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

621–630 of 745 posts

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

#621

Post by cubano »

redler wrote: post #570
cubano wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When was the last time you heard a Republican politician on the national stage raise an issue that was not obviously directed at their base, or donors? Do you seriously believe that it's only Republicans that pander to their base?

It's certainly not only Republicans. But neither are they pandering to their "base" in any traditional sense; rather, they are pandering to a few dozen specific people, the extreme concentration of whose wealth generates gravitational fields that that propagate through today's medium more freely than in any time in recent memory.

And George Soros[1] wasn't a HUGE part of the NN push?

I'm not trying to turn this into a Repub/Demo circle-jerk...I just personally believe, and my experience has proven, there there is barely a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, and that they are all simply plutocrats.

[1] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-mill...

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

#622

Post by jsmeaton »

CzechsMix wrote: post #114
innguest wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, this is kind of a red herring. There are a few places in the telecommunications act that require the FCC to fine for indecency/obscene material. That is the true red herring we hear over and over again. Don't worry about censorship, you can still say indecent/obscene things... if you happen to have been awarded the broadcasting license . Sir, or Ma'am, please understand. The censorship problem we ant…

How is it that nobody thinks forcing people to obtain a license for broadcasting isn't censorship, and/or forced monopoly? Like how do you reason yourself into believing those two things are false? Like, the biggest problem is that people are unhappy with comcast and there's no alternative. Then they get the bright idea that making entry into the market harder will fix this problem?

> How is it that nobody thinks forcing people to obtain a license for broadcasting isn't censorship, and/or forced monopoly? Like how do you reason yourself into believing those two things are false?

We grant land ownership and leases. Why not radio spectrum too? Not all that different really IMO.

If the major problem as you see it is the cost of licensing, then I don't really have a response to that.

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

#623

Post by VikingCoder »

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").

Right, as in "up to 4 Mbps, up to 10 Mpbs, up to 16 Mbps." All of those are "4 Mbps or higher." That's the game.

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

#624

Post by paulhauggis »

zymhan wrote: post #539
paulhauggis wrote: post #454

Something everyone is forgetting is the FCC regulation of radio. It was a little like Net-neutrality today. Radio stations needed to be regulated because they could crank up the wattage and overpower smaller radio stations. It needed to be regulated and the intent was to just focus on the infrastructure, not the content. What happened? Speech deemed immoral is banned from the radio waves and content is clearly being…

Radio waves are different than wireline Internet. The FCC regulates radio because there is a limited amount of usable frequencies, and these are supposed to belong to the people, so they need to be distributed and managed by a central organization. Any since the Supreme Court has ruled that the FCC has the legal authority to enforce censorship, we're stuck with it. Radio is also different because it is a broadcast me…

"Radio is also different because it is a broadcast medium. Any person who turns on their radio will hear what is being broadcast. Internet communication is much more analogous to a phone or mail conversation than radio or TV."

It's not though. A phone conversation is only one person (or less than 10) at a time. You can broadcast a message on the Internet that can reach millions of people. Twitter, Facebook, and even HN are broadcast mediums.

"The FCC doesn't censor phone calls now, why would they censor the Internet using the same rules?"

The Phone is not a broadcast medium and does not have the same power as the Internet.

"The Internet is totally different. No one has (reasonably) claimed that Title II regulation provides for the FCC to censor what is transmitted. "

Although I don't think content is regulated, we still haven't seen any of the regulations passed today.

*edit: are astro-turfers out again? I was merely stating my opinion on the topic..and was down voted. Is this an example of an open and free Internet?

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

#625

Post by martin1975 »

unprepare wrote: post #15
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 grass is always greener. Seriously though, I think there was a lot of hype built up around net neutrality(for good reason) and it ended up clouding the discussion. Quickly it became a dichotomy, you must be either for Title II and whatever the FCC decides that entails, or you must be against any change to the status quo. Now that we are passed that dichotomy, we are faced with the reality that we have little cont…

They are also looking to relax those rules as well, so you will hear 'fuck', 'piss', etc more often.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017170272

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

#627

Post by xrange »

hawkice wrote: post #588
xrange wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The drone idea was just something crazy I threw out there for the heck of it, but now I'm kind of warming up to it a little more. Let's say you, the end-user, owns the drone, a one-time cost of let's make up a number of several hundred dollars. You give it instructions to download the next 10 episodes of your favorite netflix shows, etc.. It flies to your nearest library3 miles away where you've got an account, and it downloads it wirelessly while hovering overhead. It then flies back and land on your roof and acts as an access point for you. And maybe you share ownership of the drone with your neighbors. Or maybe there are 10 drones at the library waiting for commands that come over dialup to deliver your content. It flies to your place, where you download it while it hovers over your house for a few minutes, and then heads back. In that instance maybe the library owns the drones, and you just pay for a subscription? What marginal costs are you thinking would be the killer?

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

#629

Post by NickNameNick »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #287
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!"

So this doesn't scare you at all? The plan gives a Washington bureaucracy a blank check to decide how Internet service providers deploy and manage their networks, from the last mile all the way through the Internet backbone. Take interconnection as just one example. The plan states that the FCC can determine when a broadband provider must establish physical interconnection points, where they must locate those points,…

Good, maybe comcast will finally update those oversaturated interconnects that they engineered to force netflix to pay them for access to their customers.

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

#630

Post by CzechsMix »

wpietri wrote: post #216
CzechsMix wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just feel like if he's so trivially wrong, and you're so obviously right, wouldn't it be better just to explain that? Instead of sinking so low on the debate pyramid as to only be one step above the bottom?

If you are not a serious interlocutor, then there is no point in explaining anything to you. It's like trying to get to know a bot. And getting off in the 101 stuff for the zillionth time is a distraction from having a more interesting and substantive discussion. And given that you're apparently mainly here to throw shade on people discussing this in ways you don't approve of, I have no reason to think you're a serio…

it's actually kind of odd, I spoke out against the ad hom precisely because I wanted a useful discussion. Notice how when it was revealed that my account is several days old, not several minutes, a second factor, karma had to be brought in to dismiss my opinion.

Sorry for the confusion that was caused by the fact that elsewhere in the thread, it was revealed that I was anti-NN.

Also sorry for getting back to you, thanks to the heaping spoonfuls of negative karma I got, I wasn't allowed to post until recently.

Post reply on HN