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

FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#51

Post by zer00eyz »

redserk wrote: post #16
wtallis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with merely having regulations rather than laws is not a concern that they may not have proper legal authority, but that they are less durable and more easily overturned than laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

I agree, and I'd rather Congress weigh in now that we've had this specific issue flip-flop twice. I do not like the implication that agency rulemaking is anti-democratic though. We have utilized this structure for well over 120 years, or practically half of the country's history.

We have always had things like executive orders. Just an insane number are issued between the Great Depression and WWII, and then we have 100 years of using them as a ham fisted tool for policy.

The FTC ruling on non competes... Great, except that getting rid of that rule doesn't create its complementary law around "rading" (see this about ca law: https://www.flclaw.net/is-poaching-employees-illegal-califor... ).

And yes we have used this structure for a long time, but not to this extent, not as a political football for democratic impasse.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#52

Post by Cody-99 »

theoperagoer wrote: post #38

ISPs should be allowed to throttle traffic for services. Otherwise, the result is going to be increased costs for all end-users.

No they shouldn't. I don't think that logic makes any sense at all. No one is paying increased costs because their neighbor is watching netflix, youtube, or browsing reddit. Users already pay for internet service they shouldn't have to pay again because the ISP wants to be greedy and double dip from fees to avoid throttling.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#53

Post by jonathankoren »

chrisfinazzo wrote: post #21
jonathankoren wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you are unaware, but congress has been DEEPLY dysfunctional for the past 30 years, and has been getting worse every session. Even this week it was shocking news that a bipartisan bill managed to even come to a vote. This is what happens when the party that doesn't have the White House chooses obstruction and enforces the the Hastert Rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_rule

Yet in functioning legislative bodies (think: parliamentary systems), employing something like Hastert doesn't require any enforcement at all. They don't typically require supermajorities to pass laws, and those in the minority don't have the means to substantively object to bills they disagree with. A man can dream.

You may not realize it, but this is exactly how it works in the House of Representatives today, and is the exact cause of dysfunction.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#54

Post by pessimizer »

bearjaws wrote: post #26
bgentry wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's partly what happens when such important rules are determined by who is appointed at an executive agency, rather than requiring an act of Congress. The former can be trivially gamed by the party in power after each election, whereas getting Congress to take action on something can be difficult and requires you to first get them motivated to do so at a given moment.

I'd flip it and say its what happens when Congress has been dysfunctional for over a decade. It's not even possible to get a house bill with net neutrality passed without it included 99 other things that will inevitably get the bill punted on forever. Congress could have drafted this anytime if they had seen fit, but they are "too busy" fighting ideology wars.

> Congress could have drafted this anytime if they had seen fit,

Congress as a whole does not support net neutrality, and the reason they have not drafted a simple house bill to do it that doesn't include 99 other things is because they had no desire to. It has nothing to do with "ideology wars."

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#55

Post by itishappy »

wredue wrote: post #44
SeanAnderson wrote: post #13

I'm happy this reversal occurred, but I am exhausted by the continuous flip-flopping of legislation depending on which party is in charge. Feels like we're stagnating as a nation by going in a circle rather than finding commonality to go forward. Maybe it's always been this way though and I'm just getting old enough to be bothered by it?

[flagged]

Perhaps one commonality is that we all seem inclined to assume the other half makes political decisions out of spite.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#56

Post by mrguyorama »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #22
wtallis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with merely having regulations rather than laws is not a concern that they may not have proper legal authority, but that they are less durable and more easily overturned than laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

I blame this squarely on the congress. Congress has been the weakest it’s ever been, passing almost nothing substantial. If we had to rely on them to ensure basic things like drug approvals we never have anything. They can barely get funding passed to fund themselves!

Why do you blame "congress" instead of Republicans?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#57

Post by throwup238 »

karaterobot wrote: post #29

I'm fully in support of net neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the first place. From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, there weren't major protests, news about it even largely disappeared from the front page of HN (!).…

> What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? Has the lack of net neutrality caused issues that I just have not heard about?

The rule was always going to get reversed eventually. Several major factions within the Democratic party are strong supporters of net neutrality and they've become increasingly more powerful over the last two decades, at the expense of its detractors like the media conglomerates and ISPs.

It only took this long because of the Administrative Procedure Act [1] which regulates how agencies make rules. They can't just flip flop the second a new political party gains power because of judicial review - they have to follow a process (though they probably also timed this for an election year).

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

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#58

Post by fallingknife »

I feel like this is positive, but it doesn't really go far enough to have an impact on the internet as it exists today. The network itself being neutral doesn't make much difference at all to the average user when the majority of internet usage is through private platforms that are not bound by any such rules. We need to have some utility style regulation for the large web platforms too.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#59

Post by granzymes »

SeanAnderson wrote: post #13

I'm happy this reversal occurred, but I am exhausted by the continuous flip-flopping of legislation depending on which party is in charge. Feels like we're stagnating as a nation by going in a circle rather than finding commonality to go forward. Maybe it's always been this way though and I'm just getting old enough to be bothered by it?

The Supreme Court is poised to decide a case this term, Loper Bright, which should help restore more finality to decisions like this.

Because agencies receive considerable deference to their interpretation of the law, even when that interpretation flip-flops every four years, we never get a definitive ruling on what the law says. The Court seems likely to greatly reduce this deference, leading to more consistency.

Post reply on HN