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

161–170 of 745 posts

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

#161

Post by mfringel »

strictnein wrote: post #98
product50 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What leads you to believe that it's a fairly simple change?

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

#162

Post by tertius »

cratermoon wrote: post #136
rayiner wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> balance free speech needs -- to prevent ISPs and Backbone providers from censoring the content they carry

Unless it's not deemed "legal." And I'm not talking about torrenting.

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

#163

Post by pdabbadabba »

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…

> Conservatives don't like it because it allows the FCC to do things like rate-setting, even if this administration chooses not to use that power. Liberals don't like the specter of FCC regulation of content.

This is a funny line of reasoning on the part of Conservatives. Reclassification under Title II is supposedly bad because it allows future Commissions to impose rate-setting requirements. But, in the absence of Title II reclassification today, a future Commission could still have imposed a rate-setting regime. How? They could have reclassified broadband under Title II! In other words, reclassification under Title II today doesn't allow future Commissions to do anything they couldn't have done before, if they wanted to, because in either case, the the Commission has the power to take both steps simultaneously.

I guess you could argue that it makes it easier politically to impose rate setting in the future. But I'm not sure this holds any water if the very thing that worries most critics of Title II reclassification is rate setting.

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

#164

Post by copsarebastards »

travie7273 wrote: post #124
copsarebastards wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, I don't give a shit what corporations were for or against. Unless you have actual criticisms of the bill itself, I can only conclude that there are, in fact, not two sides to this issue.

Wait, you're telling me to criticize a "bill" that hasn't been published yet? Are you kidding? You do know that this "bill" with its 70+ regulations was passed in private, right?

> Wait, you're telling me to criticize a "bill" that hasn't been published yet? Are you kidding? You do know that this "bill" with its 70+ regulations was passed in private, right?

Which kind of begs what exactly you think you're criticizing.

All the statements by the FCC leading up to this bill have been ones I would consider positive. So until I actually see the bill, I'm not criticizing it.

Also:

    user:	travie7273
    created:	30 minutes ago
Astroturf potential: high.

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

#165

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> This is revisionist history. Up until very recently, everyone considered Title II the "nuclear option."

That is revisionist history. From the outset of the NN debate, a large subset of the pro-NN crowd has pushed for Title II, and this increased after the court made clear that the critical elements of net neutrality could not be enforced by regulation, without substantial gaps, except under Title II.

It is simply not true that, until very recently, everyone considered Title II the "nuclear option".

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

#166

Post by paulhauggis »

wpietri wrote: post #118
jes wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment would have been better, in my view, without the ad-hominem attack on older people. Especially if you wish to advocate for a pro-science, reason and evidence approach to argumentation.

As a relatively old person, at least for HN, I don't believe it's ad hominem to suggest that old people don't understand new things as well as younger people do. And it's clearly an issue for the Internet. Note, for example, the strong correlation between age and internet use here: http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-age-literature/#many There's also the term "digital native": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_native There's…

"As a relatively old person, at least for HN, I don't believe it's ad hominem to suggest that old people don't understand new things as well as younger people do. "

My issue is that many young people think that new things are completely different..when in reality, it's just better/different packaging and marketing on an old idea.

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

#167

Post by covzzire »

copsarebastards wrote: post #133
covzzire wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I like how you refuted my points with logic and reason and didn't try to cop out via some lame method like clicking a green link.

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

#168

Post by droopybuns »

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…

I have looked hard at the issues & I'm not on any campaign.

Paid prioritization is not a bad thing. Blocking websites is.

There is a whole nascent standard called LTE direct that suddenly becomes pointless if you can't distinquish traffic priorities. There are innovations that are being cut out of the picture for entirely new m2x flows & peer to peer flows because of the desire to remove paid prioritization.

It is not productive to assume that the only reason that someone disagrees with you is because of a coordinated campaign to spread FUD.

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

#169

Post by tsax »

copsarebastards wrote: post #127
mudil wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. Also, now as a utility, internet can be regulated for content, be it decency standards or political speech. Maybe not now, not next year, but what about in 5-10 years? Content is content, all bits are equal, all bits are over the same utilities. And internet as a utility is now regulated.

> Also, now as a utility, internet can be regulated for content, be it decency standards or political speech. To be frank, this isn't something I particularly fear. You're referencing TV regulation, but the main limiters on TV content are corporations owning the airwaves and people's fear of sex. The internet is not limited in space the way frequency bands are, and good luck trying to enforce pornography laws. Pornog…

If content regulations happen, they'll come in with the new flavor of the month, i.e. 'social justice.' There will be vague statutes against 'harassment' I'm guessing, and anyone decrying their vagueness or broadness will be decried a racist, sexist shitlord. You won't get 80's style 'Christian moralism' language in 2020.

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

#170

Post by tertius »

copsarebastards wrote: post #133
covzzire wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe he doesn't want to risk his Karma on this one. Are you suggesting it's some kind of conspiracy?
Post reply on HN