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

651–660 of 745 posts

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

#651

Post by Golf_Hotel_Mike »

webXL wrote: post #637
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.

> ISPs trying to charge to (de)prioritize packets I'm still not getting it. Isn't this like saying restaurants are charging to provide more flavorful, healthier food? The cost burden may appear to fall on the suppliers in the ISP case, but they just pass that onto the consumer, just like the price you see next to the menu item. Problem 1 only appears to be a problem because of problem 2. It's a competition issue. Are…

But there already is legislation in place to deal with problem 2. Antitrust law exists and has been successfully used in the past. If the political will is created it could be used just as well against the ISP duopoly. Problem 1 on the other hand is a brand new problem that is peculiar to the medium of the internet. Unless the legal framework for it is laid down as early as possible, the service will always be vulnerable to political agendas. Simply put, net neutrality legislation is essential for the future of the internet, while shitty competition is a temporary problem that can be solved.

We're already seeing progress (albeit very minor progress) in solving problem 2. The entry of Google Fiber in the market is more significant than most people realize, because it shows that companies that rely on efficient internet service for their revenue are willing to expand into ISP roles in order to ensure reach to customers. Who's to say that Apple, a massive corporation with deep pockets that lives and breathes user experience, won't invest in ensuring that their customers have the best experience with the internet possible?

Call me optimistic, but I don't think the ISP duopoly in is going to last forever. The stakes are just too high for other large companies to not enter into the field. Eventually, I believe we'll see a bunch of walled gardens ISPs instead of the current duopoly, with Apple, Google and maybe even someone like Facebook acting as ISPs for their own subset of customers. When that does happen, we need to make sure that the playing field for all websites stays level and independent of economic or political interests. Strict net neutrality laws are exactly what we need in a situation like that.

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

#652

Post by O____________O »

daughart wrote: post #220
strictnein wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're stating that you think the US government can create 700 new Internet regulations and not mess things up? I'm stating that I think the US government is mainly made up of morons, especially in regards to technical issues. The cynicism is from the fact that there are 300+ pages to do what would apparently be a fairly simple change, so there's more to it than just the "Net Neutrality for everyone!" bit.

The Affordable Healthcare Act was gigantic and created by morons, but by most metrics is improving the American healthcare system. The argument that the government can not act in a way that improves things, even if it is not the perfect solution, is contrary to fact. EDIT: I treat down-votes in the absence of a counter-argument as up-votes.

The Affordable Healthcare Act was ... created by morons

Really? I thought it was drafted by very clever, largely self-interested people.

I treat down-votes in the absence of a counter-argument as up-votes.

Good luck with that. Sounds like a great way to eventually find yourself banned.

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

#653

Post by O____________O »

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…

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.

That's exactly what I wanted. It will lead to more consumer-facing competition.

What we wanted was ... exercise its Anti-Trust capabilities and bust the universally hated ... into a bunch of small companies

That's not at all what I wanted. It would lead to endless localized land-grabbing bureaucracy.

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

#654

Post by sgift »

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"

And for good reason: Don't live yesterday. Just because you won a fight doesn't mean you'll win the war against all the worlds problems. Bask a few moments in the nice glow of a victory and then start attacking the next problem.

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

#655

Post by warfangle »

rhino369 wrote: post #248
warfangle wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Up until very recently, Title II was the "nuclear option." Up until recently (2005), ADSL was classified as Title II. Reclassifying it as an information service made it so much better that VDSL2 (which can provide 100Mbps!), defined in 2005, has .... hardly rolled out anywhere.

The original Title II classification which included local loop bundling killed DSL investment and allowed cable broadband to take over the market. Ever wonder why America has cable broadband and the rest of the world uses some version of DSL or fiber provided by the telephone company? Title II. As soon as it was deregulated, Verizon and AT&T began upgrades. But before then, they weren't going to build upgrades to net…

What's interesting, though, if you look at the published numbers... The number of new subscribers each year grew at about the same rate, with DSL in the lead (of growth, but not hard numbers), until 2005... When they both leveled off. DSL more sharply than cable. Most of the historic data only differentiates between greater and less than 200kbps, though, so it's difficult to know the impact that it did on bandwidth availability growth for the two connection mediums.

