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

81–90 of 437 posts

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

#81

Post by dragonwriter »

endergen wrote: post #74
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?

> Why only mobile broadband?

Its not only mobile broadband. It prohibits blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization of lawful content and services for all broadband -- which previous FCC orders and proposals on net neutrality have done for fixed broadband. The part that is distinct about mobile broadband is that this proposal is the first that would apply those rules to mobile as well as fixed broadband.

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

#83

Post by superuser2 »

shmerl wrote: post #72
intopieces wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Surveillance != censorship, particularly when the surveillance is supposed to be a secret. You can argue that it prompts people to self-censor, or that it actually isn't supposed to be secret, but you can't argue that Room 641A is evidence of censorship.

Better examples would be the DMCA, the FBI's seizure of child porn-related domains, the seizure of Silk Road, etc. Those things are actually censorship. Having CC processors cut off Wikileaks was also slightly indirect censorship but still pretty much censorship.

We already do these things, and under the 1st amendment, there are very few things that don't fit under "lawful content" so I doubt this would change much.

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

#84

Post by warfangle »

rayiner wrote: post #16
jonny_eh wrote: post #5

"there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling" Translation?

Title II includes several sorts of provisions that apply to "common carriers" very similar to, e.g., how railroads were regulated back in the day. The government sets the prices for carriage (rate regulation), and carriers have to lobby the government to change prices (tariffs). Last-mile unbundling means that carriers must lease out their physical infrastructure to competitors at some wholesale price. These things a…

Why would unbundling without rate regulation be bad?

The network owner could set the wholesale price at one that is still profitable, no?

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

#85

Post by angersock »

rayiner wrote: post #57
angersock wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You appear to be quite against this (judging by your other posts on the matter). The fact remains that the current system is not going to hold, and that left to its own devices will end up with a bunch of walled gardens and other issues. I agree that it is wise to be wary of regulation in this case--but honestly, I think it's time we at least experiment. The market and regulatory forces at play have basically forced…

My complaint is that everyone's ignoring the economics of the situation. What becomes apparent if you dig into the numbers is that there's no money in building these networks, at least at scale--they are justified only when there's a money-making opportunity with respect to the content flowing through them. Historically, this has been the cable video service that brings in the lion's share of revenue. Even with Googl…

Now, what is the way we've historically dealt with goods that aren't worth money but are required to for the general welfare...a sort of public good, if you will.

What was the organization usually tasked with public goods, again?

The way we got the buildout of the telephone networks was the creation of the AT&T monopoly by the government, and they took their job seriously. An alternate approach would be nationalizing it and forcing the government to take care of it.

Free market isn't likely to fix the problem.

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

#86

Post by jonny_eh »

gergles wrote: post #10
jonny_eh wrote: post #5

"there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling" Translation?

Title II as written requires that rates be filed with the FCC and approved by the FCC (tariffs & rate regulation, respectively). Last-mile unbundling would force the people who currently run lines into your house to let other providers sell services over those lines. These regulations that are part of the law are all going to be removed as part of a process called "forebearance", where the FCC can basically not enfor…

"removed … not enforce … contrary", I am so confused.

So does this mean that the FCC will force Comcast to allow competition to operate on the existing last mile of cable for broadband?

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

#87

Post by pjc50 »

MAGZine wrote: post #30
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 of 'lawful content and services'. I don't mean to ruin a good thing, but is it implied here that ISPs may become the gatekeepers? I don't want what happened to YouTube (automatic content blocking because it's "unlawful") to take place with the general internet. One of the most important as…

Obliging carriers to carry content that they know to be unlawful is also unworkable. Among other things, it makes dealing with DDoS impossible.

In the UK we have the IWF blocklist for CP, plus the Pirate Bay block, and gradually expanding inadequately controlled currently optional "adult content" filters. The slippery slope is real, but has to be fought at a halfway point.

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

#88

Post by dragonwriter »

MAGZine wrote: post #30
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 of 'lawful content and services'. I don't mean to ruin a good thing, but is it implied here that ISPs may become the gatekeepers? I don't want what happened to YouTube (automatic content blocking because it's "unlawful") to take place with the general internet. One of the most important as…

Without the rules, ISPs can block any content, lawful or unlawful, without consequence.

With the rules, ISPs cannot block lawful content without consequence, but the rules don't prohibit blocking unlawful content. OTOH, if there are penalties for block lawful content, simple prudence will also lead ISPs to restraint in efforts to block unlawful content absent other rules mandating such blocking, lest they inadvertently block lawful content and are penalized for so doing.

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

#89

Post by shmerl »

superuser2 wrote: post #83
shmerl wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Surveillance != censorship, particularly when the surveillance is supposed to be a secret. You can argue that it prompts people to self-censor, or that it actually isn't supposed to be secret, but you can't argue that Room 641A is evidence of censorship . Better examples would be the DMCA, the FBI's seizure of child porn-related domains, the seizure of Silk Road, etc. Those things are actually censorship. Having CC p…

> Surveillance != censorship

They are close kin. Censorship uses surveillance to find what to censor. That's why it's not accidental that DRM cartels are so into police state mentality. These issues essentially converge.

> particularly when the surveillance is supposed to be a secret.

What difference does it make if it's a secret or not if it's there? Both are a problem when they are massive. Secret surveillance is even worse, since it makes people think that there is no problem with it. Compare it to obtrusive and non obtrusive DRM. People are easily annoyed by the former, but often are often OK with the later because they don't feel discomfort. So the second is actually much worse.

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

#90

Post by knd775 »

endergen wrote: post #74
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?

It applies to both.
Post reply on HN