U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#91

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 1:40 PM UTC

nashashmi wrote: post #86

When it comes to net neutrality, all I can think of is what Jimmy Wales once said about the lesson he learned from Neupedia: "Don't make rules people are not breaking." No one has really broken net neutrality principles yet. But there are ideas out there and innovation out there, where this net neutrality is turning out to be a hindrance to it all. Why cannot cable company provide cable TV over cable Internet? Becaus…

> When it comes to net neutrality, all I can think of is what Jimmy Wales once said about the lesson he learned from Neupedia: "Don't make rules people are not breaking."

The first Open Internet (the then-majority at FCC's term for net neutrality) Report and Order was drafted and issued after the FCC's use of "ancillary authority" action against Comcast for blocking use of peer-to-peer file sharing software was struck down in FCC v. Comcast [0]. People were breaking the rules that became the FCCs Open Internet rules before they were adopted, so the "Don't make rules people aren't breaking" line, however valid it might be as a general principle [1], is inapplicable.

> But there are ideas out there and innovation out there, where this net neutrality is turning out to be a hindrance to it all.

No, it's not.

> Why cannot cable company provide cable TV over cable Internet? Because of net neutrality!

False. Open Internet rules don't prevent this. They so prevent the cable company from blocking access to third-party video services also provided over the internet, though.

> Why cannot T-mobile provide TV experience on its network for everyone without breaking its network? Because of net neutrality.

Again false, of something is really necessary to prevent breaking the network, it falls under the ambit of the reasonable network management exception in the Open Internet Order.

> Why cannot Verizon offer free stuff for its customers over its network? Because of net neutrality.

The Open Internet Order does not prevent ISPs, mobile or fixed, from providing free stuff to subscribers. So, again, this is false.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC

[1] Itself a debatable point when there are foreseeable and preventable problems.

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#92

Post by kablaa » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 1:41 PM UTC

narrowrail wrote: post #54

kablaa wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>encourage actual ISP competition I don't know about you but in my town ISP competition is practically nonexistent. Usually it's a choice between Comcast and maybe one other local ISP. It's practically a monopoly right now, which is why treating internet as a utility and treating huge ISPs like Comcast as a "government regulated monopoly" makes sense. This would be just like what we already have with our local power…

In Texas, one can choose their electrical utility, but the transmission line are obviously the same for all of them. Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) work differently in different states. BTW, reading some other comments of yours on this submission indicates you believe this action has something to do with a law and/or legislators; it does not.

I do understand that this isn't an affect of any legislation. But if we were to have legislators who (as bombastically unrealistic as this sounds) had the best interest of the people in mind and who made informed decisions about technology, they could have passed legislation protecting net neutrality. I believe Obama tried to do something like this.

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#93

Post by falcolas » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 1:41 PM UTC

ersii wrote: post #81

doctorshady wrote: post #2

Is there anything that can be done here? Pai and his little buddy O'Rielly have an easy majority on the FCC here, and I doubt they'll listen to any comments. Short of like, the Trump government being dismantled before then, how do you get rid of such a transparently corrupt head of a federal agency?

> How do you get rid of such a transparently corrupt head of a federal agency? In principle, you can not corrupt something that doesn't exist. If the FCC would get dismantled, it wouldn't be possible to corrupt it anymore.

> If the FCC would get dismantled

If the FCC were dismantled, the knock on effects would be worse than the disease. No radio frequency regulation (bye bye wifi and cell phones, let alone amateur radio). No enforcement of TV content. Prepare for all the "fucks" and breasts your prime time show can fit in. Say good bye mandatory landline coverage (and the emergency capabilities thereof) for rural America (about 98% of the country, land wise).

This is, for better or worse, a very minor aspect of what the FCC provides.

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#94

Post by falcolas » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 1:44 PM UTC

seanp2k2 wrote: post #27

ajross wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does encryption solve the problem of Verizon squeezing Netflix to degrade its service in favor of its own offerings? Net neutrality isn't about consumer surveillance (which is a problem too, just a different one). It's about access to markets and the ability to choose the services you use on the internet.

Why stop at just squeezing them? Why not just cut off access entirely unless customers pay their ransom? It's not like they'll get any pushback from the FCC. Now that's innovation!

> Why not just cut off access entirely

Squeezing is much less likely to incite riots from their customers. Cut off access to the latest season of "Orange is the new Black", and people will riot. Degrade the connection, and people will blame Netflix and move on.

When was the last time you heard someone gripe at Verizon for YouTube slowness, and not YouTube/Google?

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#95

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 1:44 PM UTC

doctorshady wrote: post #2

Is there anything that can be done here? Pai and his little buddy O'Rielly have an easy majority on the FCC here, and I doubt they'll listen to any comments. Short of like, the Trump government being dismantled before then, how do you get rid of such a transparently corrupt head of a federal agency?

> Is there anything that can be done here?

