Live data from Hacker News

FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

techcrunch.com

211–220 of 745 posts

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

#211

Unfortunately the Net Neutrality 'debate' was another lose-lose situation for the United States. What we wanted wasn't for the big telecom duopoly to be forced to either run their business as a tiered service or as a regulated utility. What we wanted was for the US Government to exercise its Anti-Trust capabilities and bust the universally hated Comcast and Time Warner into a bunch of small companies, and set "Goldil…

It's not the job of the government to make companies less shitty, it's their job to protect the free market so OTHER companies can reduce the shittiness of e.g. comcast. This is just the first step.

I'd also like to point out that splitting up Ma Bell hardly solved the problem.

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

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We haven't been able to see one of them How is that different from the other FCC policies? It's only the opposition echo chamber repeating the "secret Obama plan to control the Internet" spin.

It's not. Things need to change.

Then be prepared to change the rules that _all_ independent regulatory bodies with a voting commission operate under. Because this is SOP.

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

#213

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?

Ahh, they're big, so they must know better than us. You're not actually making any salient points, other than appealing to authority and big bank accounts (sounds a little like the Republicans). In fact you haven't made a salient point anti NN in this entire thread other than to complain about people questioning people's motives.

And then there's this. I'm not sure what it's meant to mean.

Although, I have seen the cost of some Cisco networking devices. I know exactly what they stand to gain from a tiered Internet (Hint: Billions in sales to telcos looking to shape their traffic based on contracts).

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

#214

Unfortunately the Net Neutrality 'debate' was another lose-lose situation for the United States. What we wanted wasn't for the big telecom duopoly to be forced to either run their business as a tiered service or as a regulated utility. What we wanted was for the US Government to exercise its Anti-Trust capabilities and bust the universally hated Comcast and Time Warner into a bunch of small companies, and set "Goldil…

Why couldn't we just get congress to pass a law stating that ISP's cannot throttle one type of content in favor of another? Why this heavy handed approach?

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

#215

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.

* The FCC cannot pass bills, they're generally referred to as rules/regulations.

You're technically correct. The best kind of correct!

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

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As another brand new account, I could see why you'd say that. But in practice, our understanding of what people say is rooted in who they are. If somebody wants to write a book making a formal, evidence backed argument on something, I'm less concerned with who they are. But when somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentences, asking who they are and what their motivations are is much more reasonable. Especiall…

I just feel like if he's so trivially wrong, and you're so obviously right, wouldn't it be better just to explain that? Instead of sinking so low on the debate pyramid as to only be one step above the bottom?

If you are not a serious interlocutor, then there is no point in explaining anything to you. It's like trying to get to know a bot. And getting off in the 101 stuff for the zillionth time is a distraction from having a more interesting and substantive discussion.

And given that you're apparently mainly here to throw shade on people discussing this in ways you don't approve of, I have no reason to think you're a serious participant who's actually after a useful discussion.

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

#217

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…

> 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.

You were told this was wrong yesterday, and I know you saw that because you responded.

Why are you still repeating it?

Once again, we will all have plenty of time to read these regulations before they are enacted.

Here is how this works, and how it has worked for well over 50 years, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, at most or all agencies, not just the FCC.

1. Someone at the agency decides to propose rules.

2. They circulate those rules within the agency for discussion, and they may modify them based on that discussion.

3. When they feel that the rules are ready for consideration as an official proposal, they bring them to a vote among before the Commissioners. (Well, for the FCC it is the Commissioners. I have not idea what the corresponding group at, say, the FAA, is called. It would be cool if they were the Aviators, but it is probably something lame).

4. If the rules pass this vote, the agency then publishes them in the Federal Register as a "Notice of Proposed Rule Making" (NPRM). A public commentary period, normally 60 days, begins.

5. People then comment on the rules. They comment on other people's comments.

6. If there are a lot of comments, the agency might extend the commentary period.

7. When the commentary period ends, the agency considers the comments, and decides if it is going to go ahead and enact the rules, or start over, or not regulate at all at this time.

We just finished step #3 and #4 is starting. The published proposal has to include the objections raised by the Commissioners who voted against them, with responses to those objections by those who supported the proposal, so there will be a short delay before publication and the start of the comment period.

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

#218

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.

> Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea.

If you are referring to Google's concerns voiced after early outlines of the Title II approach, they objected to something that was discussed earlier as part of the approach -- identifying a "service" provided to edge providers by ISPs distinct from that provided to retail customers, and classifying that newly-identified service under Title II -- because it might create a basis for ISP to edge provider charges.

This provision, from subsequent outlines provided, is not part of the final package, which only addresses retail broadband service as a Title II service and addresses ISP to edge provider relations in terms of the impact they have on retail customers.

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

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This is awesome information, thank you! Other than censorship, do you foresee any major gotchas in the upcoming regulations?

The other major one that garners complaints is the regulations surrounding rate and fee setting. But the FCC has already stated that those would be under forbearance.

And even if they weren't, there is a clear process for companies to petition for forbearance on regulations which they find too burdensome.

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

#220

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.

The Affordable Healthcare Act was gigantic and created by morons, but by most metrics is improving the American healthcare system. The argument that the government can not act in a way that improves things, even if it is not the perfect solution, is contrary to fact.

EDIT: I treat down-votes in the absence of a counter-argument as up-votes.

Post reply on HN