Live data from Hacker News

F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

nytimes.com

211–220 of 452 posts

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#211

One part of me hates this because the idea of our government dipping their hands into what has become the major source of information, entertainment, conducting business, etc. is quite scary. We all know their tendency to fuck things up because of politics, money, stupidity, or a combination of any and all of these. On the other hand, I look at my other utilities and realize I have absolutely no complaints. Yeah, the…

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm honestly curious: why is pay-for-use bad for internet access but okay for water, electricity, and phone?

[deleted]

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#212

To me, net neutrality is pretty much a red herring. I have had good and bad internet service in my life. The least reliable was at my somewhat rural childhood home from TWC. The best is my current connection from that most reviled of companies, Comcast. I have had no service interruptions, and I get a reliable 50Mbps at all times of day (I check regularly with speed tests and checking Torrent activity). The reason my…

DSL speeds "similar" to 50mpbs? How similar? The fastest AT&T offers DSL is 6mbps (it's my only option). I thought that was a hard limit on the technology, but googling it produces varying results.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#213
post #187

Does anyone know if this would impact the issues we saw between Netflix, Level3 and Verizon? My understanding of the original issues with Netflix and Verizon was that the interconnect between Netflix's peering company (Level 3) and Verizon wasn't big enough to handle the bandwidth that Netflix was attempting to pump out. In this case, Verizon was just refusing to upgrade that path and wanted to force Netflix to conne…

I wish I had a link to review this but I don't think that's the case. As I recall, Netflix published data showing that there wasn't actually a bandwidth problem and they offered to upgrade the equipment. They've ended up paying Verizon which is what verizon was really after.

Level3 had a number of blog posts under the "open internet" category about their view of it. I believe this is the post where I gleaned the information from[0].

[0] http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/verizons-accidental-mea...

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#214

To me, net neutrality is pretty much a red herring. I have had good and bad internet service in my life. The least reliable was at my somewhat rural childhood home from TWC. The best is my current connection from that most reviled of companies, Comcast. I have had no service interruptions, and I get a reliable 50Mbps at all times of day (I check regularly with speed tests and checking Torrent activity). The reason my…

Unfortunately some things fall into the naturally monopoly category ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly ). Figuring out what those are is an ongoing process. Government regulated industries get a bad rap these days - mostly because deregulation has been an ongoing fad for the last 30 years or so - but a lot of these have great track records. The California electricity crisis provides an instructive exampl…

The problem with the CA power deregulation is that it deregulated wholesale while keeping retail rates strictly regulated.

Most states have deregulated power and didn't have similar issues.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#215
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm honestly curious: why is pay-for-use bad for internet access but okay for water, electricity, and phone?

[deleted]

That would be covered by net neutrality, wouldn't it? If all data has to be treated equally, that type of abuse wouldn't be possible regardless of whether you're paying by bandwidth or by usage.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#216
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

That would be covered by net neutrality, wouldn't it? If all data has to be treated equally, that type of abuse wouldn't be possible regardless of whether you're paying by bandwidth or by usage.

yeah, you're right, I misunderstood the question

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#217
post #157

I think the radio analogy is spot on, and I really believe that the endgame to all this government interest may very well be the same sort of regulatory control that the FCC now imposes in radio stations and content via the [1] Communications Act of 1934. This can easily been seen as a power grab by plutocrats who want to start filtering and controlling the money making and informational aspect of the web, and while…

To me there seems to be a distinct difference between actively broadcasting a signal(radio) and allowing access to those who request it(internet) Radio works by beaming signals all over their coverage area. those signals are pushed to everyone. Whereas, a website isn't just sending its html to every IP and port it can find, it waits for a request and responds accordingly. This seems to be a fundamental distinction to…

To me there seems to be a distinct difference between actively broadcasting a signal(radio) and allowing access to those who request it(internet)

Now, that's a very good point, but can't the very act of turning a radio dial be the 1930's equivalence of typing in a URI or clicking a link?

Wired magazine published an article in the 90's about the parallels between radio and the "new" internet, and it was filled with direct analogies between the two and how governments eventually took control and started regulating licenses and content, for the most part.

I am unable to find a link to that long article, but the ideas contained in it have stuck with me for a long time.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#218
post #202

To me, net neutrality is pretty much a red herring. I have had good and bad internet service in my life. The least reliable was at my somewhat rural childhood home from TWC. The best is my current connection from that most reviled of companies, Comcast. I have had no service interruptions, and I get a reliable 50Mbps at all times of day (I check regularly with speed tests and checking Torrent activity). The reason my…

Yes, of course if most American were as lucky as you, net neutrality wouldn't be an issue. But the reality is that most of us are under a monopoly.[1] And it will take years and billions of dollars in infrastructure to enable the kind of competition that you are already enjoying. After suffering under Comcast's Netflix throttling last year, I don't want to hear utopian talk about encouraging competition. I want laws…

The point of my post is not "Hooray for me!", but was to point out that my good service comes from competition, and that the focus on rate-limiting of net neutrality is just a red herring.

The thing with regulation is that it is pernicious, and once created becomes very difficult to get rid of.

Let's walk through a hypothetical: Rate-limiting becomes illegal today, and simultaneously some arbitrarily effective incentive is put in place that will provide opportunities for new entrants to the market within 5 years.

Now fast forward a few years. New entrants are trying to compete in the market place. One proven effective way to gain a foothold in a market with entrenched players is to offer a loss leader. Say a new firm figures out that it can gain a lot of customers with a specific strategy - a cheap plan that is very restrictive on total bandwidth, except for Facebook, Twitter, and Netflix. For a huge number of people this would be a great deal - limited bandwidth for most things, but unlimited for the services they use the most. Unfortunately for this potential entrant to the market, their most effective tool for displacing an entrenched competitor has been deemed illegal.

A regulation that solves a short term problem may limit our options in the future negatively.

If there must be regulation, I would prefer to see regulation that does not limit my choices. Given a low enough price, I would be very happy to have a throttled internet connection.

Again, my point in the parent was not to brag or say hooray for me. My point was that I have great service because I have choices. In proportion to the limits of my choices, there are limits to my happiness with the service.

I do not intend to speak for you, but I'd like to rephrase your sentiment - not to argue with you or your experience, but to put it in the context I am interpreting the situation in. You aren't upset because Comcast offers _a_ plan that throttles Netflix, rather you are upset that you did not choose that plan. While in the short term eliminating that choice may improve your situation (or maybe Comcast offers worse service or raises the price or otherwise adjusts its behavior in a way that makes you feel worse off), in the long term it is impossible to make people better off by reducing the options which they may consider.

Re: F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bytes are bytes.

It delivers more than just bytes. It's communication in different forms for different purposes. On the other hand, when water is delivered it's the same water here or there.

The electricity certainly gets used for lots of different things.

UDP and TCP is what I want my ISPs concerned with, not what I'm doing with those packets.

Post reply on HN