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

551–560 of 745 posts

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

#551

Post by gojomo »

nknighthb wrote: post #394
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 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…

While I trust your experience with regard to whatever specific streaming assumptions & goals your project was seeking, in fact my DSL, maxing at 5Mbps in speed tests, has no problem streaming HD from Netflix for a sharp picture on a 50" TV. (A sibling commenter links to Vudu's FAQ that reports 2.25Mbps as their threshold for HD streaming.)

And we're not limited to streaming: at 5Mbps, iTunes HD downloads complete faster than they can be watched, and at 4Mbps you just need to give them a 10-minute head-start per hour.

So no-one at 4Mbps – the floor at which ~90% of America already has 2 or more wired providers and 2 or more wireless providers – need be locked out of their inalienable human right to video-entertainment. At most they might need to wait a few minutes... or watch in the SD that was good enough for decades of TV-watchers.

Wireless is not yet a perfect substitute for cable/DSL, but it's an acceptable substitute for many people, when they're not heavy audio/video consumers. My wireless service (TMobile LTE) is about 4x faster at my home than my DSL wired service – and so I've switched to wireless on occasion when I needed large software downloads to complete quickly.

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

#552

Post by brink »

oceanstone wrote: post #496
bobbles wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I like reading the counter argument so that I can feel like I looked at both sides of the matter. What can I say?

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

#553

Post by tzs »

Zebra20 wrote: post #411
tzs wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You were told this was wrong yesterday, and I know you saw that because you responded. Why are you still repeating it? Once again, we will all have plenty of time to read these regulations before they…

1. This is the news release from today: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-ru... on the last page, you can see the docket number, which is 14-28. 2. This is the docket page for 14-28. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28 3. In the FCC filings section, you can see that the NPRM was filed May 2014. This sets the comment period to July 2014, and the comment reply period to September…

The description of the rule making process given at the FCC site [1] says that "The Final Rule. After the comment period closes and the Commission has reviewed and analyzed the comments received, we decide whether to proceed with the rulemaking we proposed, issue a new or modified proposal, or take no action on the proposal".

This makes it sound like the final rule must be the rule that was proposed and commented on, which would mean we've looped back to issuing a new proposal.

[1] http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/rulemaking-process-fcc#q6

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

#554

Post by xrange »

dragonwriter wrote: post #534
xrange wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compani…

> 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. The combination of limitation choice and blocking policies are actually the big thing -- Netflix specifically and "ransom"/paid prioritization are recent aspects of that debate, but it really goes back to things like Comcast blocking Bittorrent, and many ISPs having rules governin…

>it really goes back to things like Comcast blocking Bittorrent, and many ISPs having rules governing what kind of applications users are permitted to use on their connection.

...I'm not up to speed on Bittorrent, but are they specifically blocking Bittorrent, or is coming under the ruberic of "thou shall not run a server behind your cable modem"? Certainly I can see that the 'net is supposed to be peer-to-peer and your server shouldn't be blocked from your residential connection, but can't you usually upgrade to a "business" package and get around those limitations? On the one hand I suppose you could get mad at having to pay extra for the "full" internet. On the other hand I suppose that someone could equally say that they're offering a discount for offering less services.

I'm interested to know what other sorts of things/applications ISPs may be blocking. Is there a name-and-shame site out there listing various ISPs and what they don't allow. Kind of a Consumer Reports for ISPs? And I suppose someone has crunched the numbers and knows what percentage of people are only served by one broadband supplier. Is it 10% of the population who can't get DSL, wireless, satellite or some other form of competition of some kind?

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

#555

Post by khawkins »

product50 wrote: post #68
strictnein wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you've read all the new regulations? Which one is the best?

Stop being so cynical. Not sure what is up with this community. When FCC was reluctant to do anything on net neutrality everyone here was up in arms. Now that FCC has passed something, you are still up in arms. So much cynicism - for all you know most of the regulations passed might be pro-consumer. At least I would like to believe that it is better than the current model - which in itself is a good step forward.

It's for this reason that I cannot follow this debate anymore. Every time this debate comes up buzzwords get thrown around and people take sides but the issues keep moving.

From what I read in the comments, these rules make all packets equal in terms of prioritization. If that's the case, then Net Neutrality has won, right? Can we start a new debate to work on the other problems?

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

#557

Post by kijin »

Frondo wrote: post #461

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 s…

Trying to discredit a good-enough proposal by yelling "But it's not perfect!" is typical of modern politics. And the tactic is terrifyingly effective.

We in the hacker community should know better than anyone else that iteration, not a once-and-for-all solution, is the key to ultimate success. Unfortunately, it is difficult even for well-educated people to throw off the influence of the dominant political rhetoric. The fact that our political systems are designed to make iteration difficult doesn't help, either.

But the U.S. government ain't going anywhere for the foreseeable future, and neither is Comcast. Today's announcement is little more than an MVP. There'll be plenty of opportunity for iterative --and sometimes even revolutionary -- improvement in the years and decades to come.

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

#558

Post by TallGuyShort »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #200
ubernostrum wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't. Everything gets published. The vote on the rule change came after a public comment period. This thread is just full of HN's intellectually-challenged users waving their hands and saying "ooooOOOOoooo GOVERNMENT! SCARY GOVERNMENT! BE AFRAID OF SCARY GOVERNMENT! ooooOOOOoooo!"

Can you provide a link to the 700 regulations? Can't find one anywhere else.

Holy hell - why the down votes? "Everything is public" made it sound like the regulations had been published. I just wanted to know where. What's wrong with asking for a citation?

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

#559

Post by xrange »

hawkice wrote: post #396
shmerl wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that competitors should be allowed to use the last mile to provide service. See: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_local_exchange_car...

A rural Washington state regulatory and infrastructure organization, KPUD, is attempting to encourage access to the fiber they've added to the Kitsap county area. They have implemented this rule in a fairly watered down sense. The result is that, years after the large federal government grant to help high speed rural internet access, and almost two years after construction has been completed, no one in Kitsap county…

Is this something that might be cured by a technical means in the future? Should we be opening up more radio spectrum for "last mile" connectivity? Maybe blimps instead of satellites? Microwave? Line-of-site laser towers? I'm reminded of an acquaintance who was busy wiring his house with cat5 cable in the late 90s, when wifi was available, but not ubiquitous. Now I can't imagine anyone but the most super-hardcore running wires inside their house for connectivity.
Post reply on HN