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

171–180 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#171

Post by OkayPhysicist »

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neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the first place.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!

It really didn't have to in this case. It would have been perfectly acceptable to crib California's NN law, ctrl-r "California" "United States of America" and call it a day.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#172

Post by BikiniPrince »

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neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the first place.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 (!).…

I believe they are only restoring it to enact “security” aka more spying. I would like to see what the actual text of these policies are. The administration has its tentacles into too many tech companies already.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#173

Post by Rury »

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?

Perhaps it's getting worse, but it has always been this way to a degree. What few people seem to realize, is that while democracy and the separating of powers seem good in principle, they also have innately dysfunctional qualities to them. The more divided or opposed things are, the more dysfunction there is.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#174

Post by redeeman »

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.

because nobody wants single subject bills, it would semi make them accountable.. remind me, who in congress is for single subject bills, who is against? (and its very few individuals FOR, so not super hard)

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#175

Post by feoren »

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 (!).…

[flagged]

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#176

Post by mvkel »

The quote "markets can stay irrational for longer than you can stay solvent" comes to mind.

Governments can stay irrational longer than you can stay vigilant.

It's frustrating that a decision can be made at great effort in support of net neutrality, only for a new bill to easily be introduced that undermines it yet again.

I guess that's a feature of democracy, not a bug. But I can imagine these battles gets harder and harder to win as time progresses.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#177

Post by kaibee »

richwater wrote: post #162
amelius wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit like removing a traffic light from an intersection and then after a day saying "see, nothing happened, we don't need regulation from traffic lights". Laissez faire, everything will be alright.

> and then after a day It's been ~5.5 years since "the internet was doomed" by the FTC[0] How long are we supposed to wait for your doom prophecy to realize? [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-exclusive/ex...

ISPs don't exist in a vacuum. Why would Comcast spend millions of dollars implementing some anti-NN consumer ratfuckery when they'd have to revert it once the next administration came into power? If Comcast knew that it wasn't going to get overturned, then they would take advantage.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#178

Post by mrcwinn »

dmorgan81 wrote: post #160
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?

Congress was destined to this fate when they eliminated earmarks. Earmarks, or pork barrel spending, were derided as gov't waste, but in reality they were the grease that kept legislation moving. A representative could go back to their voters and say, "I voted for this thing you might not like, but I did it to ensure this crucial local project got done." Without earmarks there is no incentive to compromise. Compromis…

I think the results are mixed and the lessons aren’t clear to me.

Perhaps earmarks were the result of an electorate that wanted more purity in decision-making (at the cost of stability). In other words, earmarks didn’t break cooperation. Corrupted cooperation led to the end of earmarks.

Earmarks probably do grease the wheels, but it’s important to remember a step existed before the compromise: a member of the congress could hold out until they received something, often unrelated to the matter at hand. That is wasteful and, to some, dishonest.

Now, did a removal earmarking result in more financial efficiency? Surely not. The budget deficit continued to grow, mostly because of Obamacare, Covid, wars, tax cuts.

So what of compromise? One might think compromise is dead, and yet we live in a world where Ukraine aid is tied to social media ownership.

Shruggy dude.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#179

Post by pseudalopex »

backtoyoujim wrote: post #143
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.

Agencies are not beholden to Congress; they are beholden to the executive branch that creates them. That is why Nixon created the EPA so that there would not be a Department of the Environment that was out of the hands of executive power.

Congress created the FCC. Congress passed many laws governing agencies. Departments are not out of the hands of executive power.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#180

Post by dotnet00 »

theoperagoer wrote: post #142
Cody-99 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't netflix traffic it is ISP customer traffic which they pay for. Hardware upgrade, bandwidth costs, and other operating costs are already paid for by the ISP customers. The ISP should not be able to double dip by charging netflix or the customer a second time. If the ISP isn't able to provide the service they advertised and sold they should be investigated and be issuing refunds at the very least. Can't provid…

it's not a double-dip. if a single service is behind load problems and causing general service degradation, I think it is fair to throttle that service.

Customer pays for say, 1Gbps bidirectional. ISP has a total capacity of 1Tbps. They find that the average usage rate from users is 100Mbps bidirectional, so they sign on 10x as many users as they could truly offer a full 1Gbps to, taking a risk. Then new services come along, and the customer average usage increases to 500Mbps.

Instead of upgrading their total capacity, reducing their user count by 5x or reducing the speeds they promise, the ISP decides that it's the service's fault that they can't provide the 1 Gbps they're selling. This is obviously double dipping. They want to both sell higher bandwidths than they can provide, and charge others for making them have to provide what they're advertising.

Post reply on HN