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

How to throttle the FCC to dial up modem speeds

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 127 posts

Re: How to throttle the FCC to dial up modem speeds

#51

Post by bostonpete »

KingMob wrote: post #41
eloff wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck attracting and retaining talent if you can't pay market prices for executives.

I doubt they should be so worried. Studies show no link between executive pay and executive performance: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/02/focus-0

I think this is showing a lack of a link between executive pay and stock performance. It could be the case (though I don't know how you'd measure it) that executive performance improved with pay but just had no discernible impact on stock performance.

Re: How to throttle the FCC to dial up modem speeds

#52

Post by higherpurpose »

afarrell wrote: post #49
PaulHoule wrote: post #11

I'd like to see a law that government offices can only have an internet connection as fast as the slowest constituent.

That would basically mean that any government internal IT project would have to be able to work usable on dialup. Government IT contracting is already enough of a disaster.

No, it means they would have to actually care about broadband competition in US and about abuses from the local monopolies, in order to get faster Internet.

Re: How to throttle the FCC to dial up modem speeds

#53

Post by talmand »

johnjwang wrote: post #29

This doesn't seem like the best outlet to protest the FCC's stance on net neutrality. The people that are going to be affected most by this (if it does work) are going to be the rank and file at the FCC who have no decision making power and only hold a job there. The FCC has 2k employees and most of them don't even work in the relevant bureau that deals with net neutrality. When news outlets say the "FCC's plan for n…

Writing your rep in Congress is a waste of time with as many form letters they receive pretty much demanding everything under the sun. You would be just easily ignored noise.

If this type of bandwidth throttling limit is to work it would have to target a much larger group than the FCC. The entire federal government might be a start. But management might like that as it would likely lead to increased productivity. One would have to focus on that list of people outside of work somehow.

Maybe a day of slow loading YouTube videos for all the customers of certain ISPs with a banner explaining what's going on.

All in all, I don't think anything like this could work unless you're willing to accidentally suck in a lot of people that are not involved.

Re: How to throttle the FCC to dial up modem speeds

#55

Post by DannyBee »

rynop wrote: post #31

I'd be willing to bet Tom Wheeler and the "higher ups" of the FCC are not at the office a majority of the time. It would be sweet if businesses in the service industry (like lets say Manny's) had pics of the top X guys at the FCC in their kitchen. See one of them walk in - just delay their service ;) Here is Tom Wheeler http://tinyurl.com/mlwnlgr

Why would you bet they aren't in the office.

A friend of mine who interned at the FCC says the commissioners are almost always around in their offices.

It's not like the FCC pays amazingly well and these guys are sitting on beaches. The commissioners each earn $155,500 a year (they are level IV on the executive schedule).

Re: How to throttle the FCC to dial up modem speeds

#56

Post by sp332 »

lukecampbell wrote: post #50

I don't think the entire FCC, and all of their employees are really out to get you and I. A few maybe but I think it's somewhat too broad an approach to punish the few by punishing everyone associated with the FCC. Their IT staff probably doesn't deserve this either.

It's a temporary protest, not a punishment.

Re: How to throttle the FCC to dial up modem speeds

#57

Post by dragonwriter »

johnjwang wrote: post #29

This doesn't seem like the best outlet to protest the FCC's stance on net neutrality. The people that are going to be affected most by this (if it does work) are going to be the rank and file at the FCC who have no decision making power and only hold a job there. The FCC has 2k employees and most of them don't even work in the relevant bureau that deals with net neutrality. When news outlets say the "FCC's plan for n…

> This doesn't seem like the best outlet to protest the FCC's stance on net neutrality

Its not a protest of the FCC's stance on net neutrality, its a protest of a media rumor of the stance of the FCC chair in a proposal under discussion at the FCC that has been denied by the FCC chair. Literally no one at the FCC (well, except maybe the minority on the commission that were overtly opposed to net neutrality before the recent Open Internet Order was struck down) has publicly endorsed anything like the rumored position.

> When news outlets say the "FCC's plan for net neutrality", what they really mean is the plan that Tom Wheeler and his office put together.

But when they say it would "allow a fast lane", they mean that a couple of news outlets had anonymous sources that claimed something like that (which other outlets have grabbed and reported the fact that other outlets have reported it), and Wheeler himself has rather forcefully denied it.

Now we've got some news outlets claiming, based on the original leaks, and not paying attention to later information, that the "fast lane" is part of the FCC proposal, and others, based on assuming the original leaks were completely accurate, but trying to reconcile the later denial into a coherent narrative, that the FCC "reversed course" on the "fast lane" proposal.

Re: How to throttle the FCC to dial up modem speeds

#58

Post by m0dest »

I could see this backfiring. If this gains any momentum at all, the media response from the ISPs will be obvious: "We appreciate that web developers are embracing their right to throttle certain customers. We're very happy that the FCC has decided to grant ISPs those same privileges."

Re: How to throttle the FCC to dial up modem speeds

#59

Post by Fomite »

Pfhreak wrote: post #48
Fomite wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a bunch of people who don't have time on their hands (staff and faculty) who will probably just go "Fuck you guys, now you're getting in the way of work."

Isn't that the idea?

Not if they can't particularly help effect change. "Random departmental secretary trying to book flights" isn't going to write their congressman over your clever code. All you've done is make their day worse.

Re: How to throttle the FCC to dial up modem speeds

#60

Post by dragonwriter »

inh3 wrote: post #46
dahart wrote: post #44

The pictures comment lead me to Tom's list of speeches, the latest of which directly contradicts the claims being made here. Are we sure the FCC is the bad guy? http://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-tom-wheeler-remarks-nct... "Let me be clear. If someone acts to divide the Internet between “haves” and “have-nots,” we will use every power at our disposal to stop it." "Prioritizing some traffic by forcing the rest of th…

"Actions speak louder than words." The FCC could put the money where their mouth is by re-classifying ISPs as "Title II - Common Carriers."

> "Actions speak louder than words."

I think the FCC's repeated adoption of pro-neutrality regulations are very clear actions. The people who keep knocking them down are the federal courts, and then the FCC keeps setting up new ones framed slightly differently but aimed at achieving the same ends. So, yeah, actions speak louder than words -- and the FCC's actions on net neutrality are pretty consistently in favor of it (just as the words of the majority of commissioners, including the current chair, are.)

The whole "fast lane" idea is based on a couple news outlets reporting of claims of anonymous sources with unspecified qualifications about their interpretation of the content of an unreleased proposal (note also that the original articles weren't actually consistent on their claims, either, as one claimed that the proposal would include a provision allowing for "fast lanes", and one suggesting that the proposal would allow it implicitly because it didn't address the practice at all), claims which have been emphatically denied on the record by Wheeler, whose proposal it is.

Once they've actually published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for public comment, there will be a chance for informed discussion.

Post reply on HN