You can work to promote the issue and elect people supportive of it in the next Congressional and Presidential elections in 2018 and 2020. With enough promotion of the issue, you might get Congress to do something now in principle, but that seems unlikely; this isn't a matter of a corrupt individual at the FCC, it's the clear and long-standing policy of the party that now has a majority in Congress and control of the Presidency, and also, largely a consequence of holding the Presidency, a majority on the FCC.

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#96

Post by karmelapple » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 1:44 PM UTC

pubby wrote: post #46

LoonyBalloony wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electoral reform. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erph1L_XwVQ

None of those ideas solve the problem of campaign financing being legalized bribery, the problem of politicians lying and flip-flopping to gain votes, or the problem of wealth, power, and the establishment deciding who can't win by manipulating the press. The only system I know of that avoids these problems is to hold randomized lotteries for government positions and skip the election process entirely.

It does not directly address those, but it does allow people to vote for a candidate that they may think has little chance. Their vote is not "wasted" when it falls back to the next-best candidate, and gives a third party more potential to be taken seriously.

The changes are not mutually exclusive, either. Let's reform voting and reduce influence by money in elections.

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#97

Post by nashashmi » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 2:59 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #91

nashashmi wrote: post #86

When it comes to net neutrality, all I can think of is what Jimmy Wales once said about the lesson he learned from Neupedia: "Don't make rules people are not breaking." No one has really broken net neutrality principles yet. But there are ideas out there and innovation out there, where this net neutrality is turning out to be a hindrance to it all. Why cannot cable company provide cable TV over cable Internet? Becaus…

> When it comes to net neutrality, all I can think of is what Jimmy Wales once said about the lesson he learned from Neupedia: "Don't make rules people are not breaking." The first Open Internet (the then-majority at FCC's term for net neutrality) Report and Order was drafted and issued after the FCC's use of "ancillary authority" action against Comcast for blocking use of peer-to-peer file sharing software was struc…

> FCC's use of "ancillary authority" action against Comcast for blocking use of peer-to-peer file sharing software was struck down in FCC v. Comcast

Good point! I was only vaguely familiar with the event.

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#98

Post by uoaei » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 3:31 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #79

wfo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically, all non-Clinton voters and non-voters in a tiny number of relevant states. For everyone else, their votes never counted. To blame it on Stein specifically is of course insane and purposely incendiary without any other purpose really; the number of non-voters who just let it happen or "are not into politics" is orders of magnitude more significant and they are much more responsible. Stein voters at least…

> For everyone else, their votes never counted. Yes they did. Sure, it was one vote out of three hundred million, but so was every one else's.

The above poster is referring to the lopsided representation of voters due to the electoral college and the degree of contestedness of particular states. For instance, I can be comfortable not voting in California because it is so overwhelmingly blue that, in effect, my vote "didn't count". The same is not true of many midwestern states, where the two major parties are in a dead heat.

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#99

Post by Paul-ish » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 3:45 PM UTC

forgottenpass wrote: post #73

Paul-ish wrote: post #21

Isn't this what happens when you do everything through the executive, rather than legislative, branch? If net neutrality were required by law, the FCC chairman would to some degree be compelled to enforce it.

No. The FCC is an independent (not executive) federal agency, and ultimately serve at the pleasure of the Congress. Congress granted FCC their statutory authority to regulate (and can revoke it). FCC commissioners go through presidential appointment and senate confirmation, and almost always has as a 2-1 or 3-2 party split. This DOES make the Commission's direction subject to different political winds than just the e…

> No. The FCC is an independent (not executive) federal agency, and ultimately serve at the pleasure of the Congress. Congress granted FCC their statutory authority to regulate (and can revoke it).

While this is generally an important distinction, I'm not sure it really matters in this case. The point is we have a new president and thus new FCC chairman and commissioners, and thus a new FCC policy. If Obama and the democratic congress he had had passed a law mandating net neutrality, Ajit Pai would have a much harder time "fast-tracking" a repeal of net neutrality.

Re: U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources

#100

Post by Paul-ish » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 3:50 PM UTC

wfo wrote: post #52

Paul-ish wrote: post #21

Isn't this what happens when you do everything through the executive, rather than legislative, branch? If net neutrality were required by law, the FCC chairman would to some degree be compelled to enforce it.

Weird, I seem to remember the legislative branch repealing some regulations that nearly all Americans support exactly on party lines in order to make the Internet worse recently... It doesn't matter at all in this particular instance because the people who want to remove NN own both branches and can do it just as easily no matter where the rules come from. The only things that can persist in the face of a 1 party loc…

There is a good chance you are right. With that said, privacy isn't important to Google and Facebook, but net neutrality is important to their business. I think if net neutrality repeal were in a congressional bill, a lot of big companies would come out to lobby against the repeal. That has a chance of making a difference, whereas in this case everything is up to Ajit Pai.

Also, if it didn't make a difference if you used a bill or not, why wouldn't the conservative FCC commissioners just strike down the privacy rules at the FCC and be done with it? My guess is because they want to make it harder to bring privacy rules back if a democrat president were elected.