FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote • Hacker News Board

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#71

Post by Zancarius » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:44 PM UTC

walexander wrote: post #32

api wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost nobody in Washington reads anything. They just rubber stamp stuff written for them by bureaucrats, think tanks, and lobbyists. Question is who wrote this stuff: telecoms, Google, the NSA, ???

Don't forget the MPAA and RIAA.

You know, it's funny you mention this...

I was thinking last night about how I haven't heard much from these two organizations over the whole net neutrality debate. But then I started wondering why the FCC commissioners kept using the phrase "legal content" in the context of these regulations. Maybe I'm a touch paranoid, but it almost sounds too coincidental.

Gosh, I hope it's not true, but now that you mention it, they probably handed more than an olive branch to these two clowns.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#72

Post by innguest » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:44 PM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #2

What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. I wouldn't sign a contract without reading it (and having the person on the other side telling me all of the reasons why I should), and neither should you. But apparently, the general population (and many here) will. I watched the entire live broadcast and the pros played only on emotion (safety, helping out the disadvantage…

> the pros played only on emotion [...] Facts and rationality was only brought up by the opposition.

That's my rule of thumb for knowing which side is right. There's always one side that makes emotional arguments, and another side that makes factual arguments. This simple heuristics is inaccessible to over half the population, who are collectivists.

Also notice, most of those collectivists do not believe they should oversee their representatives (corollary from the fact that they don't). They believe politicians are a "set and forget" thing that you input tax-money/votes and without oversight, out comes exactly what was asked for.

There's only one solution that I can see. People who want to be led and believe in godonearth, I mean, government, should be allowed to live their communist fantasy; but they should not be allowed to demand that others do so too - this much is fascism. As soon as that schism is feasible, you will see the progressive dwindling of brainless taxpayers and the fattening of the free side; but as long as everyone is forced to participate in this immorality, no change will come.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#73

Post by rayiner » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:44 PM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #2

What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. I wouldn't sign a contract without reading it (and having the person on the other side telling me all of the reasons why I should), and neither should you. But apparently, the general population (and many here) will. I watched the entire live broadcast and the pros played only on emotion (safety, helping out the disadvantage…

The final rule won't be materially different from what was in the NPRM: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017642393. And the whole proceeding has been documented publicly in Docket 14-28: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28.

The Administrative Procedure Act, which requires the whole notice-and-comment dog and pony show, also makes it pretty easy to overturn regulations if the final regulation isn't adequately foreshadowed by the NPRM. And this will be heavily litigated, so you can bet the FCC is trying to do this by-the-book. One might make the argument that there should be public comment on the final text, but that would be intractable. It's taken 9 months just to do one round of notice and comment.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#74

Post by quasarj » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:45 PM UTC

theandrewbailey wrote: post #29

Chairman Wheeler proves that he isn't a dingo.

Actually, if you watch any of the various hearings and what-not that he's been in, talking about his plans (and previous attempts) to preserve net neutrality, I think it was pretty clear he was on the right track all along. Surprising, I know, given his background, but still.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#75

Post by mudil » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:46 PM UTC

smileysteve wrote: post #21

mudil wrote: post #16

FCC has now "fixed" something that was not broken, and gov't is now regulating internet. I am on this one with Mark Cuban, who is scared shitless of this gov't take over. Speaking of shitless, is everyone ready for decency standards?

Netflix was having to make back market deals (with companies with conflicts of interest) to have the isp's customers (who were paying for access to) have access to their service. How was this "not broken"?

Two companies making a deal between each other: what an unusual concept! We need to fix it with 700 pages of gov't regulations!

Are you ready for decency (and political) standards?

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#76

Post by chetanahuja » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:46 PM UTC

Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US.

Reading comment threads, a person new to the issue might get the impression as if the US government just nationalized comcast. I'm finding it hard to believe that the regular HN crowd has suddenly turned virulently anti Title II. This definitely smells like a coordinated campaign to spread FUD.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#77

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:47 PM UTC

pyrophane wrote: post #3

paulhauggis wrote: post #2

What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. I wouldn't sign a contract without reading it (and having the person on the other side telling me all of the reasons why I should), and neither should you. But apparently, the general population (and many here) will. I watched the entire live broadcast and the pros played only on emotion (safety, helping out the disadvantage…

Any idea when or how these additional 700 regulations will be published?

> Any idea when or how these additional 700 regulations will be published?

If the past experience on similar FCC actions (including, e.g., the last Open Internet Report and Order) is a good guide, they'll be published in the next several days, and the biggest delay in getting them published will be the opposing commissioners getting finished writing up their dissenting views, which will be published alongside what is adopted.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#78

Post by travie7273 » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:48 PM UTC

ForHackernews wrote: post #25

at-fates-hands wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two of the dissenting commissioners attempted to get the bill published so people could see how bad it was going to be - without success. Also add in the fact the FCC is supposed to be a independent office, and Obama has been meddling them since he got into office: http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/25/fccs-ajit-pai-on-net-n... Regulating the internet like a utility is quite possibly the worst thing you can imagine,…

> Regulating the internet like a utility is quite possibly the worst thing you can imagine, and now its come to reality. Why? My electricity and water work a hell of a lot better than my cable internet.

You do know that television is also regulated like a utility, right? How did innovation in that sector turn out when the FCC took control?

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#79

Post by supergeek133 » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:48 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #70

supergeek133 wrote: post #8

So everyone hates Comcast enough to let them pass this with little fanfare, we can all only hope now that all of the regulations are consumer friendly and not some other interest. The willingness of everyone to let this happen without being able to see EVERYTHING scared me!

> So everyone hates Comcast enough to let them pass this with little fanfare "Little fanfare"? Have you been living under a rock since the NPRM on this issue was published last year?

Were you able to read the regulation before it was passed? Not that we could change anything, but weren't you in the least bit interested?

By little fanfare I mean the fact that everyone read his editorial, and cheered and let it be.

Again, I think most people agree this is the right move, but we talk about how it's important for the internet to be open and neutral but I didn't hear much screaming and yelling to see everything before it passed.

So no, I haven't been living under a rock. I guess I just expected more out of the community.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#80

Post by innguest » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:49 PM UTC

warfangle wrote: post #63

unprepare wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grass is always greener. Seriously though, I think there was a lot of hype built up around net neutrality(for good reason) and it ended up clouding the discussion. Quickly it became a dichotomy, you must be either for Title II and whatever the FCC decides that entails, or you must be against any change to the status quo. Now that we are passed that dichotomy, we are faced with the reality that we have little cont…

> the FCC loves to censor things like television, and it wouldn't be insane to think they would consider doing the same with the internet Unfortunately, this is kind of a red herring. There are a few places in the telecommunications act that require the FCC to fine for indecency/obscene material. Cable operators themselves, for example, are not responsible for channels that display obscene material - the original tra…

> Unfortunately, this is kind of a red herring. There are a few places in the telecommunications act that require the FCC to fine for indecency/obscene material.

That is the true red herring we hear over and over again. Don't worry about censorship, you can still say indecent/obscene things... if you happen to have been awarded the broadcasting license.

Sir, or Ma'am, please understand. The censorship problem we anti-FCC complain about is the problem of not being able to get a license in the first place. You and others like you are always addressing this red herring non-issue of indecency and obscenity. That can only happen if you get a broadcast license. The problem with the FCC is that they are a gatekeeper for getting a broadcast license and it is at that point, when they are deciding whether to give the license that they exert the most dangerous kind of censorship. Not after you have the license.