Hacker News Reader

Comment by moultano | Hacker News Reader

How so?

As wireless becomes faster and cheaper, more people will use it instead of wireline. Only those who can afford wireline will have full access.

Well to just provide one example, Verizon would only have to pay $2,000,000 if they knowingly violate the statue. No criminal sanctions. They can thereafter continue to violate it and just pay another two million. It is a bit of a business deal. If you can get in more money then out, then you are good. The FCC, or anyone else, has no other authority.

Why such a low figure, we are dealing with massive corporations who would notice 2 millions as much as I would notice 2 dollars.

The general public, that is people like me and you, would need to depend on the FCC, and have no rights, which is not quite understandable. Why should I not be able to sue them for discriminating against me? Because of course Verizon is a party to the "law proposal".

Besides, there are exceptions clearly. The FCC would need to enlarge very much if they are to deal with all the complains and have the time to analyse them and follow them through and in the end only be able to impose a miniscule fine.

Not to mention that the providers would have the authority to outright prioritise internet traffic provided they go through some hoops and any lawyer would know just how difficult that is.

>Well to just provide one example, Verizon would only have to pay $2,000,000 if they knowingly violate the statue. No criminal sanctions. They can thereafter continue to violate it and just pay another two million. It is a bit of a business deal. If you can get in more money then out, then you are good. The FCC, or anyone else, has no other authority.

I don't know enough law to understand the granularity of this. Is it 2M per infringement? Could the potentially be shelling out 2M per customer? It seems like this is what would determine whether it's a high cap or a low cap.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com