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

541–550 of 745 posts

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

#541

Post by freehunter »

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"

Well people tend to take victories as if the problem was solved. You might say world hunger is solved, and people move on to fixing car crashes. And then when you point out that people still don't have access to clean water, everyone's attention has already moved on. By the time we can get their attention back, world hunger is a problem again because without clean water you can't run a farm.

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

#542

Post by freehunter »

wwweston wrote: post #537
nsxwolf wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is a probematic comment in any forum, but I'd think it'd be especially unwelcome in a forum filled with programmers. Because even assuming it's true that there are 700 new distinct regulations, programmers should know better than to use regulations as a pejorative or high numbers of them as a proxy bugaboo. We're people whose job includes filling text editors with regulations specifying the inputs, tranformation…

Yes but by drawing that parallel, you have to realize that programmers represent totalitarian dictators. Software isn't a democracy. America is.

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

#543

Post by pdabbadabba »

dragonwriter wrote: post #526
nsxwolf wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I have yet to see any basis for the "700 distinct new regulations" claim, and given the parallel claim, often from the same posters, that the Order is only on the order of 300 pages, find "700 distinct new regulations" to be highly suspicious, and suspect that if it is even loosely tied to fact, its tied to a count of the number of numbered sections, not the number of things that are in any sense distinct regulations…

I suspect this is a reference to the number of regulations that current apply to other entities regulated under Title II. Of course, there is more than one category of entity under Title II, each of which faces a different regulatory burden. Broadband ISPs are sure to be yet another category, with different regulatory burdens. In fact we know this, because the FCC has been quite clear that it will use its authority to "forbear" from subjecting broadband ISPs to many of the requirements that typically apply under Title II.

So you're exactly right: there is no support for the "700 regulations." It's total nonsense.

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

#544

Post by gojomo »

grmpz wrote: post #464
gojomo wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Per your link, 2.25Mbps is sufficient for HD from Vudu. Also, 4Mbps is the floor for meeting the original broadband definition; most offerings are higher.

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

#545

Post by dd36 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #77
pyrophane wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any idea when or how these additional 700 regulations will be published?

> Any idea when or how these additional 700 regulations will be published? If the past experience on similar FCC actions (including, e.g., the last Open Internet Report and Order) is a good guide, they'll be published in the next several days, and the biggest delay in getting them published will be the opposing commissioners getting finished writing up their dissenting views, which will be published alongside what is…

*Comcast getting finished writing their dissenting views...

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

#546

Post by gojomo »

VikingCoder wrote: post #516
gojomo wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

The figures I'm referring to, from the FCC's 2014 report on broadband competition, were based on "4Mbps or higher" (not "up to").

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

#547

Post by revelation »

mudil wrote: post #16

FCC has now "fixed" something that was not broken, and gov't is now regulating internet. I am on this one with Mark Cuban, who is scared shitless of this gov't take over. Speaking of shitless, is everyone ready for decency standards?

Tell us again how Verizon and others fudging with the cookies in your HTTP requests is not broken.

I don't give a shit about your Netflix, buy some harddisks, but I can't have my ISP fucking around with the payload in protocol layers it has absolutely zero to do with. That's like the postal service ripping up mail, throwing away half and then adding some of its own writing before repackaging. And if that's not terrible enough, if you want to mail to port 6881, you'll find your messages magically arriving late and incomplete.

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

#548

Post by amaranth »

travie7273 wrote: post #78
ForHackernews wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulating the internet like a utility is quite possibly the worst thing you can imagine, and now its come to reality. Why? My electricity and water work a hell of a lot better than my cable internet.

You do know that television is also regulated like a utility, right? How did innovation in that sector turn out when the FCC took control?

It grew to be our primary form of news and entertainment nationwide. The internet has now mostly replaced it for news and appears to be replacing it for entertainment.

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

#549

Post by tlb »

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?

Quite possibly the opposite: new entrants wouldn't try to compete on general-purpose internet service but would deploy a service that's cheap because it's sponsored by large content providers, and those content providers would get preferential treatment.

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

#550

Post by shit_parade »

Retra wrote: post #330
shit_parade wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because recent government conduct has been stellar, I really want more government regulation, government always knows best, government does an amazing job, is very fair, is very open and transparent, government is democratic and responsive to citizen concerns. What typical myopic bullshit.

>Because recent government conduct has been stellar Recent government conduct has been the result of decades of deregulation.

? can you help me understand, I am curious why you believe this to be the case?

By any metric I can think of US government regulation has increased dramatically. Size of US tax code, number of laws, number of regulations, number of government agencies, expenditures, population of washington DC, the # of people with security clearances.

The only thing that has decreased is total work force, but if you add in the additional hiring of contractors that reduction is also thrown into question.

Post reply on HN