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

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 1001 posts

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#251

Post by slantedview »

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #120

Common response on HN for the past two months has been nothing short of hyperbolic. "The world will end if NN is repealed". Speaking as a conservative: When Obama was president, I got told the same thing about the ACA. The world will end, the sky is falling, America is finished. But eight years later, here I am, nothing's that much worse. I have no reason to believe this is "the beginning of the end" of anything. Lif…

ACA was a mechanism for private insurers to grow their market share with the side effect of increasing coverage and saving lives.

NN is a mechanism for internet providers to completely take over delivery of the internet whereby they can effectively censor information, kill or allow companies to kill their competitors, and charge artificially higher premiums for information they do not produce.

Not completely applies and oranges, but if you don't think this is very very bad, you're not thinking.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#252

Post by code_duck »

FLUX-YOU wrote: post #187
Dangeranger wrote: post #34

This is proof positive that the current FCC commission has ignored the will of the voters on this issue. Support for Net Neutrality was overwhelming and bi-partisan, yet Ajit Pai just plowed forward without consideration for what the citizens demanded. This is government at its worst.

How can we stop^H^H^H^H subvert this?

Confuse the government and big corps with new technological innovation.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#253

Post by tptacek »

someone7x wrote: post #236
tptacek wrote: post #127

The voters elected a Republican government. That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine. Anybody who told you that lobbying the FCC was going to make a difference here was, whether they meant to or not, selling a bill of goods. As someone who respects but mostly profoundly disagrees with principled Republican la…

> work to flip the House back A well written response, but I choke on salt when I read this sort of call to action. The house has been slowly and surely gerrymandering the country into hereditary fiefdoms for their parties. And if the solution is to relocate to "to the nearest plausibly flippable R district" then we're really saying that money is the real power. Today's decision is a black eye for the concept of self…

Don’t relocate. Stay in your damn house. Go talk to the people who are actually running in those districts. If you can write them even the cost of a ps4, they want to hear from you.

In particular for Democrats running against entrenched Republicans, these people aren’t evil corporate fat cats. They own restaurants, teach high school, are small-town mayors, or nurses. They need help to compete. The DNC is not going to help candidates who don’t show viability on their own.

NOW is the time to get involved, before the primaries.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#254

Post by amelius »

jackfrodo wrote: post #36

This has made me feel pretty damn powerless, as pretty much every site/person of significance has stated their opposition to such a repeal, and yet they went through it anyway. Just a gut feeling that our democracy isn't working properly when such a loud and clear, great majority of the population messaging is completely ignored.

> ... as pretty much every site/person of significance has stated their opposition to such a repeal ...

But what exactly did Google do to oppose this?

In my view: doing nothing == being evil.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#255

Post by wdewind »

dragonwriter wrote: post #226
wdewind wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't bring divisive politics into HN. Fwiw Ajit Pai was appointed to the FCC by Obama not Trump.

Pai was appointed by Obama and confirmed by the Senate as a Republican under law limiting the number of members of one party to a bare majority and a long-standing, strong tradition that the President defer to the leadership of the other party in the Senate in appointing members filling the seats which must be filled by members not of the President's party. (Which Trump slow followed when renominating Democratic form…

Look I understand what you're saying, but it's complicated. Obama chose to respect a tradition and he did so at the cost of allowing anti-NN people into the FCC. He could've found a republican that was pro-NN, but he didn't. You can argue about what tradition dictated, but as the president I think you have to take some responsibility for the choices being made, even if they are hard ones. Obama broke a lot of traditions and he suffered for it, especially in his first term, so I'm not saying this is a simple decision, or one that would've cost a reasonable amount of political capital, but he did have the actual, legal choice, and he did make it. This enabled Trump to select Pai as chair. So without Obama's decision Pai would not be chair either. It's ComplicatedTM.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#256

Post by Pilfer »

dkonofalski wrote: post #45
yostrovs wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, it'll go back to being what it was before 2015 when net neutrality was instituted. The dread is unrelatable.

Net neutrality wasn't instituted in 2015. It was made law in 2015. Prior to that, Net Neutrality was the standard since it was classified as an information service. It wasn't until telecom companies started blocking VoIP traffic that it changed.

>It was made law in 2015

Net neutrality has never been made law, as the 2015 FCC Open Internet Order is not a law. The FCC cannot write laws. Full net neutrality, as defined here [1], has also never been mandated in the US.

The 2015 Open Internet Order mandated "net neutrality protections", not net neutrality itself.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#257

Post by matrix »

betterunix2 wrote: post #129
jackfrodo wrote: post #36

This has made me feel pretty damn powerless, as pretty much every site/person of significance has stated their opposition to such a repeal, and yet they went through it anyway. Just a gut feeling that our democracy isn't working properly when such a loud and clear, great majority of the population messaging is completely ignored.

Did you submit a comment on this proceeding, beyond just clicking on some site that auto-generated a comment? I spent several days working on my comment; it was a dozen pages long, it included relevant citations, and it addressed specific questions asked in the NPRM. I took the time to correct a few falsehoods in the NPRM's technical analysis. Now imagine what it is like to see that comment being specifically cited a…

Thank you for doing that. I sincerely hope this fight isn't over yet; hopefully your comment gets its rightful fair hearing.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#258

Post by bennettfeely »

idibidiart wrote: post #93

If we stage a nation-wide boycot of Amazon, Walmart.com, and a few other big retailers (and stop using Google, Bing et al) I can almost guarantee it that they will move mountains to bring back net neutrality. You have to get the big corporations a profit motive to get anything done in this country.

Who is "we"? People who read Hacker News? Yeah that will surely change things.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#259

Post by rhino369 »

snuxoll wrote: post #143
exabrial wrote: post #79

Unpopular opinion: Title II is not a great solution to Net Neutrality. The only thing I disklike is there isn't a better option already in place. I would rather see the FTC address EULAs. If a company says, "we may from time-to-time limit your bandwidth" I think they should be on the hook to produce a report every month when and why they limited you. This is not much different than the report you get from your invest…

Limiting bandwidth is one thing. My local Cable company is proish-NN (they have publicly stated that they have no plans to implement prioritization even if the FCC passed this vote), they still impose data caps and network management practices on consumer plans. While I hate these practices (hence paying extra for a business connection), that's not what the NN issue is about. Comcast refused to upgrade their peering…

Comcast isn't a Tier 1 provider. Cogent, the netflix ISP at issue, claims to be, but that is very debatable. The internet isn't built on two T2 or T3 providers doing no-fee exchanges.

Net Neutrality doesn't prevent peering disputes.

Post reply on HN