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Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California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

161–170 of 200 posts

Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

#161

Post by wpietri »

iamnothere wrote: post #119
wpietri wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Comcast is not your average private company because they hold a monopoly or oligopoly position in many markets.

In effective marketplaces, we trust the choice of purchasers to do most of the necessary work of making sure companies really serve the public. If some ISP in a competitive market decided to shut off access to all Republican-leaning news and commentary, we'd expect many people to switch to an ISP that didn't censor. But if Comcast did that, many people would just be screwed.

I agree that censorship is the pervasive silencing of voices. I disagree that Twitter can do that. Twitter may kick some people off their platform, but the Internet's open nature means those people can set up their own website. ISPs in noncompetitive markets, on the other hand, can indeed censor material, because many people will have no easy way to get that material.

That's why common carrier regulations predate the Internet by decades: some societal infrastructure is too important and too prone to capture to leave it up to the whims of individual executives. You could make the argument that Twitter is that kind of infrastructure. But given that only 20% of Americans use Twitter even once a month and a much smaller number use it daily, I think it's hard to say it's in the same category as the telephone or the Internet itself.

Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

#162

Post by int_19h »

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…

I'm also in the pro-NN camp, and have been for a very long time, and my observations match yours: the pro-NN propaganda this year is definitely a lot more about hype and emotions than it is about facts.

I think it's really just because it was successfully made into a mainstream political issue. So now you have to appeal to the mass audience, not just IT nerds; and we're just seeing the same tactics that is routinely used to whip up support (or opposition) to other stuff.

I'm actually weirdly uncomfortable about this. It's like being the guy who has cried wolf for many years, and now half of the village is there with you; but you see them pointing at rocks, logs etc, and insisting that these are all wolves, and we're all going to die now. It really made me question just how many people who happen to share my political positions, do so because they genuinely understand and agree with the policies, and not because it's just what you're supposed to do when you have a certain identity (liberal etc).

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

#163

Post by DenisM »

Afforess wrote: post #128
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.

If cellular data services were not capped (or throttled down, past an imaginary line the phone company rarely shares), then you might have an argument. As it stands, 4g phone service is only a replacement for cable or dsl services for the rarest of individuals. Windows software updates alone will blow you through your cap.

T-mobile has uncapped tethering. Plenty fast too.

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

#164

Post by smallnamespace »

int_19h wrote: post #162
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…

I'm also in the pro-NN camp, and have been for a very long time, and my observations match yours: the pro-NN propaganda this year is definitely a lot more about hype and emotions than it is about facts. I think it's really just because it was successfully made into a mainstream political issue. So now you have to appeal to the mass audience, not just IT nerds; and we're just seeing the same tactics that is routinely…

And yet the temptation to extract rents from content providers is higher than it has ever been. Just look at the market capitalization of Netflix today, which is about 20x compared to 2010.

I just can't imagine that ISPs won't make a grab for revenues, otherwise why spend money to lobby against NN? They're probably just waiting for the current furor to die down and sneak it in without people noticing.

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

#165

Post by jdminhbg »

Posibyte wrote: post #12
UncleEntity wrote: post #5

Haven't read TFA but I'm going to say the internet most definitely falls under 'interstate commerce' so California isn't able to regulate it.

Can you elaborate on how this would fall under interstate commerce? As I see it, they'd be regulating how they treat in-state customers and their connections, not anything coming across the state-lines. i.e. They aren't saying Comcast isn't allowed to do things to a line for a customer in Utah.

> Can you elaborate on how this would fall under interstate commerce?

The Commerce Clause has been ruled to apply to something you grow in your own backyard and consume yourself because of a theoretical impact on the national market: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn So it's very easy to see how regulating state internet regulations also falls into the purview of the federal government from there.

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

#166

Post by simplify »

danjoc wrote: post #133
simplify wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We can build our own ISPs. I've read many good posts today that dispute your statement. Here's one, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15926261

From the post you linked:

> The only real roadblock is money. Fiber ISPs are super cheap at scale, but are effectively impossible to bootstrap unless you are already a millionaire.

(I didn't downvote you)

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

#167

Post by AFNobody »

jayess wrote: post #129
orthecreedence wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, you just destroyed any of your credibility. I'm not even going to bother arguing with your other posts.

