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

591–598 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#591

Post by A__Account »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #538
A__Account wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you just said: these are contradictory, and then you did a cognitive dissonance to avoid that conclusion by saying but it's fine, because I want to build society. But the "Anti-Free/Speech Anti-1A ideas = building society" is just a fallacy that have been assumed. Here, it's even admitted: "It states the complete and universal right without any caveats whatsoever,". then you do the dissonance dance because yo…

There's a difference between "states" and "justly means". The words do not include all of the things that are obviously just and true. It is obviously just and true, both to the official dedicated arbiters of such things, and also to anyone else who thinks even a little bit about the consequences of fraud, that the rights granted by the first amendment necessarily only work with unstated conditions.

No, there isn't. Anyone who thinks so is experiencing cognitive dissonance. It is what happens when a normally smart person encounters info that they consider unacceptable, so their brain protects them by turning off logic and engaging emotions.

They stated very clearly what it means. You do not like that, so you are playing definition games because you cannot tolerate the reality of the matter.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#592

Post by A__Account »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #540
A__Account wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have as anybody ever done any research into the consequences of removing consequences from your average person through excessive government smothering (protection for some depending on your upbringing). This causes the lowest common denominator to live and influence the world much more vividly than ever before. And our politicians are super cool with that because it's their secret for creating long political careers.…

> Have as anybody ever done any research into the consequences of removing consequences from your average person For a lot of it, yeah, it's called history. Generally speaking, the consequences we have now are because of what was seen to happen when we didn't have them before. Regulations nearly always happen after the fact. Laws against stealing happen because people are stealing, and that's bad. Laws against murder…

So, I said one thing (The US government subsidizes low agency individuals, who drag the rest down by existing, so that they can keep a stable population from which to buy votes on the cheap), and you completely ignored it to start straw-manning something unrelated (simping for regulations).

These are unrelated, so I'm not sure how you got there.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#593

Post by Auracle »

redserk wrote: post #289
Auracle wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress had decades to make actual abortion laws, and both sides had times where they were fully in power - not that they shouldn’t have compromised on something like 12 or 15 weeks instead like most European countries. As far as people’s opinions of the court goes, it really grinds my gears how most people assume the Supreme Court is there to essentially make or strike down laws on their own whims. That’s not how i…

The Supreme Court decides which cases it wants to hear and there are many cases brought into the legal system each year. That practically gives it the power to make (well, re/interpret) or strike down whatever legislation it wants, as long as there's a relevant-enough case.

Right, but they ideally choose because they think a law needs to be struck down, clarified, etc. based on legal merit and not because of how they or the population feel about the end result.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#595

Post by throw10920 »

bko wrote: post #496
throw10920 wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You seem pretty pro-free-market, so here's the free-market angle: things like zero-rated Netflix on your mobile plan and free "basic" internet are market distortions . Companies are abusing the lack of net neutrality t…

What's wrong with bundling or discounting? There's two ways to make money: bundling and unbundling. Zoom and slack unbundled video chat from places like Google workspace and similar software suites. A company like clickup tries to bundle all that stuff as a one stop shop (tagline is one app to replace them all) If anything more offers would increase competitiom as it's a bigger vector to make a sale.

> There's two ways to make money: bundling and unbundling

This is pretty obviously wrong - you can sell things to make money, in a way that requires neither.

Now, the problem with bundling itself is that it introduces market distortions. The way that free markets work is that producers make things, and then buyers buy the best thing based on its price and other factors. Bundling impedes this process because it means that consumers no longer buy the best goods based on their individual price and merits.

Plus, bundling is usually used by monopolistic companies to anti-competitively extend their influence from one market to another, in a way that doesn't allow the market to work.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#596

Post by chrisfinazzo »

moduspol wrote: post #531
chrisfinazzo wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You lost me at "firearm enthusiast." Try again when US gun laws look more like Japan's -- including an assault weapons ban. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/asia/japan-gun-laws-abe-shoot...

I don't see the relevance to the topic being discussed. The fact remains that the ATF enjoys the ability to unilaterally revise firearm policy well beyond what many find reasonable without a change in law made by Congress.

This scenario is precisely why the outcome of Chevron is useful -- and, I'd argue, vital in addressing areas where legislation is needed, even if we still disagree about what shape it might take.

Congress' process takes too long to adapt to conditions on the ground. The ATF has a focused mandate to study and set policy in this area without waiting for Congress to consider the issue. It might not be perfect and is still subject to political influencing as the makeup of the committee changes based on appointments, but at least something gets done.

Regarding the FCC, there is some prioritization based on the type of traffic served, but it's fairly commonsense in its approach and the committee recognized that a complete lack of regulation wasn't in the public's best interest.

The idea that everything is left to Congress -- or ignored, as the case may be -- creates a situation where good ideas don't develop into meaningful legislation or the bad ones get implemented over the will of the majority.

Again, not only does this not happen in parliamentary systems, it's not possible because the people debating the issue are all on the same side. They all agree on the desired outcome, it's rather a question of how far they want to go.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#597

Post by pdabbadabba »

reaperman wrote: post #569
nobody9999 wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes that is just the "FCC FACT SHEET" as it says in the top title of the document. It is not the actual rule/action. It is also the exact same link that the poster just above me already gave. No. The first page is the "fact sheet." The other 693 pages is the rule-making document. Or are you unable to read past the first line of the first page?

Regarding the last line of your post, you may want to spend some time reading the HN commenting guidelines[0] and edit if you feel it's the right thing to do. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I did read a very thorough sample of the document. When I'm trying to find an actual "order" / "rule" / whatever, I'd be drawn to something like > V. "REPORT AND ORDER: OPEN INTERNET RULES" on page 264 and fig…

FWIW, virtually the whole document is "the Order" (in draft form--the final order has not been released yet). The FCC is a little unusual in that it regards the entirety of their written orders as legally binding (the normative parts, at least).

> When I read the FTC document about non-compete, it has hundred of pages like this, but then at the end of the document it has a clear section of legalese that contains the actual technical content of the rule.

You're probably looking for the "Final Rules" text. That's in Appendix A which starts on page 397. Again, though, the FCC would take the position that the whole final order is binding (once it's released and published in the federal register)--not just those formal rules. Yes, this does make it very challenging to understand the FCC's rules!

Source: IAA FCC lawyer.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#598

Post by pdabbadabba »

nobody9999 wrote: post #580
reaperman wrote: post #579

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.

This is a reasonable supposition, but it's not true. The FCC can and has created a whole raft of specific rules that implement the m much broader Title II requirements as they apply to ISPs, including decisions not to impose certain Title II requirements (which is a power that the statute itself gives them).

If, say, you were an ISP, reading Title I and Title II would tell you very little about what you have to do to comply with the FCC's rules. You would have to read the actual FCC rules and the order to actually understand your legal obligations.

(Maybe you have in mind a quibble about what "rules" are. By "rules" I mean the U.S. government publications that tell you what you have to do in order to not be fined or punished in some other way by the U.S. government, and specifically the FCC.)

Post reply on HN