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

#656

Post by anigbrowl »

paulhauggis wrote: post #648
anigbrowl wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of us find significant qualitative differences between using a radio and a web browser or even an app. 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? Yes, it is. People are freely expressing their disagreement with your fallacy-laden arguments.

"Most of us find significant qualitative differences between using a radio and a web browser or even an app." Even from this statement, I can tell you don't know what I am even talking about. Using is much different than broadcasting. "Yes, it is. People are freely expressing their disagreement with your fallacy-laden arguments." Down voting is not disagreeing. It's silencing. Disagreeing would be actually having a p…

I understand perfectly well what you are talking about. I just think your ideas are foolish. Also, I have no difficulty in reading your posts despite the downvotes they have received, so I'm not sure why you feel you're being silenced. Clearly, this conversation isn't going anywhere, though.

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

#657

Post by anigbrowl »

mark-r wrote: post #412
anigbrowl wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reasonable people can disagree about Title II, but there's no getting around the fact that just in the last few weeks the issue has been turned into 'Obamanet' as a political football.

You might not believe it, but it's true. Just yesterday at lunch I overheard a bunch of old (retired?) guys at the next table repeating that tired line "Obamacare of the Internet".

Oh I know it's true. The Wall Street Journal started callingit 'Obamanet' as soon as Wheeler dropped his editorial a few days back. Joke's going to be on them, I suspect.

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

#658

Post by asdkl234890 »

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.

I think it's because we are pedantic. In a pedantic way no more world hunger, but people still die in car crashes, is correct. Pedantically correct.

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

#659

Post by zo1 »

nitrogen wrote: post #650
amikula wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I think that solving problem 2 is the most important, and problem 1, if it is truly a problem, could be solved by a competitive free market. If it's truly possible for new competitors to enter the market, then if problem 1 really matters, market forces will handle it.

if problem 1 really matters, market forces will handle it. Market forces didn't handle seat belts, air bags, fuel efficiency, racial discrimination, taxation without representation, etc. We cannot rely on the market to solve all problems.

As always, these items are only presented as "problems" because of the presence of government. So when government steps in and solves them, all pro-state individuals shout a glorious "Hurray, take that free-market!!'.

>Seat Belts: If individuals wanted them, the car companies would have followed suit. You forget that not only were seat belts mandated to be installed, but people were FINED if they didn't put them on.

>Air Bags: If there wasn't a state, I'm sure you'd have safety organizations putting out reports/studies about effectiveness of air bags. Rich people would buy them in their cars, poor people wouldn't, and they don't do that now anyways. Not sure how you see this is as something "government" fixed as it's different to seat belts, which are mandated?

>Fuel efficiency: Ah yes, another environmental tax meant to incentivize good behavior. Let me know how that's working out. All this does is drive up the cost of cars unnecessarily under the pretense of environmental benefits. Again, if people wanted it, you wouldn't have to force them to do it. This is the basic basic difference that most pro-market, and anti-market sentiments boil down to.

>Racial discrimination: This was enforced and perpetuated by state laws. Some would argue it still happens today with certain mandatory sentencing laws, minimum wage, etc.

>Taxation without representation. What? You want the market to solve a problem that solely exists because of the state, revolves around the state, and is absolutely not subject to any market forces at all? Perhaps if I could "choose" where my tax money was spent, then there would be some sort of market force driven by individuals. But that's nowhere near the case.

Now, a little more on-topic. You are absolutely right that we can't rely on the market to solve all problems, but in the presence of a state. The temptation is always there to "correct" or "slightly nudge" the market in directions we want it to go, rather than what the collective unconscious has decided. The free-market is more democracy than democracy is right now, and people fundamentally can not accept that.

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

#660

Post by Thimothy »

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.

I'd rather "Idealistic Perfectionist", thank you.
Post reply on HN