Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 200 posts

Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

#101

Post by dragonwriter »

cletus wrote: post #97
AFNobody wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do however find the doom and gloom prognostications around Title II repeal to be incredibly hyperbolic and unhelpful. Fact is, Title II was only introduced in 2015. It's not like repeal in 2017 is going to end the Internet overnight. So when you say "it was only introduced in 2015", what you really mean is "it was a heavily disputed situation for 20 years in with multiple court cases being won and lost by ISPs".…

Again, hyperbolic. Some action against Comcast throttling/blocking BitTorrent (in 2007-2009) ultimately resulted in action by the FCC in 2010, made rather toothless in 2014 with the provisions against blocking and throttling struck down. So between 2010-2014 and 2015-2017 we have ~6 years of regulation, with the ISPs fighting it all the way (surprise surprise). Just to clarify: I'm in agreement that we need net neutr…

> Some action against Comcast throttling/blocking BitTorrent (in 2007-2009) ultimately resulted in action by the FCC in 2010

Comcast wasn't the only enforcement action under the 2005-2010 case-by-case approach. (The first was the Madison River VoIP blocking case, in 2005.)

Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

#102

Post by jayess »

AFNobody wrote: post #98
jayess wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Censorship by whom? A bunch of websites that are completely separate entities from ISPs that are monopolies for all intents and purposes?' Yes, those same web sites that are breathlessly telling me today the repealing NN is a mortal threat to my very existence, who then turn around and engage in censorship themselves.

I would suggest you could create your own replacement for the sites that offend you. Free market competition exists for websites and there is probably a market for it if you are upset about it.

You're completely missing my point. Today everyone is screaming at the top of their lungs that because of the repeal of NN, ISPs will begin censoring speech, while these campaigns are being financed and propagated by the very entities that engage in wholesale censorship of speech.

I actually laughed out loud today when I saw a tweet from twitter saying that NN will allow for censorship. Twitter is a festering den of opaque censorship. No one sees the irony?

Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

#103

Post by simplify »

walshemj wrote: post #83
s73ver_ wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither one of those is a true solution. For one, we currently do not live in a climate where competition is happening. Every NN supporter would love for that to happen, but for now it's not. Second, not every place can support competing ISPs. Do the people who live in the inner city or out in rural areas not deserve a neutral net?

Local loop unbundling as in the UK does.

Can you explain?

Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

#104

Post by SamReidHughes »

AFNobody wrote: post #92
SamReidHughes wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've already got cellular data service that's much better than the first DSL line my family got. That stranglehold is weaker than you might think.

> We've already got cellular data service that's much better than the first DSL line my family got. That stranglehold is weaker than you might think. Good luck using 500GB of cellular in a month.

Ten years from now, I will.

Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

#105

Post by wpietri »

cletus wrote: post #72

I'm all in favour of treating Internet access as the "fourth utility". It's clear it's become almost as essential to modern life as electricity. I do however find the doom and gloom prognostications around Title II repeal to be incredibly hyperbolic and unhelpful. Fact is, Title II was only introduced in 2015. It's not like repeal in 2017 is going to end the Internet overnight. There are three problems here: 1. The U…

> It actually doesn't make much sense to build multiple last-mile networks. This is called an overbuild and is rather wasteful given the capex involved.

Yes, obviously. Just like roads. Which is why local governments should design and operate all residential internet networks.

Or: Yes, obviously. A house really only needs one electrified wire, which is why we should turn over internet service to the power company.

Or: Yes, obviously. We don't want an internet that's wasteful in any part of its operations, which is why it should be run entirely by the federal government. In fact, it's about communications, so let's combine it with the USPS.

Or: Yes, obviously. Given its vital role in society and its origins as a DARPA project, it should be entirely built and operated by the US Army.

On the other hand, maybe what we need is a proper market in internet connectivity, with multiple providers using different technologies and approaches to meet consumer needs, and a strong regulator that keeps large companies from driving the small ones under.

As somebody who lives in one of the few competitive ISP markets in the US and pays $50/month for my gigabit home fiber connection, I think I prefer the latter.

Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

#106

Post by dragonwriter »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #100
dragonwriter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it's true that the majority wanted to keep net neutrality, then how come the majority was ignored? Because the majority (at least, as weighted for electoral influence in both political branches of government) has prioritized other things in voting for representatives. Legislation, whether direct votes or through representatives, involves not only opinions on particular questions, but opinions on the relative pri…

I don't think there's any basis to say the majority voted for other things over net-neutrality. The Republicans mostly hold power with minority votes. In generaly, the things that the majority want don't get enacted under the US system e.g. the tax bill with very low approval, so net neutrality falls into the general bucket of stuff that the majority want but that the Republicans don't want to them have.

> I don't think there's any basis to say the majority voted for other things over net-neutrality

An absolute majority of voters casting ballots for the House of Representatives in 2016 voted for either Republican or Libertarian candidates, both parties opposed to the FCC regulating for net neutrality and Congress legislating in favor of net neutrality.

It's a little less clear in the Presidential election, in part because you have to go beyond the top four candidates tomget a majority on either side, and detailed information on minor (often no-party) candidate positions on the issue can be hard to find.

And the Senate requires aggregating across different election years.

Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

#107

Post by simplify »

warent wrote: post #43

I was under the impression that the majority voice in this argument (i.e. mortal American citizens) was completely against this. Yet it still ended up that they dismantled net neutrality. If it's true that the majority wanted to keep net neutrality, then how come the majority was ignored? Maybe I'm missing something but this seems like a good example that our voice in the US doesn't matter beyond local things like wh…

> If it's true that the majority wanted to keep net neutrality, then how come the majority was ignored?

Because the FCC isn't accountable to the public, majority or not. If a majority protest was directed at a congress person, you can be sure they would listen – we're the ones who vote them in/out. And that's exactly what we're going to do to get NN enacted as law.

Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

#108

Post by dominotw »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #59
ruffrey wrote: post #57

The real solution to the problem, as I see it, is not even Net Neutrality (though I strongly support Net Neutrality). The solution is to break the monopolistic stranglehold on last-mile internet service. If it were possible to have competition in the last-mile ISP space, then consumers could vote with their wallets and choose those ISPs who supported Net Neutrality. An alternate partial solution would be to force com…

These are orthogonal issues. Net neutrality is important regardless of isp options. Not only on principle either, not everywhere will naturally have competition.

> not everywhere will naturally have competition.

Many rural areas have only one grocery store.

Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

#109

Post by lobster_johnson »

cletus wrote: post #72

I'm all in favour of treating Internet access as the "fourth utility". It's clear it's become almost as essential to modern life as electricity. I do however find the doom and gloom prognostications around Title II repeal to be incredibly hyperbolic and unhelpful. Fact is, Title II was only introduced in 2015. It's not like repeal in 2017 is going to end the Internet overnight. There are three problems here: 1. The U…

One reason to be in the doom and gloom camp is that we now have an administration and an FCC that is openly hostile to net neutrality. The previous FCC was engaged in multiple rulings (against Comcast and others) in favour of neutrality, long before the Title II classification. There's every indication that, if presented with similar complaints in the future, the current FCC will not make similar rulings.

Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

#110

Post by wpietri »

jayess wrote: post #102
AFNobody wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suggest you could create your own replacement for the sites that offend you. Free market competition exists for websites and there is probably a market for it if you are upset about it.

You're completely missing my point. Today everyone is screaming at the top of their lungs that because of the repeal of NN, ISPs will begin censoring speech, while these campaigns are being financed and propagated by the very entities that engage in wholesale censorship of speech. I actually laughed out loud today when I saw a tweet from twitter saying that NN will allow for censorship. Twitter is a festering den of…

You don't quite understand censorship.

Let's suppose I put up a website where I accept articles about model trains. You submit articles about how to grow anthrax at home. I pass, in that they are not about model trains. Am I a shocking censor? No.

Or let's suppose you submit an article that is about model trains, but I don't think it's very good. I refuse it. is that censorship? Also no.

Twitter gets to decide what goes on their platform. If you don't like it, you can post it on some other platform. Or just make your own platform, one equally available to every Internet user.

If Comcast, on the other hand, decides to block a site because it's critical of them, then many millions of people will not be able to see it, and many of them won't be able to switch to a different ISP. That is censorship.

Post reply on HN