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

FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 343 posts

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#241

Post by jarin »

rayiner wrote: post #234
gph wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street. BTW that article showing how much capital they spent doesn't say what they actually spent that money on. My bet is most of it went to their cellular networks and other business interests. Their own data shows broadband investment has fallen[1]. Only 12 billion in the last 4 years. S…

> Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street. When capital investment into broadband is set by vote, do you think you'll be happy with the resulting level of investment?

The military relies on the Internet too, it should be politically neutral.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#242

Post by politician »

rayiner wrote: post #212
politician wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investors and shareholders are not in favor of pouring billions of dollars a year into infrastructure either. That's why we're seeing this rent seeking behavior, and one reason why we have slower speeds than other modern nations. Yes, I am in favor of municipal fiber-to-the-home solutions paid for with public dollars given the critical importance of these "dumb pipes".

> Investors and shareholders are not in favor of pouring billions of dollars a year into infrastructure either. Comcast spent $5.4 billion on capital expenditures in 2013: http://www.cmcsa.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=821438 . TWC spent $3.2 billion: http://ir.timewarnercable.com/investor-relations/investor-ne... . Verizon and AT&T regularly top the list of companies with the highest U.S. capital expenditures, and…

> Comcast spent...

Absolute dollars isn't as interesting as a trend. According to the National Cable Telecommunications Association, expenditure on broadband infrastructure has declined over the past 5 years. http://www.vox.com/2014/5/12/5711082/big-cable-says-broadban...

> We compare quite favorably to countries like Canada and Australia.

According to a 2013 report by Ookla, US ranks 31st in download speeds. http://venturebeat.com/2013/11/26/america-falls-a-dismal-31s...

> You don't, because when public dollars are involved, you get "lowest common denominator" levels of investment.

That must explain why Comcast and other monopoly providers fight municipalities tooth and nail against local broadband projects. I respect your opinion, but I disagree that communication infrastructure is not a public good.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#243

Post by gph »

rayiner wrote: post #234
gph wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street. BTW that article showing how much capital they spent doesn't say what they actually spent that money on. My bet is most of it went to their cellular networks and other business interests. Their own data shows broadband investment has fallen[1]. Only 12 billion in the last 4 years. S…

> Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street. When capital investment into broadband is set by vote, do you think you'll be happy with the resulting level of investment?

>do you think you'll be happy with the resulting level of investment?

I'll be accepting of it. At least we get the end results of our own failure to persuade the public or politicians.

As it is our fate is left to 'market forces'. Market forces have been undeniably screwing us for the better part of a decade. And it's looking like they want more for less in the future.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#245

Post by grandalf »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #188
grandalf wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why in the earth there is a need for slow/fast lanes and data caps? It's just an alternate way of pricing the service. You could ask similar questions about a lot of industries: - Why does Github charge the way it does and not just price the service per megabyte of data stored or per commit, etc? - Why do fast food restaurants offer free soft drink refills for $0.99 but not offer a single fill for $0.50? - Why do r…

You do understand that in all of your weak counterpoints, the difference is choice. I can choose to not use Github, I can choose different restaraunts. However, broadband providers are rarely if ever competitive.

There are dozens of competitive providers in major cities, and many people subscribe to multiple (I buy broadband from Verizon (LTE) and TWC (cablemodem)).

Even small cities usually have a cable, dsl, and wireless option. The smallest rural cities I'm thinking of offer WiMax or some kind of similar service which is cheaper than cable for many customers.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#246

Post by rayiner »

gph wrote: post #243
rayiner wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street. When capital investment into broadband is set by vote, do you think you'll be happy with the resulting level of investment?

>do you think you'll be happy with the resulting level of investment? I'll be accepting of it. At least we get the end results of our own failure to persuade the public or politicians. As it is our fate is left to 'market forces'. Market forces have been undeniably screwing us for the better part of a decade. And it's looking like they want more for less in the future.

