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

FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 437 posts

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#171

Post by nostromo »

ryneandal wrote: post #158
nostromo wrote: post #129

Apparently I'm in the minority here, but I have some concerns. 1) The problem this fixes is largely non-existent today. The threat of fast and slow-lanes is one I've yet to experience. 2) Opening the door for more internet regulation seems risky. At first, things may go swimmingly, but I suspect regulatory capture will creep up on this industry, just as it has so many others. You may trust Obama and the current FCC h…

What? The Netflix/Verizon paid peering agreement was a fast/slow lane issue, was it not?

It's not clear to me that paid-peering agreements will change at all based on this announcement. The FCC said previously that it doesn't see such agreements as a net neutrality issue.

http://time.com/80192/netflix-verizon-paid-peering-agreement...

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#172

Post by jarin »

bluthru wrote: post #135
ArtDev wrote: post #39

Obama deserves some credit for pushing and supporting Wheeler on this!

I couldn't imagine if Romney was in office right now...

I suspect it might possibly be the same. Public sentiment is pretty strong about it, and it would be easy for the Republicans to take the angle of "freedom for small businesses and the free market" or whatever.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#174

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rayiner wrote: post #57
angersock wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You appear to be quite against this (judging by your other posts on the matter). The fact remains that the current system is not going to hold, and that left to its own devices will end up with a bunch of walled gardens and other issues. I agree that it is wise to be wary of regulation in this case--but honestly, I think it's time we at least experiment. The market and regulatory forces at play have basically forced…

My complaint is that everyone's ignoring the economics of the situation. What becomes apparent if you dig into the numbers is that there's no money in building these networks, at least at scale--they are justified only when there's a money-making opportunity with respect to the content flowing through them. Historically, this has been the cable video service that brings in the lion's share of revenue. Even with Googl…

> What becomes apparent if you dig into the numbers is that there's no money in building these networks, at least at scale--they are justified only when there's a money-making opportunity with respect to the content flowing through them.

It seems like the crux of your argument is that it costs something like $60/month to provide internet service and $20/month on top of that to provide TV service but they charge $50/month for each, so they wouldn't be profitable without the TV service. But who is setting these prices?

Is there some law that requires them to charge a money losing price for internet service and then make it up on TV service? Why don't they just charge a profit-making price for internet service?

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#175

Post by mitchty »

innguest wrote: post #65
shortformblog wrote: post #59

The comments on this post are some of the most depressing things I've ever read in response to a regulatory decision. References to Tom Wheeler being a Nazi. Someone calling the plan "Obama-fi." A user who says this: > tom wheeler, seriously, it would be a great thing if you and everyone like you contracted ebola and died a horrible death. This is like giving the entire U.S. population free pizza for a year, and half…

Because you don't understand their argument, they must be wrong, right? And no I can't explain you their argument because whenever I do so I get downvoted. The government wants their hands on all means of communication. The FCC basically shunned the public from using radio waves and TV waves. Now they're going to shun us away from the internet. The same organization, the FCC, will do this as they previously did with…

You're getting downvoted because you don't have an argument. All I see is rampant supposition and vitriol in your comment.

It is hard to understand an argument when none is presented. How is this fascism if the FCC has the power to do this already under existing law? How had the FCC "shunned the public from using radio waves and TV waves"? Keep in mind all countries manage radio transmissions because they have a vested interest in doing so. Shared mediums that everyone tries to use but cannot because of no management isn't much help. Think back to the LTE satellite internet company that had blocks right by satellite communication for GPS. You're saying its bad that we don't allow companies to run rampant over airwaves so that GPS no longer works? I hope not otherwise your argument is indeed shit and wrong.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#176

Post by metaphorm »

myth_buster wrote: post #101
mikegioia wrote: post #6

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, wh…

This reads exceedingly well but the devil is in the detail. As we have seen countless times that there is significant difference between what gets proposed and what gets passed. As others have stated > will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. the keyword here is lawful. Will all content be lawful unless proven otherwise?

this isn't an act of congress though. its regulations that the FCC has the authority to create and implement. if Wheeler says thats how it is, then that's how it is. regulations can be challenged at court but until that happens they will stick.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#177

Post by jahewson »

phkahler wrote: post #157
gnoway wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be corruption involved, but the infrastructure costs are not imaginary. Modern cable infrastructure is not a big coaxial cable strung along telephone poles. It's often buried fiber with media conversion for a local loop. Either way it costs money to roll out, and where poles are involved there are ongoing leasing fees for those. This is only part of the infrastructure anyway. You've still got all the routin…

>> This is only part of the infrastructure anyway. You've still got all the routing, switching, media conversion, etc. to make that cable do something useful. Media conversion? Like taking HD signals, converting them to "standard definition" and putting those on the line too? So you can then charge more for higher quality "HD" signals which are still transcoded to lower bitrates? Yeah, we can do without that stuff.

No, he means transmission media conversion, such as converting from fiber optic cable to coaxial cable on the local loop.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#178

Post by ReidZB »

phkahler wrote: post #157
gnoway wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be corruption involved, but the infrastructure costs are not imaginary. Modern cable infrastructure is not a big coaxial cable strung along telephone poles. It's often buried fiber with media conversion for a local loop. Either way it costs money to roll out, and where poles are involved there are ongoing leasing fees for those. This is only part of the infrastructure anyway. You've still got all the routin…

>> This is only part of the infrastructure anyway. You've still got all the routing, switching, media conversion, etc. to make that cable do something useful. Media conversion? Like taking HD signals, converting them to "standard definition" and putting those on the line too? So you can then charge more for higher quality "HD" signals which are still transcoded to lower bitrates? Yeah, we can do without that stuff.

That isn't what "media conversion" means at all. It is the conversion from one medium to another: for example, from fiber optic (light) to coaxial (electric).

This is standard terminology: https://www.google.com/search?q=fiber+media+converter

To be frank, your post is a little ridiculous, IMO.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#180

Post by throwawayornot »

evanb wrote: post #111
innguest wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You thought Wired readers were as naive and as communist as you and you're disappointed they are smarter and more cynical. Boo. Hoo. There's no reasoned discussion in HN as discussions get downvoted. There's only a huge circle back-patting which your comment is a part of.

Well that's the first time I've been called a communist!

I think he meant "Comment-est?"
Post reply on HN