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

131–140 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#131

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

smsm42 wrote: post #88
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?

Unfortunately, if you have a contentious issue which is decided by fiat of one of the sides being in power and not by mutual compromise, there's no reason for the other side, coming in power, to not change it back. Since, fortunately, we still have a functioning democracy in the US, the sides in power change. Since, unfortunately, there seems to be not enough will to reach a workable compromise satisfactory to both s…

> Unfortunately, if you have a contentious issue

At it's core, it is a technical issue - primarily network management. Under NN framework, ISPs would adhere to minimal straightforward rules that would disallowed them from prioritizing, throttling, capping, purposefully degrading, etc wireline networks. For most of 2 decades, this is where NN lived.

In apparent response to NN becoming reality, ISP funded representatives began echoing the talking points of ISP lobbyist groups and contention was born.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#132

Post by Cody-99 »

paulddraper wrote: post #116
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.

> 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?

The ISP customers already paid for that. The ISP customer already paid for the bandwidth, hardware, and all other costs. Not sure why this is confusing for you. The ISP isn't paying more because Bob next door decides to watch netflix for a few hours a night.

>Who do you think is paying?

The customer..? Are you really confused about this?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#134

Post by callalex »

gwbas1c wrote: post #66
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 (!).…

> nothing about the internet changed since then I had an extended outage and could not contact my ISP. They kept sending me to a bot, and I had no idea if anyone actually knew about the outage or was doing anything to fix it.

That has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#135

Post by tivert »

jmyeet wrote: post #118
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.…

> 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.

Don't pretend like the Democrats wouldn't be just as obstructionist if it suited their political objectives.

What we actually have is lack of consensus, and excessively polarized factions that are unwilling to budge to create a consensus (or rather waste their energy making a great deal of noise on non-consensus issues and nonstarters and bickering with each other).

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#136

Post by threemux »

chimeracoder wrote: post #65
granzymes wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

The overruling of Chevron is not about stripping power from federal agencies, it's about determining who should resolve ambiguities in regulations. Should it be the agency itself, or should it be the branch of government whose job it is to "say what the law is"?

That being said, I don't think Chevron deference has a part to play when it comes to Net Neutrality flip flopping all the time - these are not ambiguous regulations. In that sense I don't agree with the person you're replying to - Loper Bright won't help here. Now, if you want to say that the FCC doesn't have the authority to issue this rule, that's something that was always reviewable by the courts.

The concept that would actually attempt to strip power from agencies is the nondelegation doctrine. While I suspect that has support among a few justices, it would be a very radical change and there is no case on the horizon that I'm aware of that would be a vehicle to implement it.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#137

Post by TaylorAlexander »

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.

It’s true but “keep the government from grinding to a halt due to pure inaction” is kind of the absolute minimum bar for congress that I don’t think it’s reasonable to call it a win.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#138

Post by mostlysimilar »

jrockway wrote: post #75
bearjaws wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

> Even more annoying is the whole Section 174 debacle. Completely killing the field of software engineering in the US.

Elaborate?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#139

Post by tivert »

Cody-99 wrote: post #81
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 (!).…

>So, I would be beyond shocked if this was an election year issue of substance. Because it isn't an election year issue. This has been in the works since at least 2022. https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/net-neutrality-will-make-... The rule making process takes time! >From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, ther…

> The rule making process takes time!

No, it doesn't take this much time. It's just that net neutrality wasn't a priority for the Biden administration, so they dragged their feet until the very last minute. IIRC, there's been a flurry of rule-making just now because they are running up against a Congressional Review Act deadline.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#140

Post by tootie »

andy_xor_andrew wrote: post #9

great, what are the odds they reverse the reversal next year in a hypothetical new administration?

By "they" you mean voters. This policy isn't top priority for very many voters, but the battle lines on this are clear. Trump will overturn (he already did once). Biden will protect it. A vote for Trump is a vote to overturn.
Post reply on HN