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

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 452 posts

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

#441

Post by mrpippy »

tptacek wrote: post #279
dragonwriter wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DSL was covered under Title II until wireline ISPs in general were ruled as an "information service" rather than a "telecommunication service" by the FCC in 2005 in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in NCTA v. Brand X upholding the FCC's earlier (2002) declaratory ruling finding that Cable modem internet access was an "information service". See, for instance, http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20050805a…

I'm lost. EnterAct/21stCenturyCable/RCN, the ISP I worked for --- starting as employee #2 --- wasn't subject to Title II, despite offering DSL service. Is it possible that this DSL ruling was a wrinkle that affected only ILECs? The ILECs were, of course, heavily regulated... hence the emergence of the CLEC market. The upthread comment did not say ILECs; they said "ISPs".

Yes, pre-2005 the ILECs were required to "offer that wireline broadband transmission component separately from their Internet service as a stand-alone service on a common-carrier basis" https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260433A1.p...

In addition, back in the dial-up days, how did your customers connect to those modems? Through their Title II regulated POTS service.

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

#442

Post by fubarred »

modfodder wrote: post #365
MCRed wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really the difference between a liberal and a libertarian. Liberals think that somehow the regulation will never be tainted by economic forces. Libertarians realize it is, and that the best regulation is the itchy feet of a free market where you can just choose to not do business with companies whose policies you don't like. By the time the internet is destroyed by regulation, those advocating for its complet…

Or Liberals believe that regulation tainted by economic forces is preferable to a free market in a society that already allows corporations to essentially ignore regulation by paying minuscule fines that pale in comparison to their daily profit. If consumers haven't already moved on from these corporations then maybe regulation is our only protection. The idea that deregulation would suddenly allow good citizen corpo…

Economic and environmental collapse is the frequent Tragedy of the Commons consequence of unregulated human activity (markets)... Cannery Row, Easter Island, Silphium, Raphus cucullatus, extinction of N. American megafauna.

In other words, regulation is a necessary "evil" to make unsustainable behavior illegal.

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

#443

Post by fubarred »

pekk wrote: post #434
shmerl wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you don't have to assume that the people posting here are paid shills because their view is politically mainstream That's exactly my point. No mainstream (even partisan) view is supporting monopoly. Such views are normally expressed by corrupted politicians and paid shills. Or you are suggesting that supporting corruption is now mainstream or that some party now is officially against free market even without being…

There is definitely a mainstream view supporting the media companies, and consistently angry about all regulation. This isn't even disputable.

It might be tinfoil, but it makes one wonder why a significant net neutrality opponent (Verizon) is considering purchasing the largest (monetary) proponent (AOL). Granted VZN and AOL had joint ventures previously, but sealing such a deal would have a chilling effect.

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

#444

Post by tptacek »

mrpippy wrote: post #441
tptacek wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm lost. EnterAct/21stCenturyCable/RCN, the ISP I worked for --- starting as employee #2 --- wasn't subject to Title II, despite offering DSL service. Is it possible that this DSL ruling was a wrinkle that affected only ILECs? The ILECs were, of course, heavily regulated... hence the emergence of the CLEC market. The upthread comment did not say ILECs; they said "ISPs".

Yes, pre-2005 the ILECs were required to "offer that wireline broadband transmission component separately from their Internet service as a stand-alone service on a common-carrier basis" https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260433A1.p... In addition, back in the dial-up days, how did your customers connect to those modems? Through their Title II regulated POTS service.

Sure, but we as the ISP were free to shape traffic, establish arbitrary fee structures, and charge for specific uses of the Internet despite the fact that we made use of Title II regulated phone company PRIs.

I'm not saying that Title II didn't exist in the 1990s. It just didn't govern ISPs.

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

#445

Post by TheHypnotist »

donatj wrote: post #389
TheHypnotist wrote: post #179

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…

You have no complaints about your utilities sure but when was the last time home phone for instance did anything new. Have you ever been excited about your power? I know I've been excited about my internet. Regulation just stands in the way of change.

This is true. But that's my point. It frightens me in some ways and in others I can see it not being so bad.

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

#446

Post by TheHypnotist »

greggyb wrote: post #283
TheHypnotist wrote: post #179

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…

> Edit: Oh, and as long as censorship never becomes a thing. It is literally illegal to say certain words on television....

Right. I was thinking more in line with censorship of certain content. I honestly don't know where to make the comparison between profanity censorship on TV to any degree of censorship on the web.

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

#447

Post by TheHypnotist »

johnchristopher wrote: post #192
TheHypnotist wrote: post #179

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…

> 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. 1. Who built the Internet, landlines and lobbied for electricity in the countryside in the 30's ? 2.…

None of what you said puts me at ease. All I sense is smugness over what should be a real concern.

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

#448

Post by starnixgod »

dooptroop wrote: post #388
jsprogrammer wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some municipalities limit the structure of the entity offering the service however (eg. cannot be substantially and exclusively owned by the ratepayers, or their agent(s)), however the FCC seems to be working on getting those restrictions thrown out.

"... cannot be substantially and exclusively owned by the ratepayers ..." Does that sentence mean that it's illegal for a municipality to form co-ops, and then for example lay their own fiber and then share the costs equally?

Yes

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

#449

Post by gadders »

bsder wrote: post #428
gadders wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not wholly. Poor government intervention caused the problem as well.

Poor government intervention meaning "not doing a damn thing" then, yeah, you're right.

No, it meant capping retail prices and letting wholesale ones float. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis#G...

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

#450

Post by modfodder »

fubarred wrote: post #442
modfodder wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or Liberals believe that regulation tainted by economic forces is preferable to a free market in a society that already allows corporations to essentially ignore regulation by paying minuscule fines that pale in comparison to their daily profit. If consumers haven't already moved on from these corporations then maybe regulation is our only protection. The idea that deregulation would suddenly allow good citizen corpo…

Economic and environmental collapse is the frequent Tragedy of the Commons consequence of unregulated human activity (markets)... Cannery Row, Easter Island, Silphium, Raphus cucullatus, extinction of N. American megafauna. In other words, regulation is a necessary "evil" to make unsustainable behavior illegal.

But is the behavior really unsustainable when it's a company with the size and power of Wal-Mart?
Post reply on HN