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

601–610 of 745 posts

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

#601

Post by djur »

Agustus wrote: post #472
innguest wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I have no idea why this is being downvoted, this is a legitimate comment. If there were ever a point that the emotional argument will try and force others out, this demonstrated it.

You don't think "godonearth, I mean, government" and calling half the population "collectivist", "communist", "fascist", and "brainless" might be a little bit emotional? I downvoted it because it was a content-free screed full of political shibboleths and mantras.

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

#602

Post by a_c_s »

gojomo wrote: post #546
VikingCoder wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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").

The parent is referring to the fact that consumer plans for nearly all ISPs don't guarantee 4 Mbps at all times. Instead they offer "up to 4 Mbps". Average performance is less than that, especially at high-usage times of day.

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

#603

Post by guelo »

jcrawfordor wrote: post #567
dragonwriter wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As far as I can tell, the 700 regulations is complete nonsense from people who did not read the release thoroughly. I have the news release sitting right in front of me, and on the 3rd page under the heading "Legal Authority:..." it says: "the Order refrains - or forbears - from enforcing 27 provisions of Title II and over 700 associated regulations that are not relevant to modern broadband service." That's your over…

It's not a misunderstanding. It is part of a deliberate misinformation campaign. And I don't find it hilarious.

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

#604

Post by toyg »

innguest wrote: post #274
feld wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's very limited spectrum and if everyone is fighting to see who can broadcast the loudest the entire system will fail.

There's also very limited land but land is not tightly controlled by an unelected government agency the same way radio waves are. If what you say is true then we should be able to buy and sell radio wave frequencies from each other. But radio waves are treated specially by the government because they're a long range means of communication. Same with the internet. That's why the FCC wants in. Not because "it's limited…

> Land is limited, where is the FCC for land?

Lol, that's the government. You cannot "freely buy and sell" land, you have to follow certain processes to register your dealings and you are responsible for how you use that land (zoning, environmental laws etc). That's basically what the FCC does for airwaves, except they want to make sure you'll be "responsible" before they actually allow you to register your dealings.

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

#605

Post by duaneb »

verbin217 wrote: post #444
duaneb wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ma Bell's children went on to do the exact same thing with cable and broadband.

So... it sounds like we need to do the exact same thing again. But you're advocating the opposite. Why?

Breaking up a company will be no means guarantee fair access in any given location.

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

#606

Post by tertius »

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…

A perfect job for the FTC.

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

#607

Post by cubano »

tlb wrote: post #549
chaostheory wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But perhaps that price is all they could afford, and in that case, something is a lot better than nothing.

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

#608

Post by Terr_ »

mehwoot wrote: post #595
ertdfgcb wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think at least part of it is because the people on HN enjoy solving problems so much. When there's a post that says "we solved this problem", a lot of people here (me included) think "great, what's the next problem to solve". The focus is on "the next problem to solve" more than the "great", sometimes to the degree that the "great" is completely ignored. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but it can get…

I think at least part of it is because the people on HN enjoy solving problems so much. Or we're all cynical assholes. Just possibly.

"Por qué no los dos!?"

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

#609

Post by toyg »

paulhauggis wrote: post #69
guelo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when ex-Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai said the FCC is replacing Internet freedom with government control and then blamed Obama, that wasn't playing on emotion?

"replacing Internet freedom with government control" This is what is happening. The government is now regulating the Internet. Where is the emotion? "then blamed Obama" He played a clip in which Obama talked about what he wanted. The FCC complied and now we have Internet regulation (exactly what Obama wanted). Again, these are facts, not emotion. I also think it's funny that you mention one line of potential emotion…

> The government is now regulating the Internet.

No, the government is regulating carriers.

When talking about "the Internet", people usually mean both actual wires (carrier infrastructure) and websites (content). If anything, with Title II the FCC is actually forcing companies to keep content less regulated, preventing commercially-motivated censorship.

> He played a clip in which Obama talked about what he wanted. The FCC complied

Obama tried long and hard to stay out of this mess, but Verizon's and Comcast's actions have been more and more outrageous every year.

I have a lot of complaints about the Obama administration, but everyone knows this is just the result of some carriers' continuous brinkmanship.

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

#610

Post by nickbauman »

duaneb wrote: post #211
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…

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.

"the free market" is like saying "the world peace". your ideological slip is showing.
Post reply on HN