Live data from Hacker News

FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

techcrunch.com

201–210 of 745 posts

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

#201

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…

"What happened to open and honest discussions?"

I just went through your recent comment history and it's pretty clear you're interested in no such thing. You've been blindly repeating Fox News style prepared talking points without regards to actual information presented to you. As an example this was explained to you in another subthread below:

"Regulatory orders aren't generally published before being approved by the initiating authority (preliminary notices that are subject to revision before being approved are published when those are approved by the authority, as was the case with the NPRM on this issue published last year. The final decision based on the NPRM and public comment received since the NPRM, is what was voted on today, which will then be published. This is the processed followed by basically every regulatory body for virtually every regulatory action in the US government (sometimes there isn't an advanced notice like the NPRM, however.)" by dragonwriter

As just one more examples out of dozens more, here's what tzs explained to you in another thread yesterday:

---

> The FCC has a 332 page plan to regulate the Internet (which the public does not have a chance to even look over before it is passed)

No, the FCC does not have a 332 page plan to regulate the internet. Tom Wheeler has a plan, although it is much much shorter to 332. The 300+ pages is for a document that includes his plan, a long explanation of the reasons and the authorities for each part, and a long look at the large number of comments that were received after last years FCC plan. The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not.

---

Seeing your ad-nauseam repetition of the same talking points while utterly disregarding cogent responses to them, it's a pretty safe bet that your opinions and desire for "open and honest discussion" carries as much weight as those of party hacks screaming at each other on cable news.

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

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

At what point does "prioritization" effectively become blocking? People navigate away from websites that take a long time to load or have advertisements.

Not to mention that companies like Comcast have their foot in the online entertainment content game, and could very easily use paid prioritization to get an unfair advantage over competing services.

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

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Maybe he doesn't want to risk his Karma on this one.

If someone values conserving worthless internet points over having a conversation, they deserve the downvotes they get.

> Are you suggesting it's some kind of conspiracy?

Given the number of brand new accounts spitting ISP talking points, yes.

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

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Stick around and be a productive member of the community and I'll happily engage you in debate. But I don't see much point debating with < 1 hour old accounts spitting ISP talking points -- so far it's most likely you're just an astroturfing corporate shill. I can't prove it of course, I'm just playing the odds.

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

#205

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.

> Nobody is against NN.

Lots of people in this debate have come out specifically against net neutrality.

> The problem here is that the FCC is detonating a nuclear bomb to try to put out a house fire.

That's the argument that a lot of people who were publicly anti-neutrality until the last few months have suddenly swung around to, sure.

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

#206
post #172
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Is there any evidence of that actually happening? Yes. People are buying VPN service to get adequate NetFlix performance. SPs are running a protection racket.

All that demonstrates is that interlink between the ISP and other transit providers isn't saturated. By using a VPN you change the routing of your request, you don't just mask the endpoint. A VPN'd request that gets carried over a saturated interlink would suck just as much as a non-VPN'd request.

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

#207
post #192
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe I have enough information to conclude that classifying broadband as a Title II utility will be a good thing. My general impression is that more and stricter regulations in an industry is usually (though not always) a bad thing for consumers in that industry, so while I'm not vehemently against this NN bill, I certainly am not excited or optimistic. I consider my views reasonable, although I guess an u…

> My general impression is that more and stricter regulations in an industry is usually (though not always) a bad thing for consumers in that industry In cable internet the average consumer has only one or two potential providers. On top of that, companies who try to break into the industry face significant political and regulatory challenges when they lay fiber. I don't understand how you can think this kind of indu…

The industry is already highly regulated, and there's a difference between thinking an industry should be unregulated and thinking that not all conceivable regulations are good for an industry.

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

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not for nothing, but: user: CzechsMix created: 11 days ago karma: 0 People wouldn't be going "hmm, there's a lot of green names and they're all conveniently anti-NN" if there weren't. Like, y'know...you, yourself, elsewhere in this thread.

Yes, I happen to be anti-NN, no, I do not think that the way things currently are works. No I do not think the cable companies operate fairly in a free market. Sorry, I'm anti-NN, sorry I joined only 11 days ago. I can assure you. the two are not related. Again, if elsewhere in this thread, I'm making points you disagree with. attack and refute the points themselves. How else can anyone ever think you have the slight…

The way I know that eropple knows what he's talking about is that I've been reading his comments for years, and so have a sense of his competence, interest, and manner of thinking.

They reason I suspect you don't is that you've turned up with a brand new account and an apparent partisan interest. If you would like not to be suspected like that, you could, as I and eropple have, connect you account to your full identity rather than concealing it while lashing out at others.

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

#209

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…

> There are 700 total rules to the regulation. We haven't been able to see one of them.

The FCC published the proposal in May. You've had 9 months to comment on it.

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

#210
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Are you suggesting it's some kind of conspiracy?

Despite the Tumblr feminist movement, I don't think most people are in favor of this sort of regulation, and there isn't sufficient monetary motivation that I can see for such regulation to happen.

However, I do agree that this kind of regulation would also be bad. But again: we can cross that bridge when (if?) we come to it.

Post reply on HN