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

241–250 of 437 posts

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

#241

Post by IanDrake »

Randgalt wrote: post #237
IanDrake wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Future HN comments when things go wrong: This isn't what we wanted... We never indented for X to be interpreted that way... It would have worked, but they didn't go far enough... It would have worked, but they went too far... We need this new law X to protect the cable companies because upstart Y's new technology doesn't have to deal with FCC regulation which gives it an unfair advantage... Give it ten years and the…

What's terribly sad to me is the pro-authority comments here on HN. The Tech world doesn't seem to understand the true nature of regulation. Well, they're going to get what they deserve to the detriment of everyone else.

Sure they will, but they won't blame themselves.

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

#242

Post by chrisrhoden »

drcode wrote: post #235
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…

> ... rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission. Great, we finally get to exercise our freedoms! > ... enforceable bright-line rules will ban ... Oh, I see, now the "innovators" just have more regulation they have to deal with. Now they have to ask for ANOTHER entity's permission?

> ... ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services.

Doesn't sound like they'll need to ask permission since they'll know they won't get it. Are you in favor of these things?

I think reasonable people can disagree, but your positioning of these two statements as being contradictory relies on a complete lack of context to be convincing.

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

#243

Post by drcode »

chrisrhoden wrote: post #242
drcode wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission. Great, we finally get to exercise our freedoms! > ... enforceable bright-line rules will ban ... Oh, I see, now the "innovators" just have more regulation they have to deal with. Now they have to ask for ANOTHER entity's permission?

> ... ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. Doesn't sound like they'll need to ask permission since they'll know they won't get it. Are you in favor of these things? I think reasonable people can disagree, but your positioning of these two statements as being contradictory relies on a complete lack of context to be convincing.

I was hoping the main thing "innovators" would be innovating away in the near future are the big ISPs. Instead, these laws are going to enshrine AT&T, Comcast, Verizon permanently, and any upstarts that might improve the situation are not going to have the manpower to handle all these new regulatory hurdles.

I'm certainly not a big fan of the status quo, but all that's being proposed here is to make a slightly-less evil version of the status quo the ONLY game in town.

(BTW, If I'm quoting a parent comment directly then how can you say there is no context? The parent comment IS the context.)

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

#244

Post by radioact1ve »

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…

Indeed! I was leaning towards this thinking myself. But the optimist in me keeps refuting it.

>> There is also the separate-but-related political reality that the Internet, as a vehicle of basically free information, is opposed by those who depend upon their influence over the flow of news and information in order to maintain political and economic power. This policy shift will make it more difficult for them to keep their influence, and will therefore be fought against by very powerful people who face a long-term threat from its continuation.

Sorry couldn't resist this quote. Any one else see the similarities with MGS2?

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

#245

Post by codyb »

mikeyouse wrote: post #227
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not ignorant to be sketical of a political appointee, on the contrary, anyone is wise to be skeptical. Observe the tremendous difficulty of either political party to find and appoint suitable people to these positions. Color me cautiously optimistic, but not yet ready to abandon all Wheeler/FCC skepticism. There are so many things in politics that are not what they appear to be; and, there has to be a tremendou…

It's ignorant to seize on one line of a political appointee's 40-year resume to insist they'll be corrupt when there is considerable evidence to the contrary. Wheeler kept a blog for years about all of his thoughts regarding telecom regulation, but it's much easier to call him a dingo and assume he's evil than it is to do research and develop a true picture of his intentions. Unfortunately, his blog has lapsed, but s…

Nice post. You're certainly right that the anti-Wheeler fervor was strong here on HN (probably almost as strong as the Anti Obama agenda presented by the comments on this article).

I think I fell for it myself and was pleasantly surprised when this announcement came. Now I know I had let a lack of diligence had prevented me from seeing that this announcement may have been far more likely than I ever thought.

It's easy to be swept up by the resounding chorus of comments here sometimes.

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

#246

Post by skizm »

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 like the guy who commented:

> I see the telecoms have sent their minions to the comment sections.

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

#247

Post by chrisrhoden »

drcode wrote: post #243
chrisrhoden wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. Doesn't sound like they'll need to ask permission since they'll know they won't get it. Are you in favor of these things? I think reasonable people can disagree, but your positioning of these two statements as being contradictory relies on a complete lack of context to be convincing.

I was hoping the main thing "innovators" would be innovating away in the near future are the big ISPs. Instead, these laws are going to enshrine AT&T, Comcast, Verizon permanently, and any upstarts that might improve the situation are not going to have the manpower to handle all these new regulatory hurdles. I'm certainly not a big fan of the status quo, but all that's being proposed here is to make a slightly-less e…

I may be being naïve, but it seems to me that the existing hurdle of laying copper or fiber to the curb is significantly higher than the one being described here, which may account for the fact that we already have the doomsday scenario you are describing in nearly every part of the country.

If you were hoping for last mile unbundling, your comment strongly suggested that you were on the absolute opposite side of the debate regarding regulation.

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

#249

Post by dragonwriter »

pyre wrote: post #123
myth_buster wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Does this mean that (e.g.) specific cities can petition ISPs to block (e.g.) Uber in their area because it's not "lawful?"

> Does this mean that (e.g.) specific cities can petition ISPs to block (e.g.) Uber in their area because it's not "lawful?"

It means that actually blocking, throttling, (or, for that matter, paid prioritization, though that will fall afoul of other laws) of unlawful content is not a violation of this particular set of FCC rules.

It has no effect (positive or negative) on the pre-existing ability of ISPs, with or without a third-party request, to block unlawful content. Of course, because it is a federal rule, any local request seeking to block unlawful content that would also (or actually) block lawful content would be preempted by the federal rule prohibiting blocking lawful content, so it would constrain the kinds of actions that could be taken in pursuit of blocking unlawful content. But, in any case, any ability cities would have under this rule to request blocking Uber, etc., would be no more ability than they have without the rule.

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

#250

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

mikeyouse wrote: post #227
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not ignorant to be sketical of a political appointee, on the contrary, anyone is wise to be skeptical. Observe the tremendous difficulty of either political party to find and appoint suitable people to these positions. Color me cautiously optimistic, but not yet ready to abandon all Wheeler/FCC skepticism. There are so many things in politics that are not what they appear to be; and, there has to be a tremendou…

It's ignorant to seize on one line of a political appointee's 40-year resume to insist they'll be corrupt when there is considerable evidence to the contrary. Wheeler kept a blog for years about all of his thoughts regarding telecom regulation, but it's much easier to call him a dingo and assume he's evil than it is to do research and develop a true picture of his intentions. Unfortunately, his blog has lapsed, but s…

Alan Greenspan once championed the gold standard, that obviously didn't last forever.

>It's ignorant to seize on one line of a political appointee's 40-year resume

People are often defined by their most recent accomplishment(s) (unless a worse one can be dredged up from the past).

I try to keep myself informed of current events, but I'm not always as successful as I would like, and I've not got unlimited time to go digging through the Internet Archive to find and read Wheeler's old blog posts (of which I was unaware). If they were so central to Wheeler's philosophy why did they not receive more recent attention?

>it's clear the blind Wheeler hate was completely unfounded.

If to you, "blind Wheeler hate" == skepticism, then it's not clear at all, but I am starting to warm up to the guy. Thanks for the blog links.

PS, I also doubt that we'd be better off today without the enormous furore over FCC internet regulation.

Post reply on HN