Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 437 posts

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

#71

Post by dragonwriter »

revscat wrote: post #56
radioact1ve wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. It almost seems to good to be true. I don't want to sound gloomy doomy when this is excellent news, but I can't help but think what are we missing. I keep waiting for the "but...".

Ok, here it comes: but AT&T and Verizon are going to bring lawsuits immediately in response to this action, and due to years of stonewalling judicial appointments by Republicans, this suit is very likely to land in a court that is corporation-friendly, even if it does not wind up in the (also corporate friendly) Supreme Court. There is also the separate-but-related political reality that the Internet, as a vehicle of…

> Ok, here it comes: but AT&T and Verizon are going to bring lawsuits immediately in response to this action, and due to years of stonewalling judicial appointments by Republicans, this suit is very likely to land in a court that is corporation-friendly, even if it does not wind up in the (also corporate friendly) Supreme Court.

A lot of the big proponents of net neutrality -- including specifically proponents of the FCC using Title II -- are also big corporations, and will inevitably file briefs supporting the FCC action (which they lobbied for.)

"Corporation-friendly" matters less when there are big corporations on both sides.

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

#72

Post by shmerl »

intopieces wrote: post #68
shmerl wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I think reality is already on the heavy surveillance side as known (like this example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A ).

So some push should be done in the opposite direction.

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

#73

Post by dragonwriter »

gtaylor wrote: post #34
radioact1ve wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. It almost seems to good to be true. I don't want to sound gloomy doomy when this is excellent news, but I can't help but think what are we missing. I keep waiting for the "but...".

I think the most likely possibility is that the telcos attack this to the point where it gets de-fanged or turned away entirely. Part of congress is already mobilizing against this movement.

Opponents of net neutrality can probably get a majority in the House, but probably not a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and in any case not veto-proof in either House, which, given that the President has made this publicly a priority, limits the prospect for any legislative rollback.

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

#74

Post by endergen »

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…

Why only mobile broadband? Why not hardline too? Does anyone know?

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

#75

Post by revscat »

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.

For what it's worth, it was linked to from Drudge.

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

#76

Post by beaubouchard »

intopieces wrote: post #68
shmerl wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

yes

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

#77

Post by beaubouchard »

intopieces wrote: post #68
shmerl wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

yes

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

#78

Post by kevinchen »

> my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. This means the action we take will be strong enough and flexible enough not only to deal with the realities of today, but also to establish ground rules for the as yet unimagined.

What does that mean? Sounds like a euphemism for an Internet kill switch?

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

#80

Post by michael_h »

droopybuns wrote: post #61
sp332 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wow.

It is an accurate assessment of how our legislative system works, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The FCC is not putting a bill up for a vote by congress, they are proposing telecommunications rules that an internal commission will vote on.

Post reply on HN