Live data from Hacker News

FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

nytimes.com

581–590 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that section tells the audience what their new rules are doing, why they are doing it, and justification for how they’re allowed to do it. From your own quote choice: > Classifying BIAS as a telecommunications service also accords with Commission and court precedent and is fully and sufficiently justified under the Commission’s longstanding authority and responsibility to classify services subject to the Commissi…

No. The "Rules" that apply are Title II of the FCC Act of 1934. The change being that ISPs are now regulated under Title II rather than Title I. That's it. That's the rule change. Full stop. If you'd like to understand what's different between Title I and Title II, I suggest checking out the law in question.

> The change being that ISPs are now regulated under Title II rather than Title I.

That is a description of the change. The changes made to Title 47 are how ISP's are actually being regulated under Title II. A translation of what they are saying in the changes to section 8.3 is:

"Because Title II gives us the authority to do so, we choose to regulate them using that authority from Title II by making these specific changes to Title 47."

Again, what you quoted is not part of any CFR. What you quoted is not federal code.

What I quoted is an actual change to federal code which is what actually regulates ISP's "under" the authority given by title II. The actual federal code being changed is: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B... which has a note that "Title 47 was last amended 4/22/2024." but does not yet show the changes. The most recent version currently available is from changes enacted 12/06/2023. Within the next week or so it will show the changes made by Section X and Appendix A to CFR Title 47 "under" the authority granted by CFR Title II.

That is what it actually means "that ISPs are now regulated under Title II" (as you wrote). Saying "ISPs are now regulated under Title II" is just saying it. Changing Title 47 is actually doing it.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent post misses the main reason they sell these. It's not for the ad injection but because they broadcast a Wi-Fi hotspot that you cannot turn off, which shares your internet connection.

So what? You don't find it useful to be able to use Wifi in more places if you have an Xfinity login?

I live in a densely populated city. The wifi spectrum is already horrendously congested. The last thing I want is my modem polluting the airwaves, degrading my service from inside my home, all for Comcast's profit.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#583
post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you'd actually read her long-form work (specifically, her books Hiding In Plain Sight and They Knew)... Humor her for the length of those, then see how you feel. Her thesis is that "Russiagate" wasn't cooked up; that Trump is, in fact, simply an agent of a class of wealthy oligarchs who don't have loyalty to anything but their own money; that people are drawn to him because their correct instincts about the dysfun…

> Her thesis is that "Russiagate" wasn't cooked up; ... > weird to disagree with an argument you don't even understand. To me, from all I have seen, the "cooked up" part was real and well documented. If not cooked up, then some of the media did a really big trick on me, after trying at first to do the big trick of trying to convince me that Russia Gate was real. Peeing in the bed with women in a Moscow hotel??? Naw.…

No one's arguing that Trump isn't forceful. It's to what end. The "kleptomanic" part is important, exemplified publicly (at the very least) by the way he changed the tax code to advantage wealthy individuals and businesses, while middle class and working class Americans have seen their tax bills rise. (Again, Biden is not so good on this either, as he didn't repeal Trump's changes).

Of course, the books go into more detail. Unfortunately, if you don't read them, your opinion that the issue was "cooked up" remains baseless and bereft of value. :)

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#584
post #192

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. That's just three different ways of saying, "Wrote checks to fill the pockets of monied interests, the bill for which will be paid for by the generations which explicitly oppose such policy." Talk to me when they pass Medicare For All, the Gree…

>Talk to me when they pass Medicare For All, the Green New Deal, campaign finance reform, and a border/immigration bill that finally puts that issue to rest. Until then, it's just another round of avoiding addressing the issues that are easiest to run on if they haven't been fixed in a prior term. You do realize that half (and maybe a little more than that) of the elected folks in Congress do not support such things.…

>The idea that "I'm not getting everything I want right now means that government is irreparably broken," is ridiculous on its face.

It's weird that you would put those words in my mouth when the actual reason for the dysfunction

>That those folks represent less than half of the electorate

is readily apparent to you.

The point is that Congress is terminally dysfunctional. Avoiding shutdowns and passing grift doesn't change that. I don't want to hear all the reasons why things can't be done (perhaps the most unhelpful thing to do). I just want them done. And I have every right to be pissed abot the state of things until that happens.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like everyone has short memories. Net neutrality abuse did indeed happen, a few notable incidents, — Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile slowed down YouTube + Netflix traffic. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-a... — Verizon throttles so much that the Santa Clara County Fire Department’s ability to provide emergency services during the California wildfires. "The fire department experienced s…

the bloomberg article is paywalled. it doesnt event exist, as far as im concerned.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989>

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40161991> (Top comment on this post as I submit this comment.)

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#587
post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: Is it less democratic because unlike laws, there's an open comment period for the public to make their voice heard? (unlike laws or executive orders) Is it less democratic because it's policy being implemented by people who spend a lot of time thinking about the policy and its effects, rather than by some blowhard trying to score culture war points on twitter than making a policy?

I'm confused by your questions. Are you suggesting that ignoring the structure of government carefully laid out in the constitution and agreed upon by every state in the union is more democratic because you like the outcome? This is happening in an election year, so the office of the presidency is driving this for political reasons. I sincerely doubt you'd be comfortable having someone you disagree with politically w…

And which part of the constitution prevents Congress from passing an act to delegate authority to an agency?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#588
post #490

The amount of pro-net neutrality in here is a clear demonstration of the opinion forming power of John Oliver, by dressing the issue as affecting users instead of companies. A lot of people seem very confused about what “neutrality” means, and it’s consequences. As an analogy, VAT is an equal tax (everyone pays the same VAT) but it’s a very non-progressive tax (it burdens poor people more than rich people. Your ISP d…

Net neutrality laws are not an US only thing. EU (The Net Neutrality Regulation 2015) and many other countries have net neutrality laws. >I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why a company that makes massive amounts of money from the internet shouldn’t be paying a higher proportion of the infrastructure costs than a user. Because ISP is in business of selling internet access to consumer. ISP can sell differ…

> Because ISP is in business of selling internet access to consumer. ISP can sell different tiers of service to the consumer, but can't sell the product twice. Netflix pays huge sum in their end.

The network is not some amorphous blob.

If a new streaming company called Notflix enters the market (with dedicated hardware), ISPs will have to build dedicated infrastructure that connects that competitor to the network. One of the obvious ways of gaining a foothold in the market is to go where other services have poor connectivity and setup shop there. Of course the ISP that sets up that infrastructure will take big cut for their work, as they should.

With Net Neutrality in effect, the supply side of heavy use internet services becomes constrained, creating a barrier of entry for new competitors. It’s just plain old regulatory capture.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#589
post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the big ISPs would have a much harder time explaining the difference. Imagine them going into court or Congress having to explain why they needed to shakedown Netflix in NYC but not LA or explain why it suddenly became cost-prohibitive to run a network when you cross the border into Oregon or Arizona.

Without NN, under what charge would they be going to court?

Challenges to a state or local law, any kind of unfair competition or price gouging suit brought by consumers, any sort of anti-competitive behavior suit brought by one of the companies they try to double-charge or compete with?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They couldn’t seat the fifth person (democrat) because the GOP was blocking it. As soon as the person was seated, they moved forward with restoring net neutrality. Hands were tied until then because they couldn’t get the 3-2 vote. They didn’t have 5 until September 2023 so it’s been just over half a year

Republicans and Manchin.

Good catch
Post reply on HN