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

111–120 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#111

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

theoperagoer wrote: post #99
Cody-99 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If netflix traffic is straining ISPs to the point of requiring hardware upgrades etc., I think it is fair for ISPs to ask them to pay some of that cost.

Their customers already pay the cost. The ISPs offer IP services. The customers on each end pay for it.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#112

Post by jandrese »

zer00eyz wrote: post #3

FCC rules... The other day it was FTC and banning non competes, there's also talk right now on the home page regarding KYC and an executive order. I would love for us to be able to get back to making laws in the US. Executive orders and agency rulings are a bad way to run a "democratic republic"

Congress does not want to have to learn the minutia of every aspect of things that are regulated. Delegating responsibility to the relevant agencies is exactly how Congress operates.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#113

Post by cogman10 »

hobs wrote: post #41
cogman10 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh... I wouldn't say so much. I'd expect that if Biden gets a second term, then after the election you can basically expect little to no action for the next 3 years. Business as usual... ish. Major changes will likely happen before the next election just to try and keep a democrat in office. The Trump second term will likely immediately start with rolling back things like Net Neutrality. Biden's admin likely wouldn't…

It's true that he cares about himself first, but he only stumps for republicans (as long as they support him) and he packed the federal and supreme court with republicans (and they've won important cases about redistricting rules and other things that keep republicans in power). So saying he doesn't care about keeping republicans in office makes no sense as he's probably cemented them in office in places they have no…

I can't say this for certain, but my guess is that Trump's supreme court picks weren't really him looking at potential nominees and instead were done based on the advice of his cabinet. (I'm certain that's how it is for most presidents).

Trump will likely appoint a republican friendly cabinet, for sure, which means their goals and agendas will be centered around the party as much as they are for trump.

But that said, I just don't think Trump cares about the republican party. He cares about it in as much as it's a vehicle for him to maintain power.

Said another way, I don't think trump the person cares about the republican party. I think the trump admin does.

If he wins, the only way I really see him personally caring about the next presidency is if he decide to try and run for a 3rd term (like he's floated).

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#114

Post by dotnet00 »

huytersd wrote: post #76
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?

Part of the reason some one like Modi came into power and has been able to maintain it (amongst many other reasons) is people were disgusted by the continuous reversal of administrations and their policies. Nothing ever progressed to completion. That malcontent is generally settling into the west as well and strongmen are looking more and more attractive. The auth option in the US is a regressive dummy, but India, Ch…

IIRC with Modi a big factor was that the previous prime minister was seen as effectively a spineless puppet, kind of like how Biden is seen by many. Modi came in promising to try literally anything rather than just sitting by and doing nothing unless ordered to by the political dynasty leading the party, and has largely delivered on that promise.

It has meant lots of controversial legislation being forced through, but to many that's better than just letting the issues simmer for decades. Especially since many of those issues had no uncontroversial solution.

Trump came in promising similar action, but in hindsight did absolutely nothing besides further divide the country. Unfortunately at the moment neither side seems to have a candidate that's actually willing to do something similar. Biden will continue to make excuses about not being able to do things, and Trump will continue to focus more on PR and dominating the news cycle than actual work.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#115

Post by pseudalopex »

theoperagoer wrote: post #99
Cody-99 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If netflix traffic is straining ISPs to the point of requiring hardware upgrades etc., I think it is fair for ISPs to ask them to pay some of that cost.

> If netflix traffic is straining ISPs to the point of requiring hardware upgrades etc., I think it is fair for ISPs to ask them to pay some of that cost.

It is fair for ISPs to ask their customers to pay for required upgrades. Netflix's ISPs can ask Netflix. Netflix's customers' ISPs can ask Netflix's customers.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#116

Post by paulddraper »

Cody-99 wrote: post #52
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.

> No one is paying increased costs because their neighbor is watching netflix, youtube, or browsing reddit

Increased bandwidth = Increased costs

Who do you think is paying?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#117

Post by idiotsecant »

packetlost wrote: post #90
jrockway wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair Congress does some work. They have avoided 2 government shutdowns. They funded the war efforts in Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. They passed the infrastructure bill. The reality is, they just don't care about net neutrality. I'm still mad that they haven't passed the bill that gets rid of DST (or rather, gets rid of standard time). Everyone wants it in both parties. Just get it done. Even more annoying is th…

> They have avoided 2 government shutdowns You mean they passed a bill that was necessary for them to get their paychecks. I fail to see how this is even remotely surprising.

I think their congressional salary is probably not where most members of Congress are deriving their main income. I think the paychecks their 'other' employers are cutting are more lucrative.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#118

Post by jmyeet »

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?

> ... I am exhausted by the continuous flip-flopping of legislation depending on which party is in charge.

By design, Congress is unable to do anything. It's either one party (always the same party) being completely obstructionist, even other presidential appointments, or if a rotating villain who defects and stops any meaningful legislation.

Power has moved to the courts and to the states. Again, entirely by design. In the current term, there is an inocuous sounding case called Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo [1], which is expected to overturn a longstanding (~40 years) precedent called Chevron [2]. This would gut Federal agencies. Chevron set a precedent that in areas of ambiguity courts would give deference to Federal agencies. The argument for this is that Congress has to be explicit but Congress cannot possibly explicitly regulate, for example, salmon quotas and inspections. The goal here is deregulation for profit. That's it.

For the last 30+ years, every president issues an executive order on day 1 either banning or allowing recipients of foreign aid to provide counselling on abortion, depending on the party.

The real question here is why did this take 3 years into Biden's regime for the FCC to act? The FCC is an appointed position. This could've been done in 2021.

> Maybe it's always been this way though and I'm just getting old enough to be bothered by it?

No, it's now more obstructionist than it ever has been but it's always been more difficult to make changes than not. Previously there was more respect for institutional norms. For example, if the president nominated someone for a position, that person would always get a Senate hearing regardless of who controlled the Senate. There is no law that required that but people previously accepted the president had a mandate for appointments. Now? It's way more scorched earth.

[1]: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-ent...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura....

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#119

Post by [deleted] »

idiotsecant wrote: post #117
packetlost wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They have avoided 2 government shutdowns You mean they passed a bill that was necessary for them to get their paychecks. I fail to see how this is even remotely surprising.

I think their congressional salary is probably not where most members of Congress are deriving their main income. I think the paychecks their 'other' employers are cutting are more lucrative.

[deleted]

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#120

Post by moduspol »

chrisfinazzo wrote: post #14
redserk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that these agencies and their powers did not spring up out of thin air. Various elected Congress sessions wrote the laws that created and empowered these agencies to create rules. This is a reasonable implementation of a "democratic republic" as Congress still has oversight.

Yet the Chevron decision empowers agencies to make rules independent of Congress in cases where the rules don't already exist or are unclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura... . Unsurprisingly, Kavanaugh and the rest of the conservatives would prefer this approach be relegated to history. Of course, the areas of particular interest that he cites as examples (securities e.g, finance, comm…

Also gun laws. Any firearm enthusiast can tell you how inconsistent and incoherent various ATF rulings and determinations have been.
Post reply on HN