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

661–670 of 745 posts

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

#661

Post by jsprogrammer »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #137
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…

This "we haven't even seen the rules yet" line is really just a meaningless talking point promoted by NN opponents. In the world of government regulation, is is absolutely the norm for regulations to be voted on before being made public. But that does not mean the process is not transparent: the Commission has been conducting an open proceeding for months (years, really) where they have explained their proposals to t…

>In the world of government regulation, is is absolutely the norm for regulations to be voted on before being made public.

It's mostly irrelevant what the 'norm' is. Either the process is actually transparent or it's not. Dropping xxx pages after passage is not really transparent.

In fact, the 'norm' is usually what we want to be moving away from. The problems that we are trying to solve exist in the 'norm'. It used to be the norm that the Roman Church could come in, try you for heresy on hearsay and then execute you, all with no real evidence and decided by an inquisitor. Just because that was a normal occurence, doesn't make it right or transparent.

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

#662

Post by afsina »

Karunamon wrote: post #646
novalis78 wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stefan Molyneux came out with a one hour long video today - very detailed historic overview and discussion - of the government involvement that led to the current state of affairs (which beg for more government involvement, etc). Its worth watching it in its entirety: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4 Personally, I can't stand Comcast/Verizon/AT&T either, but I was born in Stasi East Germany. To me, the ide…

A "completely free marketplace" will always tend towards a monopoly, and besides, that philosophy doesn't work when there are physical barriers to entry.

No, Government intervention leads to a monopoly.

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

#663

Post by itsjareds »

zo1 wrote: post #659
nitrogen wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

As with a pure democracy, in order for market forces to work, you have to assume that the individuals really want what is best for them or best for society at large. Pure capitalism isn't going to solve many serious problems that can be attributed to tragedy of the commons -- pollution, fuel efficiency, etc. -- because not everyone is an expert in those areas, and I don't fault them for that. Likewise with issues like racial and gender discrimination, if those decisions were left up to individuals to decide whether they "want" to promote fairness to marginalized people, then I can assure you that the status quo would not change. Market forces can fix many things, but they won't fix societal issues way larger than the individual -- or at least not in a timely manner.

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

#664

Post by couchand »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #612
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…

> Much of what looks like rudeness in hacker circles is not intended to give offence. Rather, it's the product of the direct, cut-through-the-bullshit communications style that is natural to people who are more concerned about solving problems than making others feel warm and fuzzy With all due respect to ESR, and speaking as an autistic person who has struggled with socialization, I get tired of people trying to pai…

Thanks. That was as or more apropos as the comment you replied to, and much more valuable.

60 seconds' worth of interest and congratulations would have gotten dozens of hours of extra productivity out of me.

Hundreds, probably, thousands maybe. It's hard to overestimate the value in these things.

Except, of course, on HN.

So, to reiterate, other people are not machines.

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

#665

Post by couchand »

brink wrote: post #552
oceanstone wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"both"? There's far more than two perspectives in any argument worth having.

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

#666

Post by belorn »

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…

Restaurants can't prioritize white customers over black customers. They can't provide more flavorful, healthier food for white customers only, while giving rotten, old, bad food to black customers while charging the same price.

ISP's can however charge a higher price for faster speeds, same as a restaurant can charge a higher price for more flavorful and healthier food.

competition solve problems when every actor acts rational, and everyone competes fairly with the same moral and ethical values. As soon one of those two assumptions are wrong, competition stops to solve problems in the market.

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

#667

Post by gojomo »

a_c_s wrote: post #602
gojomo wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Historically, that's been an issue. But in fact, the FCC has been testing this, and most users' actual speeds are barely any lower than advertised (and sometimes even higher) during peak periods. From their 2014 report [1]:

"On average, during peak periods DSL-based services delivered download speeds that were 91 percent of advertised speeds, cable-based services delivered 102 percent of advertised speeds, fiber-to-the-home services delivered 113 percent of advertised speeds, and satellite delivered 138 percent of advertised speeds."

And, a majority of wired connections are advertised as "6Mbps or higher" [2] – so even if throughput at peak times was only 66% (while in fact it averages 90%+), it'd be still be plenty for HD video from Netflix, iTunes, and Amazon.

The sense of distress here is based a lot on folklore and outlier complaints. Most people are essentially getting the full headline speeds, even during peak times, and have 2+ choices for service sufficient for all but the most bleeding-edge applications.

[1] http://www.fcc.gov/reports/measuring-broadband-america-2014#...

[2] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-329973A1.p... p. 2 & p. 3

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

#668

Post by gojomo »

nknighthb wrote: post #635
gojomo wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fas…

You are fortunate to live somewhere with high-quality DSL, and not have anyone else using your connection. These things do not hold true for the majority of people. I expect you're also tolerating much longer startup times than most consumers tolerate. Vudu is not providing meaningful HD. The way you get 2.25mbps "HD" is by providing a 720p or 1080p stream of very low quality. 2.25mbps is not capable of providing eve…

Netflix HD streams start in about 5 seconds.

If you can download 1 hour of HD in 1 hour and 10 minutes over 4Mbps, that is still "plenty" in my book – especially since 90% of the USA have multiple options for that bandwidth.

If one provider is out front with more bandwidth for impatient cinemaphiles – good for them! Let them charge more, in more ways, as a motivation for competitors to upgrade.

The ability to satisfy all other net uses – web, email, short videos, software downloads, audio streaming, video conferencing, etc – from multiple competing providers almost everywhere is still pretty good. Saying that's "not broadband" is arbitrarily raising the standard to create a false sense of crisis.

It's too bad your LTE needs a careful window positioning; I've noticed mine faces many weak spots around the neighborhood. But wireless is competitive in many places, for many people, for many uses – and keeps getting better. No one is trapped indefinitely with bad service needing federal rescue – the rates and options have been improving non-stop for decades, based on raw competitive factors.

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

#669

Post by xnull2guest »

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"

This is all well and good, but I did argue this over a month ago.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8882088

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

#670

Post by 72deluxe »

stox wrote: post #520
woofyman wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember renting my phone from AT&T. Premium colors and touchtone were extra. They would periodically ring your line to measure the voltage drop to detect unauthorized phones.

And that is why you would disconnect the Bell on all the "extra" phones. ;)

Fascinating and informative! Thanks!

I had no idea it was this bad, as I am from the UK.

Post reply on HN