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

An Open Letter to the FCC

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 222 posts

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#111

Post by lordCarbonFiber »

perseusprime11 wrote: post #43

To play devil’s advocate, are we really ready for Internet to be regulated like a public utility? Like water, we will need to pay more the more we consume. You and I can pay but what about poor people? Will this discourage Internet usage?

I think this the fundamental problem: so few people have any idea how the internet works. Sending packets is nothing like consuming water. The marginal cost of internet use is 0. But, because all you can get across to people is "series of tubes" the ISPs make out like criminals charging for for bits.

With any luck the next generation will look at bandwidth caps the same way young people today are shocked anyone was so stupid as to allow companies to charge per SMS message.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#112

Post by LukaAl »

cmurf wrote: post #70

Do we have any idea what position on net neutrality these fake comments were taking?

They were allegedly against Net Neutrality according to the journalist investigation done [1].

Also, an analysis done by the Knight Foundation for the 2014 proceeding showed that the highest number of unique comment where pro Net Neutrality while the only comments against NN where from templated answers [2]

[1] http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-bot-is-flooding-the-fccs-webs...

[2] https://knightfoundation.org/features/netneutrality/

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#113

Post by rhino369 »

nindalf wrote: post #73
creaghpatr wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and why shouldn't he?

Because accepting a job at a firm immediately after shifting government rules in its favour is corruption. Its absurd to claim that the government work was impartial when so many regulators end up taking advantage of the revolving door between government and industry.

It's only corruption if there is some sort of quid pro quo.

If I were telecom lawyer, I'd rather Title II to be honest. Creates more work.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#114

Post by learc83 »

monkseal wrote: post #65

This letter has nothing to do with the substance of the regulations. It amounts to finger pointing about "illegal conduct". Probably the next thing, we will hear the Russians are behind all of this... Why can't the FTC regulate or prosecute monoplies, which is its job, instead a bunch arbitrary rules by the FCC?

>Why can't the FTC regulate or prosecute monoplies, which is its job, instead a bunch arbitrary rules by the FCC?

Basically the FTC doesn't have regulation authority over telcos because they are common carriers and thus statutorily exempted from regulation by the FTC.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#115

Post by grasshopperpurp »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #100
ordinaryperson wrote: post #7

The revocation of the Net Neutrality rules became a foregone conclusion once Donald Trump was elected. The sad reality is there's not much we, Eric Schneidermann or anyone else can do about it. There are 5 FCC commissioners but only 3 may be of the same party. Ajit Pai, Brendan Carr and Michael O'Rielly are locks to vote in favor, so it will pass, 3-2. At this point the best thing people can do is prepare to vote in…

You're rather convinced Trump belongs to big telecom...i'd suggest more skepticism and waiting and seeing.

Trump belongs to the wind.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#116

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

NHQ wrote: post #34
ordinaryperson wrote: post #7

The revocation of the Net Neutrality rules became a foregone conclusion once Donald Trump was elected. The sad reality is there's not much we, Eric Schneidermann or anyone else can do about it. There are 5 FCC commissioners but only 3 may be of the same party. Ajit Pai, Brendan Carr and Michael O'Rielly are locks to vote in favor, so it will pass, 3-2. At this point the best thing people can do is prepare to vote in…

Regulations are not the answer, for the very reason that they will flip-flop with political appointees, and it amounts to people begging for what they rightly should demand.

You realize that all utility networks are regulated and have been since the advent of electrification and telegraphs? There's no neutral here, it's a fundamentally regulated industry. Exactly what solution would you offer that isn't in the form of regulation?

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#117

Post by fencepost »

hysan wrote: post #69

I'm one of the people who has had part of their identity used to submit false comments. Found out when a journalist emailed me asking me to do a survey and some additional comments months ago. I proceeded to sign up for an API key[1] to confirm what was being claimed and turns out, it was true. The API is a bit limited, but I was also able to do searches using the falsely submitted comment to find others like it as w…

If you have the time and money for something unlikely to get results for you specifically you could always try suing the person or persons impersonating you in filling documents with the federal government, then subpoena the only known party (FCC) to have information capable of helping to identify that party.

Not sure how much good it would do though.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#118

Post by eduren »

openasocket wrote: post #94
krrrh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can hear Pai defend his position here: http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/21/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-po... He claims that 80% of smaller ISPs have said that they delayed investment in infrastructure due to the costs associated with the net neutrality regs, and also that there was a reduction in overall broadband investment in the last two years and that has never happened before, outside of a recession. He thinks tha…

I don't really understand how net neutrality can hurt smaller ISPs. Net neutrality just prevents ISPs from using certain monetization schemes. It's not like you have to buy special equipment for net neutrality reasons, or maintain records to prove you're compliant, right?

I think a portion of their argument is that it allows smaller ISPs to gain footholds in niche markets. By allowing them to prioritize and shape traffic, they can gain advantages and offer services that the larger telcos won't.

I imagine an ISP that focuses on serving low-latency gaming traffic at the expense of other application's bandwidth. Or perhaps an ISP that rents bandwidth from a larger one and provides its customers with better bandwidth guarantees on weekends and nights (or balanced out with better business-day bandwidth for commercial customers). And in some ways it makes sense from a market perspective (that's generally how smaller companies can innovate and create advantages).

What all that ignores is the immense locality of ISPs in general. Unless things fundamentally change in regards to how the internet is delivered in the US, most people are never going to have meaningful consumer choice in the one place they live. Giving ISPs more control over bandwidth just gives them more control over consumers.

It's like gerrymandering. The most negative consequences aren't that it gives partisan advantage, it's that it gives representatives the power to choose their constituents.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#119

Post by smellf »

jryan49 wrote: post #81
hysan wrote: post #69

I'm one of the people who has had part of their identity used to submit false comments. Found out when a journalist emailed me asking me to do a survey and some additional comments months ago. I proceeded to sign up for an API key[1] to confirm what was being claimed and turns out, it was true. The API is a bit limited, but I was also able to do searches using the falsely submitted comment to find others like it as w…

One thing we could do is have everyone go in on a lobbyist. haha

Donate the the EFF, it's basically the same thing as you're suggesting except that the organizational structure is already in place.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#120

Post by rhino369 »

nxc18 wrote: post #28

How is refusing to participate in an identity theft investigation not obstruction of justice? Surely Ajit & co travel to NY from time to time... why isn’t there an arrest warrant? Why are the states being so toothless in responding to rampant criminal behavior? I’d like to see how I would fare if I participated in mass scale identity theft and refused to participate in the subsequent investigation.

Refusing to participate isn't obstruction. It's not obstruction of justice if you refused a cop who came to your office and asked for business records. That's what happened here.
Post reply on HN