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

511–520 of 745 posts

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

#511

Post by Animats »

Zancarius wrote: post #10
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…

Funny how something intended to prevent ISPs from throttling content turned into a debate about helping out the disadvantaged, etc. It worries me that issues like this are co-opted to turn them into a one-size-fits-all batch of regulations sidelining their original intent. On the other hand, it's my understanding that the FCC will enter a period of public comments after voting on the rules but prior to enacting them.…

It's my understanding that the FCC will enter a period of public comments after voting on the rules but prior to enacting them.

That was all done last year. Now the rules are out.

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

#512

Post by novalis78 »

tzs wrote: post #449
novalis78 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you for the example. However, I thought that's quintessentially part of competition in a free market. Who would prevent netflix from offering a better service, make a deal with another ISP, allow other companies to offer products that fit your consumption and streaming habits better?

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

#513

Post by pyrocat »

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…

"Pro-NN astro-turfing" hahaha ok dude, sure. Which side of this issue is more likely to have hired giant PR firms to hire astroturfers? And which side is more likely to actually have grassroots support? I'll give you a hint, the pro-consumer side is probably not the one with the giant PR firm.

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

#514

Post by dang »

ebbv wrote: post #251
cubano wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing is going to happen in the next couple of weeks. There are going to be lawsuits galore that will hold up any significant changes to internet services for years.

What? The regulations will certainly be released in the next couple weeks. Yes, that's also when the lawsuits will start. But I was talking about the regulations being released (since that's what the comment I was replying to was talking about.) Feel free to take your terrible attitude elsewhere.

> Feel free to take your terrible attitude elsewhere

Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.

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

#515

Post by novalis78 »

exogen wrote: post #442
novalis78 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I was not joking. Some additional consideration of how monopoly and deregulation plays into this discussion: http://youtu.be/5Z_nBhfpmk4?t=47m25s

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

#516

Post by VikingCoder »

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

You're forgetting the huge gulf inbetween "up to 4Mbps" and "4Mbps".

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

#517

Post by pyrocat »

innguest wrote: post #72
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…

> the pros played only on emotion [...] Facts and rationality was only brought up by the opposition. That's my rule of thumb for knowing which side is right. There's always one side that makes emotional arguments, and another side that makes factual arguments. This simple heuristics is inaccessible to over half the population, who are collectivists. Also notice, most of those collectivists do not believe they should…

False dichotomy.

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

#518

Post by baddox »

scarmig wrote: post #478
baddox wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Of course! I'd go so far as to say that's the case in most of the USA--Comcast almost certainly has some level of private security at most of its locations, even (or perhaps especially) in urban areas. I'm not sure, though, how that undermines the point that Comcast shares in the monopoly of violence with the government. It doesn't make its violence independent of government (at least in the USA): small matters can b…

> I'm not sure, though, how that undermines the point that Comcast shares in the monopoly of violence with the government.

I didn't mean to imply that. I was addressing your point of protection of property to be only possible via the state, which I believe to be demonstrably false. The fact that Comcast would likely call the largest and most powerful group of property enforcers (the state) is not particularly interesting.

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

#519

Post by nsxwolf »

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.

Did problem 1 really need 700 distinct new regulations to be solved?

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

#520

Post by stox »

woofyman wrote: post #453
leejoramo wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And that is why you would disconnect the Bell on all the "extra" phones. ;)
Post reply on HN