Our level of investment in all our other public infrastructure is dismal: http://www.asce.org/failuretoact. Why would investment into internet infrastructure be any different? Indeed, it'd probably be worse. Remember, the electorate skews older than the overall population, while I'd bet internet usage skews younger.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#247

Post by briandear »

rayiner wrote: post #234
gph wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street. BTW that article showing how much capital they spent doesn't say what they actually spent that money on. My bet is most of it went to their cellular networks and other business interests. Their own data shows broadband investment has fallen[1]. Only 12 billion in the last 4 years. S…

> Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street. When capital investment into broadband is set by vote, do you think you'll be happy with the resulting level of investment?

Nationalizing anything nearly always leads to lower quality. Compare the toll roads in France to the "free" autobahns in Germany. The French toll routes are far better maintained. Another case is health care, compare an NHS experience with a hip replacement in the UK with a hip replacement in France (or the US.) In the UK, the waiting list is measured in 6+ months, while in the US or France, it is almost immediate. For a more extreme example, have a look at Venezuela's nationalization efforts. Nationalization of anything is often a bad solution. The government doesn't have a profit motive, thus they have no incentives.

However, that being said, the big question is if the Internet is a common carrier or not. (I would argue that it is.) Apparently Ted Cruz and Al Franken agree as well. Nationalization isn't the answer, the proper framing of the industry is what's really needed.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#248

Post by [deleted] »

briandear wrote: post #247
rayiner wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street. When capital investment into broadband is set by vote, do you think you'll be happy with the resulting level of investment?

Nationalizing anything nearly always leads to lower quality. Compare the toll roads in France to the "free" autobahns in Germany. The French toll routes are far better maintained. Another case is health care, compare an NHS experience with a hip replacement in the UK with a hip replacement in France (or the US.) In the UK, the waiting list is measured in 6+ months, while in the US or France, it is almost immediate. F…

[deleted]

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#249

Post by opendais »

rayiner wrote: post #219
mortenjorck wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. That's 120 days to make Title II a household word. Broadband's current classification as an information service, as if it's some sort of MovieFone for the 21st century, is so far removed from reality that the public should be in an uproar about it. Verizon itself has sought to classify its fiber buildouts under Title II so it can get fixed-rate access to existing right-of-way infrastructure, [1] on the technicali…

You really do not want broadband classified under Title II. You will get the war you want, but it will be a war everyone loses. Why do you think DSL is such a ghetto? It's because it's subject to a higher level of regulations, and nobody wants to invest money in such a highly-regulated industry: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Veriz... . Classifying cable broadband under Title II will definitel…

You are once again leaving out the important bits that don't fit your story.

The facts are an example of regulation arbitrage, not some fatal flaw in Title 2 / Common Carrier. The 'Fatal Flaw' is the FCC doesn't say "All consumer facing ISPs are Common Carriers under Title 2" but "Technology X is under Title II and Technology Y is not".

Even from your own article "In this case what has Wall Street's heart all a flutter is the possibility for Verizon to shed all union-related workers and their pensions."

Dumping a ton of long term liabilities [pensions, union contracts] is the core reason. Divesting of some high cost DSL markets for an infrastructure provider [which is the regions they are talking about in the article, Upstate New York isn't exactly a market with roaring profitability due to low population density] is a secondary concern in that article and it basically said they invested 24 billion?

Title 2 doesn't require Union workers.

It also isn't a reasonable comparison to say "Title 2 Technology A lost to Non-Title 2 Technology B because Title 2 doesn't work" with such weak evidence. Why yes, investors want to reduce liabilities and cost centers. Magically, if you can enter a market with a lower liability and costs [due to less regulation] you prefer that option. If that isn't an option, magically, the market functions on an even playing field and everything competes on the merits of the technologies.

Somehow, magically, in places like Europe you get better ISP performance per $ with similar profit margins. Maybe the problem is not too much regulation, but how the regulation is being applied?

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#250

Post by msprague »

sounds wrote: post #227
relampago wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anyone here opposed to net neutrality? Haven't heard a good argument for this action yet.

I think there is a semantic problem with just throwing out the words "net neutrality," because I see two different sides pulling in two different directions. I think no one is opposed to ISPs operating in their customer's best interest, specifically delivering internet at advertised speed. I think there's a real need for more ISP competition and less collusion/vertical integration (NBC-Universal-Comcast-Time Warner).…

People want a fair playing field, but is title II the best way to achieve that? Does anyone know of a more effective solution?
Post reply on HN