5 ms·

Obama vs. Internet: Pressuring the FCC to exert political control over the Web

7 points by pvnick 12y ago

ep103 12y ago
1) Its behind a paywall 2) Its a hack piece.
forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
There are some especially idiotic comments on that article.
rayiner 12y ago
This isn't going to be a popular point of view here on HN, but the article isn't wrong. Title II isn't just "net neutrality." It's a heavy-handed regime dating from the 1930's, the sort of overbearing regulatory regime that even Democrats abandoned decades ago, during Bill Clinton's tenure. There's also a strong desire here to "have your cake and eat it too." Everyone wants high-speed fiber infrastructure that's also neutral, with no tie-ins to content. In the current market, it's not clear that such service is even profitable: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_13/b4221046109606.htm http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_13/b42210461... (recent asset sale suggests that Verizon might be losing money on FiOS). Having high-speed "dumb pipes" may be great for internet companies, but building "dumb pipes" isn't exactly a lucrative business. As long as we are reliant on private companies to build internet infrastructure, you'll have to make it worthwhile for them to invest billions of dollars in such infrastructure, and that's not going to happen by imposing heavy new regulatory burdens on the industry.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  Yeah, the Title II part seems unnecessary for net neutrality and ill-suited for the internet in general. I'm not sure why that was the tack he decided to take.
  - mithaler 12y ago
    My understanding, unless I'm wrong, is that a Title II reclassification can be done unilaterally by the FCC without Congressional assent (though it would immediately be sued by all the carriers). Accordingly, I'm reading it as a political ploy to force Congress into giving the FCC a better-suited regulatory regime for it than Title II, despite Congress currently not being friendly to such a thing. He's saying, in effect: "I want net neutrality badly enough that I'm willing to use this horrible regulation to do it that no one really wants, unless you cave and give me a better way." It might be a bluff?
- m3rc 12y ago
  If it's not profitable for a company such as Verizon, isn't that another argument towards classifying broadband as a utility and setting up service providers through a munincipal partnership where profit isn't the goal?
  - harryh 12y ago
    If profit isn't the goal then it's going to be funded by taxpayers? A lot of non nerds don't care about super fast broadband (which is one of the reasons it's hard to roll out profitably). You're going to tax them to pay for something they don't want?
    - m3rc 12y ago
      Faster broadband isn't just an improvement on a personal level where specific power users benefit, as we've seen in cities that start up partnerships with Google Fiber it's an incredible boost to the city's economy from various businesses and startups that choose to operate in a city wih improved broadband access. Taxpayers may not be paying for specifically themselves, but it's no different than tax dollars to be used to fund a public library even if you don't personally go there, or to finance a rennovation that will allow for more tourism opportunities. That's the entire point of taxes, that they don't directly pay for your specific desires.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        This is a dodge. Every family would see some economic upside from the universal deployment of fiber Internet. But upper-class professional families would see more upside than working class urban families. As a subsidy, universal fiber Internet is regressive.
        m3rc 12y ago
        If it's an upside for everyone, how is that supposed to be regressive? Is tourism regressive? Or libraries? Do you have any examples of a tax payed for service that is somehow totally equally spread in it's helping of people?
btreecat 12y ago
Paywall? No thank you.
chatmasta 12y ago
To circumvent the WSJ paywall, search for the URL in Google and click on the article there. Alternatively, use a browser extension to spoof your referer as Google.com.

7 points by pvnick 12y ago

ep103 12y ago

1) Its behind a paywall 2) Its a hack piece.

forgotpasswd3x 12y ago

There are some especially idiotic comments on that article.

rayiner 12y ago

This isn't going to be a popular point of view here on HN, but the article isn't wrong. Title II isn't just "net neutrality." It's a heavy-handed regime dating from the 1930's, the sort of overbearing regulatory regime that even Democrats abandoned decades ago, during Bill Clinton's tenure. There's also a strong desire here to "have your cake and eat it too." Everyone wants high-speed fiber infrastructure that's also neutral, with no tie-ins to content. In the current market, it's not clear that such service is even profitable: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_13/b4221046109606.htm http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_13/b42210461... (recent asset sale suggests that Verizon might be losing money on FiOS). Having high-speed "dumb pipes" may be great for internet companies, but building "dumb pipes" isn't exactly a lucrative business. As long as we are reliant on private companies to build internet infrastructure, you'll have to make it worthwhile for them to invest billions of dollars in such infrastructure, and that's not going to happen by imposing heavy new regulatory burdens on the industry.

waterlesscloud 12y ago
Yeah, the Title II part seems unnecessary for net neutrality and ill-suited for the internet in general. I'm not sure why that was the tack he decided to take.
- mithaler 12y ago
  My understanding, unless I'm wrong, is that a Title II reclassification can be done unilaterally by the FCC without Congressional assent (though it would immediately be sued by all the carriers). Accordingly, I'm reading it as a political ploy to force Congress into giving the FCC a better-suited regulatory regime for it than Title II, despite Congress currently not being friendly to such a thing. He's saying, in effect: "I want net neutrality badly enough that I'm willing to use this horrible regulation to do it that no one really wants, unless you cave and give me a better way." It might be a bluff?
m3rc 12y ago
If it's not profitable for a company such as Verizon, isn't that another argument towards classifying broadband as a utility and setting up service providers through a munincipal partnership where profit isn't the goal?
- harryh 12y ago
  If profit isn't the goal then it's going to be funded by taxpayers? A lot of non nerds don't care about super fast broadband (which is one of the reasons it's hard to roll out profitably). You're going to tax them to pay for something they don't want?
  - m3rc 12y ago
    Faster broadband isn't just an improvement on a personal level where specific power users benefit, as we've seen in cities that start up partnerships with Google Fiber it's an incredible boost to the city's economy from various businesses and startups that choose to operate in a city wih improved broadband access. Taxpayers may not be paying for specifically themselves, but it's no different than tax dollars to be used to fund a public library even if you don't personally go there, or to finance a rennovation that will allow for more tourism opportunities. That's the entire point of taxes, that they don't directly pay for your specific desires.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      This is a dodge. Every family would see some economic upside from the universal deployment of fiber Internet. But upper-class professional families would see more upside than working class urban families. As a subsidy, universal fiber Internet is regressive.
      - m3rc 12y ago
        If it's an upside for everyone, how is that supposed to be regressive? Is tourism regressive? Or libraries? Do you have any examples of a tax payed for service that is somehow totally equally spread in it's helping of people?

btreecat 12y ago

Paywall? No thank you.

chatmasta 12y ago

To circumvent the WSJ paywall, search for the URL in Google and click on the article there. Alternatively, use a browser extension to spoof your referer as Google.com.