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

581–590 of 745 posts

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

#581

Post by zanny »

spiralpolitik wrote: post #470
verbin217 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Or if you are building infrastructure on taxpayer dollar keep it public like they keep almost everything else. Depends on location, but usually power lines are public but maintained by a private contracted company, roads are public but are maintained either by subcontracted engineering corps or state public unionized engineers, sewer lines are public, etc.

It seem we only think that twisted pair / coaxial / fiber channels should cross everyones private property but stay privately owned. On average at least. I know a lot of backwards thinking that leads to the privatization of other infrastructure (water, power, etc) that leads to tremendous exploitation of the citizenry by the monopoly provider.

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

#582

Post by Frondo »

kijin wrote: post #557
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. T…

There's even a saying that gets at what you're going for:

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Is this the perfect government regulation? Probably not. Better than the old way? Oh yes.

Same thing for Obamacare. Perfect way to give health care to a nation? Definitely not. Better than it was before? As someone who was ineligible for health insurance due to a surgery I'd had in my 20s, oh yes.

(On a side note, and as a general rule, I look to see: are big, entrenched, unpopular companies fighting a regulation? If they are, that's a sign that it's probably a regulation that's good for consumers, probably one I'd support.)

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

#583

Post by xrange »

hawkice wrote: post #572
xrange wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 run…

WiMax is generally promising, as is the idea that cell networks speed up way past 4G bandwidth. Lasers / line of sight is somewhat cheaper but still has a not-great marginal cost. Radio spectrum for last mile seems like an essential step in universal wide area internet (WiMax needs spectrum, and we are running out of decent frequencies for cell network internet). I am personally not sure what blimps would add, but th…

Blimps would seem to be cheaper to deploy compared to satellites, and have much lower latency. How about drones delivering SD cards? The latency might be bad, but you might still have a pretty high data rate.

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

#584

Post by alexqgb »

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.

Worth noting: the FCC also struck down laws in two states that had barred municipalities from setting up their own broadband networks.

The widely covered ruling (Title II) stops the major ISPs from getting worse. The less noticed ruling is what will put the screws to their executives, and make them actually perform.

For their customers, I mean. More on the muni. ruling here: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/02/fcc-did-lot-mo...

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

#585

Post by tw04 »

cubano wrote: post #239
theandrewbailey wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, that's the only regulation that was needed. All the other concerns that the other regulations targeted would be taken care of.

Exactly. Disbanding the last-mile monopolies would introduce the market forces needed to fix almost all the problems that most people think need fixing, although the corporate plutocrats would quickly scramble to consolidate things again, as they did during the cell phone explosion.

There's nothing to consolidate when last mile is unbundled. Cell companies consolidated because spectrum is a finite resource that they could possess sole ownership of. The consolidation of ISPs already happened when last mile unbundling was removed from the market. If they open it back up, buying an ISP is literally buying their staff. If the founders are smart, they cash out and just start up a new business doing the exact same thing competing with whoever was dumb enough to buy them.

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

#586

Post by Zancarius »

Animats wrote: post #511
Zancarius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm aware of that.

The problem is that I had been "corrected" (incorrectly) in a discussion elsewhere when I mentioned there was only the one comment period by someone who stated that there would, in fact be a period after the rules were voted on where there would be a second period to accept comments from the public. I should have looked it up myself, rather than taking the correction at face value.

In fairness to the individual who attempted to correct me, I think he/she was confusing the reconsideration period with a second round of comments. It's a fair and reasonable mistake to make, so with that in mind, I suppose you could correct my initial post to make mention of the reconsideration period in lieu of what I wrote.

One of the issues I take with some of the pro-net neutrality crowd is that they're willing to vehemently hyper-correct everything, including statements that were not wrong, and due to the insistence of some of the comments I read, I made the mistake of presuming my initial understanding was wrong.

Go figure. It's too late for me to correct my original post, but feel free to use this as an addendum to it. :)

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

#587

Post by npizzolato »

Alupis wrote: post #278
chetanahuja wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. They are here to spread FUD via talking points. I attempted to prove the futility of attacking the arguments by showing that they have been clearly countered before while failing to budge this account from their fixed talking points.

> My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. They are here to spread FUD via talking points If you feel anyone's opinion that isn't your own is somehow FUD, that's a problem. For example, you are unlikely to change my viewpoint or opinion on a great number of things, even through well thought-out and concise arguments. I also happen to believe Fox News isn't as terrible as a lot of people…

> I also happen to believe Fox News isn't as terrible as a lot of people like to think (they are, after all, the news network with the most viewership and highest ratings year after year).

If your opinion of what makes a news network good or terrible is based on whether or not they get high viewers and ratings, I'm not quite sure what to say. No one who calls Fox News terrible is doing so because they think no one is watching, and I can't believe you actually believe that.

> Point being, you shouldn't attack individuals because they don't agree with you (or the popular opinion). You should attack their argument.

Pointing out instances of him ignoring coherent rebuttals to his argument is an attack on the argument. His argument is weak because he is ignoring responses that refute his argument.

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

#588

Post by hawkice »

xrange wrote: post #583
hawkice wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WiMax is generally promising, as is the idea that cell networks speed up way past 4G bandwidth. Lasers / line of sight is somewhat cheaper but still has a not-great marginal cost. Radio spectrum for last mile seems like an essential step in universal wide area internet (WiMax needs spectrum, and we are running out of decent frequencies for cell network internet). I am personally not sure what blimps would add, but th…

Blimps would seem to be cheaper to deploy compared to satellites, and have much lower latency. How about drones delivering SD cards? The latency might be bad, but you might still have a pretty high data rate.

Same problem, but worse: marginal costs would kill you with the drone delivered SD cards. Blimps... might be interesting. I feel like the blimps I've seen are so close to the ground they'd just be harder-to-maintain cell/WiMax towers.

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

#589

Post by Zei33 »

> Commissioner Michael O’Reilly criticized the proposal to reverse Title II: “I see no need for net neutrality rules. I am far more troubled the commission is charting for Title II.” He continued, calling the move a “monumental and unlawful power grab.”

More interested in politics than his job.

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

#590

Post by copsarebastards »

bmelton wrote: post #263
copsarebastards wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

user: travie7273 created: 27 minutes ago

This really isn't helpful. If you'd read his comment, it would be clear that his last account was banned, which would all but necessitate that any new accounts would be, y'know, new. Further, it shouldn't need to be pointed out, but the insightfulness of one's posts should not be judged against how long they've been members of a website.

As someone else pointed out, a lot of new accounts were posting ISP talking points, which looks a whole lot like astroturfing.

Obviously the insightfulness of comments shouldn't be judged by how long someone has been a member of a website, but how long they've been a member of a website may be a good indicator of their motivations.

Post reply on HN