It's not me, it's the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that you have a quibble with, then. Look up US Telecom Association v FCC (2016) https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fc... https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD0... What? The break the internet movement didn't mention that part? That censorship by ISPs was ok under net neutrality? https…

> What? The break the internet movement didn't mention that part? That censorship by ISPs was ok under net neutrality?

1) You are in favor of censorship without clear disclosure.

2) You believe its acceptable such censorship should be controlled by government granted near monopolies.

---

You are talking about a ruling that mentions as an unrelated aside about the editorial right of content curation being legal and that right being more powerful than Title II due to the existence of the First Amendment. However, if its exercised, you are required to clearly disclose it to consumers before they purchase from you.

Without Title II, that requirement to clearly disclose no longer exists with a clear history of case law.

So...I'm really uncertain why you feel a requirement to disclose censorship before a purchase is made was an unfair regulatory burden.

I'm glad you have made it clear you were being disingenuous about your earlier complaints about censorship publicly.

> That would be true of an ISP that offers subscribers a curated experience by blocking websites lying beyond a specified field of content (e.g., family friendly websites). It would also be true of an ISP that engages in other forms of editorial intervention, such as throttling of certain applications chosen by the ISP, or filtering of content into fast (and slow) lanes based on the ISP’s commercial interests. An ISP would need to make adequately clear its intention to provide “edited services” of that kind, so as to avoid giving consumers a mistaken impression that they would enjoy indiscriminate “access to all content available on the Internet, without the editorial intervention of their broadband provider,”

> It would not be enough under the Order, for instance, for “consumer permission” to be “buried in a service plan—the threats of consumer deception and confusion are simply too great.”

And now, you've legalized the "buried in a service plan" option. Congratulations.

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

#168

Post by freetime2 »

scurvy wrote: post #158
rconti wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got Comcast gigabit, in San Mateo county. I took the time today to inquire (again) with Wave/Astound, Sonic, AT&T about FTTH. AT&T gave me the worst rep humanly possible. I spent 20mins on the phone with her for her to still utterly misunderstand my question, as she was apparently unable to understand or speak english. I already knew Gigapower was not available, I just want SOMEONE to tell me when they plan to o…

I used to defend Sonic as a scrappy startup fighting the good fight for good people. But seriously, it's tiring and old. They needed to raise money to roll out fiber to more than 25 people in the sticks. They didn't and I think a large part of it I was Dane didn't want to give up control in return for capital. OK, that's his choice, but I'm no longer going to laud Sonic. It's basically a cute toy if you're lucky, not…

I think building out FTTH networks, and doing so profitably, is harder than you give it credit for. Look at all of the issues that Google and Verizon have run into - and they have all of the resources in the world at their disposal.

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

#169

Post by simplify »

jayess wrote: post #129
orthecreedence wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, you just destroyed any of your credibility. I'm not even going to bother arguing with your other posts.

It's not me, it's the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that you have a quibble with, then. Look up US Telecom Association v FCC (2016) https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fc... https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD0... What? The break the internet movement didn't mention that part? That censorship by ISPs was ok under net neutrality? https…

Thanks for the links. What you say is true, but not the whole truth. According to your third link, ISPs can censor as long they clearly disclose it to customers.

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

#170

Post by gajomi »

int_19h wrote: post #162
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…

I'm also in the pro-NN camp, and have been for a very long time, and my observations match yours: the pro-NN propaganda this year is definitely a lot more about hype and emotions than it is about facts. I think it's really just because it was successfully made into a mainstream political issue. So now you have to appeal to the mass audience, not just IT nerds; and we're just seeing the same tactics that is routinely…

>It really made me question just how many people who happen to share my political positions, do so because they genuinely understand and agree with the policies, and not because it's just what you're supposed to do when you have a certain identity (liberal etc).

Its worth thinking about how well reasoned and deeply researched justifications of positions make headway in a democracy. Expert opinion is expensive to acquire and not accessible to the majority. In a hierarchy of coalitions information is potential compressed at every level. If it gets compressed enough it might just end up as a left versus right or up versus down issue, with the justification for this reasoning only accessible by traversing up and down the hierarchy. I am not sure that this is a bad thing, butI can appreciate your concern about causes of an individuals motivation, especially in light of the potential for a propaganda apparatus to insert itself into my aforedescribed idealization.

Post reply on HN