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

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

#221

Post by pnut » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:29 PM UTC

covzzire wrote: post #96

travie7273 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When was the last time you heard a Republican politician on the national stage raise an issue that was not obviously directed at their base, or donors?

A comment that plainly stated a fact in a noninflammatory way?

Or proposed a course of action that was not designed to be punitive to some group, or alternately, designed to disproportionately benefit the powerful?

Republicans inhabit a carefully-crafted parallel reality that is at the breaking point of divergence from American and global first-world society.

Personally, I'll take them seriously when they change their methods and rhetoric, which is probably never.

Their current attitude and language indicates they are not interested in either my vote, or my problems.

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

#222

Post by cratermoon » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:29 PM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #155

cratermoon wrote: post #147

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.

How many times in the past did the FCC vote on internet or broadcast policies using the same process as this one resulting in regulations that protected special interests at the expense of consumers?

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

#223

Post by Alupis » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:30 PM UTC

chetanahuja wrote: post #201

paulhauggis wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 th…

> 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

> Seeing your ad-nauseam repetition of the same talking points

Attack the argument -- not the person.

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

#224

Post by ForHackernews » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:30 PM UTC

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?

It's not a "bill", it's FCC regulations, and this has already been explained in about 10 comments throughout this thread.

Are you a real user, or a paid astroturfer?

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

#225

Post by paulhauggis » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:30 PM UTC

pdabbadabba wrote: post #137

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 t…

"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"

As we all have seen in the past, the proposals they explain and the final rules that become law are usually different. We should be able to see these proposals.

"Perhaps this is counterintuitive to some"

This just illuminates why this process needs to be changed. "counterintuitive" is a nice way of describing our lack of freedom and the lack of transparency in choices that will directly effect all of our lives.

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

#226

Post by nknighthb » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:31 PM UTC

ForHackernews wrote: post #121

travie7273 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I would assume they want to sell expensive traffic-shaping routers and networking gear to telecoms.

They would be better served long-term by overall growth in internet traffic. But large corporations beholden to the stock market don't want to have to explain to Wall Street that earnings are going to tank next quarter after some of their most lucrative customers went elsewhere in retaliation for their political stance.

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

#227

Post by itistoday2 » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:31 PM UTC

pdabbadabba wrote: post #163

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…

> 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…

Could someone explain for the ignorant what "rate setting" means in this context?

Does it refer to download/upload rates, or does it refer to $$ rates (between whom)?

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

#228

Post by itbeho » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:31 PM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #132

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…

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

I would bet our internet bill will start to look like our phone bill with lots of little fees and taxes tacked on. One of them will probably be titled something like "Affordable Internet Access Tax".

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

#229

Post by cubano » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:31 PM UTC

ebbv wrote: post #90

supergeek133 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think many of us here call it a generally good move, we just wanted to see everything that was proposed before it was passed. Not that we could do anything about it.

We'll see it all soon (as in the next couple weeks) and if there's something awful in there we can start calling for revision.

Nothing is going to happen in the next couple of weeks.

There are going to be lawsuits galore that will hold up any significant changes to internet services for years.

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

#230

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 7:31 PM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #132

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…

[deleted]