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

191–200 of 437 posts

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

#191

Post by d23 »

innguest wrote: post #70
kijeda wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lice…

I don't think people should be downvoting you, but I think you're conflating a bunch of things.

For radio, the broadcasting space is limited and multiple people broadcasting onto the same frequencies would ruin it for everyone. By your standard, why haven't they started censoring telephone conversations? The pressures that brought the FCC into putting those regulations in place just don't make sense for the internet.

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

#192

Post by guelo »

radioact1ve wrote: post #27
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…

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...".

The "but" is that the next FCC appointment by the next president (and approved by the next congress) can overturn these rules. Also, congress is broken and incapable of legislating.

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

#193

Post by Karunamon »

davorak wrote: post #182
oconnore wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a federal/state/local government declares something illegal, they can shut it down within their jurisdiction. There is no "I'm on the internet so you can't enforce laws" get out of jail free card.

The main concern seemed to be weather or not it was on the burden of the state to prove illegal content before blocking or if it was on the user to prove their content is legal to prevent blocking.

Not sure why it would be different in this case - the general common law rule is that doing a thing is de facto permitted unless a law says otherwise.

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

#194

Post by Karunamon »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #140
smutticus wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think that there is such a thing as an unlawful protocol.

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

#195

Post by Shivetya »

radioact1ve wrote: post #27
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…

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 am just glad they hit mobile up too, seems that it became the bastion of overcharging people after voice prices went south.

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

#197

Post by metaphorm »

obsurveyor wrote: post #183
metaphorm wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this isn't an act of congress though. its regulations that the FCC has the authority to create and implement. if Wheeler says thats how it is, then that's how it is. regulations can be challenged at court but until that happens they will stick.

Congress can gut FCC's power to decide these things though, that's what the Republicans want.

1. its not clear that that's what a congressional majority wants. there is a faction of congress that is aligned with ISPs that wants that, but there is also a large faction of congress aligned differently. i don't think this issue breaks along strictly D vs. R party lines.

2. an act of congress that diminishes the authority of the FCC would have to be signed by Obama, which he will not do. there is no faction in congress now that has a veto proof majority.

3. there is immense popular support for net neutrality and any action taken by congress against it is likely to lead to immediate and intense political pressure on those members of congress. lets not forget this country is still a democracy (mostly). the congressional representatives act against public interest at their own peril.

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

#198

Post by robkix »

jonny_eh wrote: post #86
gergles wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, it means the last mile remains exclusive to the provider.

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

#199

Post by hackuser »

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

I disagree. People under surveillance self-censor. A recent study showed journalists censoring themselves in response to surveillance (i.e., their communications). Another showed that people's searches on search engines (or maybe just Google) changed after revelations of government surveillance.

It's not an accident. It's a well-known phenomenon and a method of intimidation.

(Sorry I don't have time to look up the details of those studies.)

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

#200

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

supergeek133 wrote: post #126
a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 corrupt…

In some areas, that might be the case. But then there is routing, provisioning equipment, people to handle customer support, modems themselves, etc. Not to mention all the old wiring in everyone's house, especially in the city. Oh and if for some reason you actually do decide to invest in infrastructure, you get to fight local, city, county, AND state government for permits, taxes, etc. Sometimes government good, som…

The point here is internet infrastructure is in no way a natural monopoly like sewage or water. The margins are plenty high and there's no physical problem having two or three competing physical networks most places. The only reason we don't have competing local networks is artificial entry barriers.
Post reply on HN