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

461–470 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#461

Post by kelnos »

parineum wrote: post #409
Cody-99 wrote: 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…

> I have no doubt if they could get away with it they would haha. Many providers did roll out zero rating programs. This isn't a hypothetical, this is the case now and it's not happened. The reason is because of public backlash which is a market effect.

It had nothing to do with market effects. Some states and even quite a few local governments made their own net neutrality laws once the Trump admin nixed it federally. Complying with NN laws in some places but not others would have been way too complicated, so they just let it be.

NN being saved by consumer backlash doesn't really make sense in the US, anyway, where many (most?) people only have one or two choices for internet service. ISPs don't really need to care if their customers don't like their policies.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#462

Post by kelnos »

dantheman wrote: post #334
notatoad wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? there's usually some principled people in the government, and every now an then when an issue is obscure enough they can manage to get something done without the other side caring too much. what's the impetus for blocking this?

it's not needed, the fcc doesnt have the authority, keeping the government away from internet is a good thing

Ah yes, keeping the US government away from the thing they created in the first place. That's seems workable, sure.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#463

Post by kelnos »

barney54 wrote: post #387
polygamous_bat wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> keeping the government away from internet is a good thing See, I would have agreed more with this if most of our internet infrastructures were not controlled by three megacorps with more power than many small to medium sized economies in the world. As it stands, the only valid option is to fight fire with fire.

And what has happened after the Trump FCC un-wound the previous net neutrality rules? Did the internet go to hell?

No, because California and 12 other states, as well as quite a few local governments, passed their own net neutrality laws. The larger, national ISPs were pretty hamstrung: they couldn't really follow the NN laws in the places where they existed, but then impose non-neutral terms in the places where they didn't, without running into lots of trouble.

A federal rule is good, though, to harmonize things, even if the state/local laws were more or less already doing the job.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#464

Post by kelnos »

4RealFreedom wrote: post #446
EasyMark wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is keeping the government away from roads a good thing? From helping poor people with basic necessities of life? Keeping children out of workhouses?

Where did anyone say that?

I think the point the person you're replying to was trying to make is that the line drawn between things the government should have a hand in vs. things they should leave alone is fairly arbitrary, and is a matter of opinion. So saying the government should be kept away from the internet is just one place to draw the line, and it's perhaps interesting to know of other places where someone might draw that line, in order to get a baseline, and determine if it's even worth trying to have a productive discussion with them about government regulation.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#465

Post by kelnos »

callalex wrote: post #129
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 changed for me is that my home internet provider (Comcast) implemented an overly-burdensome impossible data cap that I can only get rid of if I agree to use their router with deep packet inspection, ad injection, and more.

Not sure where you're located, but in California at least, I was able to add unlimited data for an extra $30/mo. I am still using my own modem and router.

It's incredible bullshit that they can pull this crap, but... well, at least it's possible. Here, anyway. Dunno if they offer that everywhere.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#466

Post by kelnos »

thisgoesnowhere wrote: post #368
julienb_sea wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw you can set their router to bridge mode and use your own. It is probably still doing some traffic analysis but certainly no ad injection. This is what I do to get unlimited data without paying their exorbitant standalone fee.

This is a completely out of reach solution for most people.

I doubt it's out of reach for someone who already wants to use their own equipment, like the person upthread who brought up this topic.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#467

Post by kelnos »

randerson wrote: post #408
miohtama wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does it work, because there is no way to inject anything to HTTPS connections?

ISPs can monitor what you're browsing through DNS requests and SNI host headers and sell that data to advertisers who then inject personalized ads into ad supported websites.

The thing I don't get is why they need a spyware router in everyone's home. They own the infrastructure and know where all the traffic is coming from. They can do this with their own hardware outside people's homes.

I do wonder if they're sucking up LAN traffic data too, though, some of it which might be unencrypted, like smart devices talking to each other.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#468

Post by kelnos »

ohdannyboy wrote: post #434
vampiresdoexist wrote: post #344

I’m very surprised by some of the comments here questioning the value of restoring net neutrality. Times have changed.

It's probably because none of the hysterics or doomsday propaganda actually came to pass.

The doomsday "propaganda" didn't come to pass because several states and localities promptly passed their own net neutrality laws after it was deregulated at the federal level. The larger ISPs couldn't find a workable way to implement their non-neutral bullshit in some markets but not others, and the local ISPs in places with no net neutrality laws never really had enough clout to do crappy things in the first place.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#469

Post by kelnos »

andy_xor_andrew wrote: post #9

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

Fortunately this won't be the end of the world, as quite a few states and localities now have net neutrality laws of their own, which would presumably go back into effect if it were deregulated at the federal level again.

Of course, the FCC could presumably create a rule that explicitly allows ISPs to do non-neutral shenanigans, and then the DoJ could start suing states, saying the federal rule preempts them. Not sure how that would pan out, though I'm sure the current composition of SCOTUS would be fine backing the FCC in this case, if the challenges got that far.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#470

Post by kelnos »

Spivak wrote: post #452
pictureofabear wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Congress stepped in to mandate it, the flip-flopping wouldn't happen. You said it. This is a feature of the US government. It allows prototyping of policies before codifying them.

Is that actually true or would the flipping just happen every time the majority party changes?

Despite the required process for changing regulations in a log of executive branch agencies, I feel like laws Congress passes are a bit more durable. Even with a different majority, there's still horse-trading that needs to go on to get things done, and it's not always easy to push through things that are unpopular with the minority party. With executive branch agencies, whoever is in the White House pretty much has complete control, modulo rules that slow things down, anyway.
Post reply on HN