Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 745 posts

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

#131

Post by shmerl »

malchow wrote: post #92
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?

No, that competitors should be allowed to use the last mile to provide service. See:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_local_exchange_car...

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

#132

Post by paulhauggis »

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…

"This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates"

It's disingenuous to call an opposing opinion "astro-turfing" in an attempt to discredit them. There are 700 total rules to the regulation. We haven't been able to see one of them. This doesn't concern you in any way?

"and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US."

Tell me how more regulation will lead to more competition and a better Internet for the consumer.

"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."

Most people were afraid to talk about it because the HN community typically down votes everyone to hell that has opposing opinions.

I gave up awhile back because nobody would listen, but I'm not giving up today.

"This definitely smells like a coordinated campaign to spread FUD."

It seems you won't even listen to the opposition and are trying to discredit anyone that is against this government regulation as "FUD". It sounds like you are the astro-turfing one.

What happened to open and honest discussions?

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

#133

Post by copsarebastards »

covzzire wrote: post #108
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…

Nobody is against NN. Nobody wants the internet to be less free. The problem here is that the FCC is detonating a nuclear bomb to try to put out a house fire. It's completely unnecessary and will do more harm than good.

    user:	covzzire
    created:	19 minutes ago

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

#134

Post by warfangle »

zxcvcxz wrote: post #104

What I'm worried about is that the internet could become like radio, requiring anyone who wants to broadcast (hook up a server) to obtain a license to do so. All people have the right to connect as many devices as they want to the internet, and connect their own server(s) on their own network to the public internet, and allow others to use their servers for any and all purposes including to connect to the internet. P…

Fortunately, radio is covered under Section III of the telecommunications act and not Section II, which is limited to common carriers (of which radio, television, and cable television obviously are not).

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

#135

Post by theandrewbailey »

malchow wrote: post #92
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?

Unbundling means that one of several companies can provide service over the line that the "utility" installed. E.g. you could buy Cablevision service over Comcast's network.

This is unrelated to service "bundles".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_loop_unbundling

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

#136

Post by cratermoon »

rayiner wrote: post #103
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…

> This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing. This is revisionist history. Up until very recently, Title II was the "nuclear option."[1] There's plenty of people who are pro-net neutrality who were skeptical of Title II. That's why they originally threw their support behind the FCC's last attempt at net neutrality, which tried to impose neutrality without reclassification. The EFF o…

> Up until very recently, everyone considered Title II the "nuclear option."

As far back as the 90s, when Mosaic was still the most advanced browser out there, I was noting that Title II common carrier rules for ISPs were the best choice to balance free speech needs -- to prevent ISPs and Backbone providers from censoring the content they carry -- and protect ISPs from liability for their users' communications.

It's only taken two decades for the industry to realize the same.

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

#137

Post by pdabbadabba »

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…

This "we haven't even seen the rules yet" line is really just a meaningless talking point promoted by NN opponents.

In the world of government regulation, is is absolutely the norm for regulations to be voted on before being made public. But that does not mean the process is not transparent: the Commission has been conducting an open proceeding for months (years, really) where they have explained their proposals to the pubic, and allowed anyone in the country to submit comments. The commissioners and their staff then look over the comments they have received, draft an order that responds to the important points raised in the comments, vote on it, and then make it public as a binding rule. Perhaps this is counterintuitive to some, and maybe it's not the best way to make rules. But there is nothing at all abnormal about it -- this is simply the process that we call "notice-and-comment rulemaking" which Congress enshrined in law almost 100 years ago when it passed the Administrative Procedures Act. Anyone who tells you that this is weird, or that the Commission is trying to pull a fast one by waiting to publish the rules, is either misinformed or intentionally trying to mislead you.

As for the meeting itself: of course it's theater. The real policy work doesn't happen in the meeting, it happens in the formal notice and comment proceeding that has been happening on paper for many many months. The meeting is primarily a political opportunity.

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

#138

Post by forrestthewoods »

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…

People aren't worried about the main gist. People are scared of the fine details that they categorically refused to release before voting.

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

#139

Post by TallGuyShort »

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…

>> But apparently, the general population (and many here) will.

Sadly, yes. I recently purchased a home and was shocked at the logical inconsistency in the contract and the inability of ANYONE at the mortgage company to explain some of the clauses. And I often broken links in terms of service that sites make you accept. It's quite sad. What's the point of any of it?

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

#140

Post by strictnein »

dragonwriter wrote: post #47
strictnein wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What word? Really no idea.

Several good candidates in that quote. "Freedom" and "intrusion" are probably the best candidates.

And he's deleted it now, so maybe he didn't even know.
Post reply on HN