Live data from Hacker News

FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

nytimes.com

321–330 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#321
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proponents of net neutrality thought without it ISPs would just arbitrarily block data and require bribes from data providers to even serve up their data. In reality, no net neutrality would mean things like Netflix not counting as data on your mobile plan through some kind of sponsorship, or free basic internet like Wikipedia and news at a lower cost. I don't support legislation that bans something undertaken vo…

> and the last few years have proven that we don't need this legislation. Given that large states like California and New York passed independent net neutrality laws and there were continuing legal battles in almost half of all US states I don't think you can draw many conclusions. ISP behavior very likely never changed because they knew they were just one decision away from having to comply. Sort of proven by this v…

Here is something I found. Seems like "unfair" since they're favoring their videos but as a user its okay by me since I get something for free and preventing them from not counting their content doesn't mean they'll necessarily just drop their data cap.

If ISPs just behave because it's always just a ruling away, then I'm fine with that status quo. I don't want unintended consequences from invasive legislation that could eventually be used to control what ISPs can show us

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/veriz...

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#323
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

The FCC has a legally mandated process (see Administrative Procedure Act) including a public comment period that is open to judicial review. They can’t just copy California’s law and call it a day, they have to actually take public comments into consideration. If they don’t follow this process the courts will overturn the rules.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#324

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 have a friend in Texas who had some issues because of net neutrality being gone (huge throttling on some sites)

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#325
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

No, literally, there is a legal requirement for certain process; debates over whether it was properly followed tied the Trump repeal up in court for a while though it was eveentually resolved in favor of the Administration.

Not even bothering to follow the clear objective formal requirements of that process (the question about Trump was more about good faith in the substance) would make it trivial to defeat in court.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#326

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 (!).…

ISPs predicted this would happen and didn't want to have to revert back everything.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#327
post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. FCC commissioners must be approved by the Senate. Biden nominated Gigi Sohn in 2021. Republicans blocked her. Biden nominated Sohn again. I don't think he said why. But other Democrats believed Republicans would block anyone who would restore net neutrality.…

> Biden nominated Gigi Sohn in 2021 Democrats controlled the Senate in 2021. Republicans didn't block the nomination. Democrats allowed the Republicans to block the nomination. The process by which that block happened could easily have been eliminated by a Senate rules change. There were attempts to do this on other issues (eg voting rights) but the rotating villains of the Democratic Party at the time (ie Sinema, Ma…

The Senate was split evenly in 2021 and operated under a power sharing agreement. And you can't change rules easily or not when you don't have the votes.

I reject the rotating villain conspiracy theory. 1 scapegoat would have been enough. Sinema's choices ended her Senate career. Manchin and Lieberman didn't change suddenly.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump supporters resonate with that rhetoric because the rent is too high, groceries are too expensive, and inflation doesn't seem to apply to wages. The causes of unrest haven't changed in thousands of years, but they can be convenient to forget.

I just don't understand how, if their problem is rent is too high and inflation doesn't apply to wages, they vote for Trump. He has made money his whole life by jacking up rent prices and paying people as little as he's legally allowed to (or less than that).

Think of it like a riot. What does smashing windows have to do with anything? Yet one follows the other.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#329
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump supporters resonate with that rhetoric because the rent is too high, groceries are too expensive, and inflation doesn't seem to apply to wages. The causes of unrest haven't changed in thousands of years, but they can be convenient to forget.

Don’t confuse talking points with the underlying reality. Trump supporters existed when inflation was basically non existent. His support is really independent of the economic situation. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens in this time. He barely beat one of the least popular candidates in decades and then got crushed the next election cycle. Opposition candidates tend to do well when the economy is doin…

The camps rhetoric is new. If anything that's further evidence that it's caused by the times rather than the personalities.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicians doing what voters want?! What a radical concept!

Funny how they seem to rack up most of these high-profile accomplishments in election years....

Tell me you've never started an assignment the day before it's due.
Post reply on HN