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

411–420 of 745 posts

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

#411

Post by Zebra20 »

tzs wrote: post #217
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…

> 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…

1. This is the news release from today: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-ru... on the last page, you can see the docket number, which is 14-28. 2. This is the docket page for 14-28. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28 3. In the FCC filings section, you can see that the NPRM was filed May 2014. This sets the comment period to July 2014, and the comment reply period to September 2014. 4. There is an order issued in July 2014 that denies extension of the comment period. 5. I conclude that we are in fact, on step #7, and are just waiting on the Report and Order to be filed, at which time the regulations are enacted. 6. Furthermore, Wheeler's statement talks about an 'Order'. http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a2

Am I wrong in my reasoning? Aren't these rules, whatever they are, about to become active?

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

#412

Post by mark-r »

anigbrowl wrote: post #336
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…

Reasonable people can disagree about Title II, but there's no getting around the fact that just in the last few weeks the issue has been turned into 'Obamanet' as a political football.

You might not believe it, but it's true. Just yesterday at lunch I overheard a bunch of old (retired?) guys at the next table repeating that tired line "Obamacare of the Internet".

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

#413

Post by baddox »

chetanahuja wrote: post #249
Alupis wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. They are here to spread FUD via talking points. I attempted to prove the futility of attacking the arguments by showing that they have been clearly countered before while failing to budge this account from their fixed talking points.

It doesn't matter whether a contributor intends his argument to be "legitimate" or not. The validity of an argument is completely independent of the presenter of that argument.

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

#414

Post by duaneb »

rsync wrote: post #331
duaneb wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"I'd also like to point out that splitting up Ma Bell hardly solved the problem." Really ? I'm not an expert, but one item that comes to mind is that my children have never heard the term "long distance" and never will. That's pretty swell.

Ma Bell's children went on to do the exact same thing with cable and broadband.

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

#415

Post by leejoramo »

duaneb wrote: post #211
xnull2guest wrote: post #158

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.

The split up of Ma Bell was a huge part of the story of the history of computer communications. Remember, AT&T owned the whole system, including the wires in you home or office and the actual phones. Prior to the breakup, you had to be granted permission to connect any equipment to the phone system. One of the primary reasons people used Acoustic Coupled modems was so that Ma Bell did not have to get involved in the approval and installation of your equipment.

I well remember installing my first modem with an RJ11 jack in the early 1980's. As a 14 year old, I remember feeling quite the rebel for not getting AT&T's approval.

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

#416

Post by mudil »

smileysteve wrote: post #21
mudil wrote: post #16

FCC has now "fixed" something that was not broken, and gov't is now regulating internet. I am on this one with Mark Cuban, who is scared shitless of this gov't take over. Speaking of shitless, is everyone ready for decency standards?

Netflix was having to make back market deals (with companies with conflicts of interest) to have the isp's customers (who were paying for access to) have access to their service. How was this "not broken"?

Two companies making a deal between each other: what an unusual concept!

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

#417

Post by baddox »

chetanahuja wrote: post #313
Alupis wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. They are here to spread FUD via talking points If you feel anyone's opinion that isn't your own is somehow FUD, that's a problem. For example, you are unlikely to change my viewpoint or opinion on a great number of things, even through well thought-out and concise arguments. I also happen to believe Fox News isn't as terrible as a lot of people…

"For example, you are unlikely to change my viewpoint or opinion on a great number of things, even through well thought-out and concise arguments." Thank you. I think this is sufficient grounds for me to avoid wasting any of my time arguing with you.

Will you genuinely claim to not have any beliefs which are unlikely to be changed?

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

#418

Post by williamcotton »

Spooky23 wrote: post #361
williamcotton wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is currently "above the fold" and even though I agree with you, I downvoted because I don't think this discussion should involve what Mark Cuban whatsoever. Whatever dialog he spurs is going to be an intellectual dead end. BTW, why isn't anyone talking about the Interstate Commerce Commission, the predecessor to the FCC, and the similarities between common carrier status of railways and Internet service…

I mentioned Mark Cuban in context of the parent comment. Whatever our opinion of Mr Cuban, his arguments are essentially the same as the telecom people. If we had a functional market, the excesses of the ICC would be a cautionary tale of great impact. Unfortunately the behavior of the ISPs has illustrated that we don't have that functional marketplace. I think we should follow the path successfully implemented (in mo…

I know, it just sucks that this is now turning in to a discussion directed by some loud mouth on a reality TV show.

Anyways... I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree that we should follow historical precedent and that ISPs should be regulated as Type II common carriers.

The railways that the ICC were primarily established to regulate were most definitely not a functional market. Railways at the time were also charging different fees for the different things they were transporting. Their customers also didn't have a choice of competitors and suffered under collusion between companies. Network Neutrality is essentially an extension of the same conversation.

The ICC also had statues for regulating communication. The FCC took over for the ICC's role in regulating communication in 1934 and the organizational was modeled on the ICC with 5 member appointed by the president.

We should be talking about what worked with the ICC and what didn't. If people are offering conjectures about what the results of these FCC regulations will have on the Internet they have plenty of historical evidence to use for their arguments. We can point to how the railroads abused and had a negative impact on society. We can show how overregulation harms industry. We can show example of regulatory capture. We can show example of tragedies involving unmanaged shared common resources.

Railways and the ICC are a very similar analogy but we can reason about all sorts of other precedent. We can find examples from the Hanseatic League, the Holy Roman Empire, the Dutch East Indies Company, the South Seas Bubble or anything else from our history. It all applies and led to our existing systems of government, business and law.

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

#419

Post by Karunamon »

mwsherman wrote: post #149
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 argument is the essence of ad hominem. First, that disagreement is unreasonable. Second, that those who disagree have ulterior motives.

Sometimes it is, and sometimes they do. It would be unwise to dismiss the possibility out of hand, especially on an issue this contentious that has this many powerful players against it.

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

#420

Post by baddox »

anigbrowl wrote: post #344
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…

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? No, because this is the norm - the commissioners draw up a proposal, vote on it, then it's published in the Federal Register as a 'notice of proposed rulemaking,' witht he text of the proposed rule in f…

> No, because this is the norm

Yes, the norm concerns me.

Post reply on HN