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

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

#91

Post by travie7273 » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:53 PM UTC

chetanahuja wrote: post #76

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 commen…

Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. IBM, Intel, and Cisco are against it. My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations. It's odd that people like you can't fathom that there are two sides to this issue.

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

#92

Post by malchow » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:53 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #5

Congratulations, but it's far from enough to improve things. It will just prevent some abuse. Now, as a next step they should pass unbundling of the last mile.

Shmerl, love to learn more about what you mean by this. Do you mean a rule that a network could not sell to consumers both TV and internet access and phone?

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

#93

Post by wpietri » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:54 PM UTC

supergeek133 wrote: post #18

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…

Yep, that's all most of us want. Transparency. The FCC is un-elected, that's always scary. Not that our elected officials know better. Haha.

That is definitely not scary to me. There are a number of things that absolutely shouldn't be directly elected, like the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Reserve, and the Supreme Court.

Politicians spend much of their time getting re-elected, and they have to focus a great deal on whatever the electorate's current opinion is. That is excellent for things that should respond relatively quickly, and terrible for things that should move deliberately or be countercyclical.

It would be way more scary to me to have the FCC commissioners out fundraising from industry all the time like our elected officials do. Right now they're appointed on staggered 5-year terms, which is intentionally longer than the election cycle of the President who appoints them. No more than 3 can be members of the same political party, and none can have a financial interest in any regulated business. It's not perfect, but I think it's a great example of how to minimize the ills of direct election while still having it be (indirectly) accountable to the people.

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

#94

Post by rayiner » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:55 PM UTC

carlisle_ wrote: post #30

Zancarius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how something intended to prevent ISPs from throttling content turned into a debate about helping out the disadvantaged, etc. It worries me that issues like this are co-opted to turn them into a one-size-fits-all batch of regulations sidelining their original intent. On the other hand, it's my understanding that the FCC will enter a period of public comments after voting on the rules but prior to enacting them.…

>Funny how something intended to prevent ISPs from throttling content turned into a debate about helping out the disadvantaged, etc Isn't that just politics in general?

Telecom is peculiarly mired in it. By and large, here is the mainstream positions of the two major parties on telecom:

Republicans: Want the government out of it. Democrats: Only care about it to the extent that it's a nexus of class/race warfare.

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

#95

Post by cheald » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:55 PM UTC

Goronmon wrote: post #54

stass wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it necesseraly bad? Netflix making deals with ISPs is exactly what market self-regulation is.

That's a nice video streaming service you have there. It would be a shame if it were to suffer from sudden 'congestion' issues.

Is there any evidence of that actually happening? By that I mean Netflix being specifically throttled. To date, we've yet to see any evidence that Netflix-originated traffic has been targeted. The interlink capacity has been under dispute, but all traffic carried by those interlinks is subject to congestion, not just Netflix.

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

#96

Post by covzzire » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:56 PM UTC

travie7273 wrote: post #62

ForHackernews wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I don't blame him. We have a GOP-controlled Congress, so testifying would just be an hours-long exercise in getting yelled at by old people who don't understand technology or believe in science, but love an opportunity for political grandstanding against an Obama-appointee.

Intel, Cisco, and IBM are on the Republicans' side on this issue. Do they not know technology?

Ars has been playing on the 'Republicans are against it so it must be good' emotion card for awhile now. That's almost all I see on this issue in the tech media. What's been happening is that all objections are being dismissed as "Republicans lol" and "Fox News reporting so must be wrong". Our national discussion is literally at the level of Jon Stewart's mockery of things that warrant serious discussion.

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

#97

Post by ubernostrum » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:56 PM UTC

supergeek133 wrote: post #19

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,…

This is what scares me, what was there to hide?

There isn't. Everything gets published. The vote on the rule change came after a public comment period.

This thread is just full of HN's intellectually-challenged users waving their hands and saying "ooooOOOOoooo GOVERNMENT! SCARY GOVERNMENT! BE AFRAID OF SCARY GOVERNMENT! ooooOOOOoooo!"

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

#98

Post by strictnein » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:56 PM UTC

product50 wrote: post #68

strictnein wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you've read all the new regulations? Which one is the best?

Stop being so cynical. Not sure what is up with this community. When FCC was reluctant to do anything on net neutrality everyone here was up in arms. Now that FCC has passed something, you are still up in arms. So much cynicism - for all you know most of the regulations passed might be pro-consumer. At least I would like to believe that it is better than the current model - which in itself is a good step forward.

You're stating that you think the US government can create 700 new Internet regulations and not mess things up?

I'm stating that I think the US government is mainly made up of morons, especially in regards to technical issues.

The cynicism is from the fact that there are 300+ pages to do what would apparently be a fairly simple change, so there's more to it than just the "Net Neutrality for everyone!" bit.

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

#99

Post by adventured » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:56 PM UTC

product50 wrote: post #68

strictnein wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you've read all the new regulations? Which one is the best?

Stop being so cynical. Not sure what is up with this community. When FCC was reluctant to do anything on net neutrality everyone here was up in arms. Now that FCC has passed something, you are still up in arms. So much cynicism - for all you know most of the regulations passed might be pro-consumer. At least I would like to believe that it is better than the current model - which in itself is a good step forward.

You're referring to HN as though it's one person.

There's wide disagreement over net neutrality.

There's wide disagreement over allowing the FCC to pass a large framework for regulating the Internet without allowing the public to see what's in it.

It's outrageous the FCC did this. Who knows what new powers were just granted to the government. You have no idea, because you were not allowed to see it. Recognizing that fact, is not cynical.

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

#100

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 6:56 PM UTC

supergeek133 wrote: post #79

dragonwriter wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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?

Sure, I'm interested; I'm also aware enough of the regulatory process to not expect to see anything published between a NPRM and the next official regulatory action, even though that next action is likely to be a final rule/order and even though there are likely to be interesting drafts produced in the process (whether or not the process is in a regulatory venue where there is a single decision-maker to approve official action or a vote of a multimember commission.)

Similarly, while I'm interested, I don't expect to see copies of drafts of decisions while a court is considering a case.

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

Aside from being a misuse of "little fanfare", that's also factually incorrect; lots of people -- both supporters and opponents of net neutrality -- reacted to the editorial with specific concerns that the content of that the outline presented of the direction of the proposal, and by many reports some of those responses had an effect on the final form of the regulations. No doubt both supporters and opponents will continue to have reactions to the details of the adopted regulations.