub-bub is that one of the hated cable companies is slowing down Netflix traffic to extract a ransom from Netflix.

A.) Is this really a government concern that potentially some people won't be able to stream "House of Cards" without buffering? And then we're also worried about the fact that your ISP could decide at some time in the future to pull the same extortion stunt on other services that are less trivial (examples of the worst case scenario might be good, and why it hasn't happened so far).

B.) Apparently there exists a technical fix by using a VPN, so then if you are really inconvenienced, you could use this, or potentially another ISP (satellite seems like it should be available to most people with only one cable provider, right?).

C.) Why wouldn't the customers complain to/blame their ISPs just as much as Netflix? I have a hard time caring about the plight of either the big cable companies or Netflix (or Facebook, Google, any other billion dollar enterprise).

...I'm know I'm ignorant on this issue, but I can't help to think that both sides are blowing things out of proportion.

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

#500

Post by bduerst » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 10:38 PM UTC

chaostheory wrote: post #465

grecy wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Originally the answer is No, because shaping reduces costs for overburdened (older) networks, and these these are infrastructure-heavy regional markets so the entry cost is already very high for competition.

But then you have companies like Google who can come in an put in Fiber because they're a tech conglomerate who can subsidize these costs in other ways.