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

131–140 of 437 posts

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

#131

Post by RKoutnik »

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.

Most Wired readers, certainly. Most Wired readers are also smart enough to stay out of the maelstrom of politically-charged vitriol such comments sections become.

Like you said, Rule #1. I suppose the Wired readers savvy enough to have an interesting voice on this issue are also smart enough to not voice it there.

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

#132

Post by nickthemagicman »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #94
nickthemagicman wrote: post #91

Why are libertarians so pro- free market when this is a perfect example of how the 'unregulated free market' has no problem manipulating in the name of greed and control at the expense of consumers? This seems to be strong evidence that government is better at keeping trade free than an 'unregulated free market'?

Its cultural. At a local level, people can be motivated by 'enlightened self-interest' and operate in a way that's rational considering the local economy. I think libertarians are not naive; they're old boys accustomed to dealing with other old boys in that network. So they see free market working pretty well in that context, and want to extend it.

Interesting/Bizzare.

It's not far fetched to make parallels from this that if the 'privatized' major corporations aren't above squashing competitors through unfair trade practices and lobbying for biased regulations in the telecom industries....then they would do it in other industries.

And this kills the market.

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

#133

Post by randomfool »

myth_buster wrote: post #101
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…

This reads exceedingly well but the devil is in the detail. As we have seen countless times that there is significant difference between what gets proposed and what gets passed. As others have stated > will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. the keyword here is lawful. Will all content be lawful unless proven otherwise?

Will this ban blocking of tethering?

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

#134

Post by mathattack »

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.

I think there is a large strain of the population who thinks, "If Obama is behind it, it must be part of a Muslim Socialist plot." They listen to radio and TV that feeds this narrow worldview.

For context, I'm neither for nor against Obama - I just think people who take a position of "It's an idea from the other political party so I don't like it" cause more harm than good. (See belief in vaccination, evolution, and global warming as other examples)

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

#136

Post by EpicEng »

wnevets wrote: post #108

> ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. Too bad the regulation isnt simply this one line of text without the "lawful" caveat

Why is that too bad? Do you think that the rules would stand of that caveat weren't present? Do you think that ISP's should not have the ability to block illegal traffic? What happens when they receive a court order to do so, yet doing so would violate FCC regulations? Don't be naive; that exception must be there, and out changes nothing in regards to the current situation.

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

#137

Post by jrochkind1 »

> The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. The modems that enabled the internet were usable only because the FCC required the network to be open.

DAMN right.

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

#138

Post by pekk »

dragonwriter wrote: post #71
revscat wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What defines the defeat of net neutrality (like deregulation in general) as a corporate interest is that the predominant interest against net neutrality comes from big corporations, while the predominant interest for net neutrality is the general interest of individual consumers and other small fry. It makes no difference if a few competitors to Comcast come out for net neutrality, or if you can dig really hard to find that WeirdCorp of Boulder, Co argues for regulation that will reduce its own business opportunities. That's a minor footnote. The defeat of net neutrality is still a corporate interest.

"Business-friendly" is politically coded language for favoring capital holders over employees, consumers, and unrelated but affected individuals.

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

#139

Post by ep103 »

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.

large news websites are targeted by marketing firms with shell accounts in an effort to slant a story. Hacker News is still very much under the radar, and doesn't warrant that level of manipulation (as much) yet.

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

#140

Post by jrochkind1 »

smutticus wrote: post #105
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.

That's not a decision the FCC gets to make. Congress and the courts ultimately decide what is considered lawful content. These rules need to withstand changes that Congress might enact in the future. If Congress decides to force ISPs to block a certain kind of traffic, the FCC cannot disallow ISPs from blocking it with their rules. They basically just include the word 'lawful' to allow ISPs to block unlawful traffic.…

Right, but what we're worrying about is an ISP blocking, say, all torrent traffic. Hey, it's obviously 'unlawful' right? We will see. Overall, I am very optimistic about this announcement.
Post reply on HN