FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#61

Post by droopybuns » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 5:10 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #33

mikecb wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have a veto-proof majority.

Congress only needs a simple majority to prevent a bill from being passed in the first place. It will never hit the President's desk.

Downvoting statements that are accurate and contribute to the discussion is a hallmark of this topic. Hacker news cannot have useful discussion here because it's all orthodoxy.

I always marvelled at historical hatred between protestants and catholics during and prior to the enlightenment. I now realize that this is a symptom of human nature. Humans apparently have to hate the other guys no matter what.

In the past it was religion, today it is whether or not you are a network expert with an opinion about the technical implications of net-neutrality proposals. People on the pro-net neutrality side of this debate become furious if you don't spout their orthodoxy. I find it revolting.

But yes, by all means, downvote sp332 for making a completely accurate assessment of how our legislative system works. It really improves the quality of the discussion.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#62

Post by innguest » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 5:11 PM UTC

evanb wrote: post #45

I violated Responsible Reading Of The Internet Rule #1 and accidentally looked at the comments. I am having a hard time reconciling the vehement anti-net-neutrality anti-government hair-on-fire screaming there with the reasoned discussion and general attitude here---I would have thought the majority of readers of Wired would be of similar mind to HN readers.

You thought Wired readers were as naive and as communist as you and you're disappointed they are smarter and more cynical. Boo. Hoo.

There's no reasoned discussion in HN as discussions get downvoted. There's only a huge circle back-patting which your comment is a part of.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#63

Post by dantheman » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 5:12 PM UTC

Alphasite_ wrote: post #49

dantheman wrote: post #28

This looks much better than what I feared. I'm glad they're just not regulating it under Title II, but are modernizing it: For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling.

From an outsiders perspective, the last mile in unfeeling is the only bit that matters, market forces can resolve everything else, but it's not really possible to lay a dozen sets of last mile infrastructure.

Last mile unbundling isn't about neutrality though, it's about getting better service. If one wants to advocate for that, it should be decoupled from net neutrality. Net neutrality is about preventing fast lanes, charging companies for access to the network, and degrading competitors products.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#64

Post by shmerl » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 5:12 PM UTC

mikegioia wrote: post #6

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, wh…

> These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services.

My concern is, how are they going to define lawful content and services, and more importantly, how are they going to determine it in practice? It can easily translate into some heavy handed surveillance systems which analyze the lawfulness of the whole network.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#65

Post by innguest » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 5:15 PM UTC

shortformblog wrote: post #59

The comments on this post are some of the most depressing things I've ever read in response to a regulatory decision. References to Tom Wheeler being a Nazi. Someone calling the plan "Obama-fi." A user who says this: > tom wheeler, seriously, it would be a great thing if you and everyone like you contracted ebola and died a horrible death. This is like giving the entire U.S. population free pizza for a year, and half…

Because you don't understand their argument, they must be wrong, right?

And no I can't explain you their argument because whenever I do so I get downvoted.

The government wants their hands on all means of communication. The FCC basically shunned the public from using radio waves and TV waves. Now they're going to shun us away from the internet. The same organization, the FCC, will do this as they previously did with other means of communication, and you cheerleaders are being fooled and don't even know it. Not only that but you criticize those who see this for the fascism it is. It must be great to be ignorant because you can even attack those who read history and think you're coming out on top.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#66

Post by a8da6b0c91d » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 5:16 PM UTC

supergeek133 wrote: post #35

legutierr wrote: post #25

I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines....But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful....While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators granting access to thei…

Stuff like that is pretty interesting to me too. It's also a nice real-world description of why there is little to no competition in the market. The only reason Google accomplished it is by throwing money at the problem and laying new infrastructure, bypassing the existing in most cases. The barrier to entry of a competitor is so high from the infra cost alone.

It's said a lot that infrastructure cost is the barrier to entry but I don't think that's true. Tacking cable to telephone poles is not terribly expensive. There's no good reason a great many households couldn't have two or three different cables running past their homes. As I understand it the issue is the local governments that issue permits for such things are bought off by the providers. It's a problem of corruption, not infrastructure cost.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#67

Post by chrisBob » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 5:17 PM UTC

dpierce9 wrote: post #13

joncp wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a republican congress that will shut this down. No we didn't.

The FCC is an 'independent' agency which means that while congress can ask questions, make suggestions, apply pressure, and vote on members of the commission it cannot force the FCC to introduce, accept, or reject any proposed rule-making. Like most regulatory agencies, the purse power is limited since the FCC is funded by regulatory fees (I say limited and not zero because I believe the fees are paid by industry to…

Congress can not directly force a change, but they are the ones that pass the budget, so they can apply a lot of pressure to a federal agency.

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#68

Post by intopieces » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 5:17 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #64

mikegioia wrote: post #6

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, wh…

> These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. My concern is, how are they going to define lawful content and services, and more importantly, how are they going to determine it in practice? It can easily translate into some heavy handed surveillance systems which analyze the lawfulness of the whole network.

This is an absolutely valid question, but it also has a flip-side: what obligation does law enforcement have to regulate content that you and I, as open-Internet believers, agree is unlawful? Shall we allow illegal content in order to err on the side of caution?

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#69

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 5:18 PM UTC

shortformblog wrote: post #59

The comments on this post are some of the most depressing things I've ever read in response to a regulatory decision. References to Tom Wheeler being a Nazi. Someone calling the plan "Obama-fi." A user who says this: > tom wheeler, seriously, it would be a great thing if you and everyone like you contracted ebola and died a horrible death. This is like giving the entire U.S. population free pizza for a year, and half…

[deleted]

Re: FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

#70

Post by innguest » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 5:18 PM UTC

kijeda wrote: post #38

karatekidd32v wrote: post #29

This is all pretty great. For the first time in a while I feel optimistic about the future of the open internet. My only concern is a small detail: "These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services." The specification of 'lawful content and services' seems a bit ominous to me. Does this imply there may be ways to monitor/limit/restrict i…

I suspect you need such a carve out to be able to legally block denial-of-service attacks and other such network events that are intended to disrupt regular operation of a service.

That's what they'll swear to you, but of course the government will use it for censorship just like the FCC nowadays censors the TV and Radio.

Read up the history of the FCC. At the time it was also "necessary" to regulate airwaves because of several noble reasons but of course what ends up happening is that now you have to get a license from the government to say something on radio waves.

You will have to get a license to have a website in the future if the FCC has its way online. Write my words.