311–320 of 437 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know Wheeler, but don't understand why having been a lobbyist (or aspiring to be one again) would make him more "friendly" to that industry: The tougher he is on them, the more they should eventually be willing to pay him to switch sides again, right?
If he did so, he'd seem more like a greedy opportunist rather than someone genuinely interested in pushing the industry's goals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Will this ban blocking of tethering?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He got a 3/2 split on the redefinition of broadband with one of the yeas publicly admitting that she would have rather seen 100Mbit as the threshold. It stands to reason that this will pass too with the current committee makeup. If the GOP wins 2016, however, the future may not be so bright once they install their pro-business people and fix all of this "Socialist" claptrap.
Good. Why people want the government's hand's deeper in the internet than now is beyond me. Look at mobile data (exempt from title II) versus "broadband"/cable speeds. Wheeler actually points to the success of title II on "mobile" while ignoring the fact that it only applied to voice. Meanwhile, all the relevant growth and innovation occurred in data. I have to say I'ld like to see the "socialist claptrap", feel-good…
I violated Responsible Reading Of The Internet Rule #1 and accidentally looked at the comments. I am having a hard time reconciling the vehement anti-net-neutrality anti-government hair-on-fire screaming there with the reasoned discussion and general attitude here---I would have thought the majority of readers of Wired would be of similar mind to HN readers.
I highly recommend this Chrome extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/shut-up/oklfoejikk... Basically hides the comments on every site unless you enable them. It's a little aggressive and sometimes if you notice something weird on a site you just need to disable it for that site. But it honestly improves the entire internet experience exponentially.
127.0.0.1 disqus.com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a federal/state/local government declares something illegal, they can shut it down within their jurisdiction. There is no "I'm on the internet so you can't enforce laws" get out of jail free card.
The main concern seemed to be weather or not it was on the burden of the state to prove illegal content before blocking or if it was on the user to prove their content is legal to prevent blocking.
I read this as beneficial to the wireless data carriers. Toward the bottom: "there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling" Meaning no more MVNOs and no more competition other than the "big 4". Read the arstech article here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/we-dont-need-net-... to see how unbundling would have been best for the consumer; without it, looks like the wireless co's win b…
I don't have a problem with the lack of unbundling. I was a Covad customer for a number of years, and it was atrocious - whenever there was an issue, Covad and Ameritech/SBC/AT&T would go round and round with finger-pointing. Later, when AT&T began their U-verse (FTTN) deployment, Covad was shut out, stuck with the longer copper lines all the way back to the CO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FCC exists by authority of Congress. Congress can expand or limit this authority at will, including any regulations promulgated by the FCC. So, Congress can basically do what it wants. This is true of any federal agency. The "independent" part means independent of the President, as they are not part of the executive branch. However, I don't think Congress will act in this case. One reason Congress delegates regul…
> As a Republican, it seems to me the FCC has taken a balanced approach to regulation in this case, so I don't see much negative feedback by Congress. What about the extremist anti-regulatory positions of many in the GOP? Not every Republican thinks that way, but enough to do generate a lot of noise and elect a substantial portion of Congress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The FCC allows companies to throttle whatever they want, but requires all the data to be provided publicly, and they make press releases every so often specifying which companies throttle and which don't. That would solve your not knowing problem. Ok, so we're back to regulating again? Do you want a free market or not? I don't understand how forcing companies to provide transparency data is not regulation. How is t…
>Do you want a free market or not? I don't understand how forcing companies to provide transparency data is not regulation. How is this any better in your eyes than forcing them to treat all data the same? I explained this in my other comment so I'll just paste it here: >I did say I'm not opposed to all regulation. Free markets only work perfectly with perfect information, so I support almost any regulation that's ab…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know Wheeler, but don't understand why having been a lobbyist (or aspiring to be one again) would make him more "friendly" to that industry: The tougher he is on them, the more they should eventually be willing to pay him to switch sides again, right?
If he did so, he'd seem more like a greedy opportunist rather than someone genuinely interested in pushing the industry's goals.
See also: all modern politics.
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?