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

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

#141

Post by pyre » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:00 PM UTC

gnoway wrote: post #124

eggnet wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How then, with this powerful backstory, did Wheeler choose not to unbundle last mile access? The cable networks are still closed.

I wonder about that too. In my mind at least, there is a distinction between requiring neutral treatment of traffic routing through a network and requiring an operator to let a competitor hook up their equipment in your facilities and sell a competitive service using infrastructure you laid. The latter IMO is a lot less fair, even though my personal experience is that I had more choices for service when it was done w…

The latter makes sense for DSL, but most of the cable monopolies are not government-granted at the Federal level. Some localities have a cable monopoly, but the local government is responsible for that.

Yes, the cable companies have gotten government hand-outs to build out infrastructure, but teasing apart which of that was public and private money (and therefore which would be 'fair' to force open) would be a nightmare.

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

#142

Post by coldpie » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:01 PM UTC

frostirosti wrote: post #19

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…

Tom Wheeler has really outdone himself with this announcement. It'll apply to mobile networks as well! Turns out this dingo knows how to stand up for what's right! I know it's early but this is a great step forward.

I'm really impressed with Wheeler. When he was nominated, all the news was about how he was a lobbyist for the cable companies, and it was a perfect example of cronyism. But he's really been knocking it out of the park. Aggressive on net neutrality, redefining broadband, trying to restore municipal Internet. I'm very glad to have been wrong about my initial impressions.

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

#143

Post by Eric_WVGG » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:02 PM UTC

The New Yorker, last May: “Obama’s Bad Pick: A Former Lobbyist at the F.C.C.” http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-bad-pick-a...

“Rewarding campaign contributors is par for the course in Washington, of course. Usually, though, the prizes are ambassadorships or appointments to obscure boards rather than the chairmanship of a big federal regulatory agency. That’s another thing that makes Wheeler’s appointment look like just the sort of Washington inside job that Obama used to decry as a candidate. […] Perhaps the best that can be said about his nomination is that, assuming he’s confirmed, he’ll have an incentive to demonstrate that he isn’t a patsy for the companies he used to lobby for.”

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

#144

Post by pekk » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:03 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #104

pekk wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question was about unlawful content . The NSA isn't particularly interested in unlawful content, its surveillance has a goal of intelligence gathering rather than detection of unlawful content. I understand the NSA is associated with all kinds of serious issues, but it doesn't help us figure anything else out when the subject changes to NSA even when it doesn't really apply.

The point is not about content and NSA, but about surveillance. I.e. it's already here, and tools for it are here as well. I wouldn't see it as a far stretch if all the same tools would be used for all kind of unlawful content hunting. Why should they reinvent the wheel?

The question was whether we should allow unlawful content for the sake of erring on the side of caution. You seem completely unwilling to discuss or take any stance on this issue. You want to talk about surveillance, and you say it's the same thing. It's not the same thing. You aren't discussing the question which was put to you.

For example, child porn is an important form of unlawful content that many people do not want to allow. We might decide that the civil liberty issues are so important that we are just going to have to put up with more child porn than we'd have under a more restrictive regime. Or we might not. Either answer would pertain to the question. But end surveillance now, NSA, it's all the same rah-rah doesn't pertain to the question.

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

#145

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:03 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #118

michael_h wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

johncp brought up Congress, not me. I'm just pointing out that vetos aren't relevant (although mikecb's clarification helped). So why am I getting downvoted instead?

> johncp brought up Congress, not me. I'm just pointing out that vetos aren't relevant (although mikecb's clarification helped). So why am I getting downvoted instead

Because Congressional opponents of neutrality can (and, in fact, already has) attempt to head this off through legislation (so Congress is relevant, so its not wrong to bring them up), but to do directly undo any regulatory action, they will need to pass new law, to which the veto power is relevant, so it is incorrect to "point out" that vetos aren't relevant.

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

#146

Post by gfodor » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:04 PM UTC

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #143

The New Yorker, last May: “Obama’s Bad Pick: A Former Lobbyist at the F.C.C.” http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-bad-pick-a... “Rewarding campaign contributors is par for the course in Washington, of course. Usually, though, the prizes are ambassadorships or appointments to obscure boards rather than the chairmanship of a big federal regulatory agency. That’s another thing that makes Wheeler’s appointm…

Yeah I think it's time more than a few people eat a little crow.

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

#147

Post by coldpie » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:05 PM UTC

mathattack wrote: post #134

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…

You may notice which party represents the "wrong side" of each of those issues. If they're clearly wrong on so many issues, what are the odds they're right on any given issue?

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

#148

Post by phkahler » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:05 PM UTC

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.

>> Part of congress is already mobilizing against this movement.

An unusually large segment of the public is paying attention to this. To kill it will require actively voting in favor of a bill. Seems like a big career risk for a politician.

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

#149

Post by tomswartz07 » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:06 PM UTC

eggnet wrote: post #60

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…

How then, with this powerful backstory, did Wheeler choose not to unbundle last mile access? The cable networks are still closed.

I think it's a case of 'one thing at a time'.

There's a lot of change packed into this, and I'm sure Wheeler's plan will be to keep the changes and shakeups rolling.

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

#150

Post by shmerl » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 6:06 PM UTC

pekk wrote: post #144

shmerl wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is not about content and NSA, but about surveillance. I.e. it's already here, and tools for it are here as well. I wouldn't see it as a far stretch if all the same tools would be used for all kind of unlawful content hunting. Why should they reinvent the wheel?

The question was whether we should allow unlawful content for the sake of erring on the side of caution. You seem completely unwilling to discuss or take any stance on this issue. You want to talk about surveillance, and you say it's the same thing. It's not the same thing. You aren't discussing the question which was put to you. For example, child porn is an important form of unlawful content that many people do not…

> You seem completely unwilling to discuss or take any stance on this issue.

No, the question was, should we accept surveillance as acceptable way to prevent unlawful content. And my answer was that this question is invalid - surveillance is already here, whether you want to accept it or not. If that didn't imply surveillance, what other caution are you talking about then?