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Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California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

111–120 of 200 posts

Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

#111

Post by EGreg »

wpietri wrote: post #105
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…

They have this in France. They make ISPs share the lines and compete on their plans to send bits over those lines. If a line is upgraded, they share the cost.

Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

#112

Post by simplify »

danjoc wrote: post #38
jandrese wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way did Net Neutrality prevent people from starting an ISP? Please be specific.

I would suggest you read what Mr Pai said. He went into this subject. https://www.recode.net/2017/12/14/16777356/full-transcript-a... Small internet services were being shut out due to the Title II regulations.

It's likely cherry-picked. There are many small ISPs who signed a letter saying otherwise:

> We [ISPs across the country] have encountered no new additional barriers to investment or deployment as a result of the 2015 decision to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and have long supported network neutrality as a core principle for the deployment of networks for the American public to access the Internet.

https://www.eff.org/files/2017/06/27/isp_letter_to_fcc_on_nn...

Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

#113

Post by wpietri »

EGreg wrote: post #111
wpietri wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

They have this in France. They make ISPs share the lines and compete on their plans to send bits over those lines. If a line is upgraded, they share the cost.

Yeah, there are many good ways to do this. The US had a similar program up until 2005 where local phone companies had to allow ISPs to rent access to their last-mile wiring at mandatory rates. I like the idea, but I don't think it's practical in the US given business culture and the responsiveness of politicians to lobbying dollars.

Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

#114

Post by simplify »

jayess wrote: post #94
AFNobody wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't two years old. Its been a heavily disputed area of law/regulation since 1996 with various patchworks that served similar functions. From actual regulation, to threatening to regulate if there was too much backlash, to regulating again, to regulating under Title 2. 1996 Telecommunication Act: It was a legal gray area, particularly given dial up / dsl over telephone lines. 2002: FCC exempts NCTA by declaring i…

'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.

Anyone can create their own website. Not everyone can create their own ISP.

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

#115

Post by jack9 »

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…

> Title II was only introduced in 2015

It was treated as such prior to that, implicitly (without the force of law). Policy was established to enforce it, formally. It wasn't just "introduced", it was tacitly accepted until there were known bad actors, because there was an expectation that acting in opposition would birth policy (it did). Pretending that traffic was treated equally before and after, is just another piece of mischaracterization. A piece that is used to distract from, and minimize, the problems with removing the policy.

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

#116

Post by jayess »

wpietri wrote: post #110
jayess wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

Then you might be shocked to learn that net neutrality actually permitted ISPs to engage in viewpoint-based censorship.

This whole debate has been so completely hijacked by utterly false premise arguments.

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

#117

Post by jayess »

simplify wrote: post #114
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.

Anyone can create their own website. Not everyone can create their own ISP.

Under NN ISPs were free to censor content.

Edit: Downvoting a simple, verifiable fact? Nice. That about sums up this whole charade.

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

#118

Post by jethro_tell »

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…

Washington has also stated that it will put something in place.

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

#119

Post by iamnothere »

wpietri wrote: post #110
jayess wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

Is Comcast not a private company too?

This feels too much like a similar argument that people have been making lately, where silencing voices can only be considered "censorship" if it comes from the government. I'm so tired of seeing this! It's part of a larger trend, where people arbitrarily narrow definitions in service of their argument. It's disingenuous, to say the least.

(For the record, I'm AGAINST censorship whether it's Twitter, Comcast, or anyone else who provides services to the masses. Small private "clubs" like your model train website are a different animal. And yes, obviously that means that there are grey areas that cannot be cleanly resolved. Such is life.)

(Edit: toned down my response a bit.)

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

#120

Post by alsetmusic »

jayess wrote: post #88
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…

So far today I've learned that a two year old policy being repealed is anti-gay, will stop women from getting abortions, will stop the black lives matter movement from speaking freely, and will prevent the #metoo movement from growing. Yes, all because the internet before 2015 was completely censored and prevented free speech. If anything, I've seen a significant rise in censorship since NN was passed. The hyperbole…

So far, I count five posts from your account just within this sub thread. Not one has any citations for claims that you make. This undermines the credibility of your arguments.

Please back up your statements by pointing to sources that support your interpretation of laws and events so that others can verify them.

Post reply on HN