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

521–530 of 745 posts

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

#521

Post by dang »

oceanstone wrote: post #435
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…

> PS: The accusations of astroturfing on HN are a vile sort of rhetorical tactic. You sound upset about the accusation. What if it were true though?

> You sound upset about the accusation. What if it were true though?

If it were true, that would be bad and a problem. We crack down on such misuses of HN in every way we know how. As a matter of fact, we take them personally as an attack on the whole community.

But making such accusations indiscriminately is a sure way to poison the very same community. We don't want that to happen either. That means we all have to be disciplined about this and not just cry "NSA Shill!" (or whatever) out of frustration at wrong or contrary opinions.

The truth is that opinion is divided on this, as on most other issues, among legitimate community members. That alone means that ipso facto accusations of astroturfing aren't legit here. Without evidence, it's just a personal attack, and those are not ok.

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

#522

Post by baddox »

anigbrowl wrote: post #466
baddox wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, because this is the norm Yes, the norm concerns me.

I don't buy it. What's wrong with the existing procedure, specifically? Why is it not adequate to view and comment on it at the time it is published in the Federal Register as a proposed rule? This is, after all, the whole point of the Federal Register. Where was the pressure to change this rulemaking procedure over the last X years before this particular issue came up?

I have no experience in how to aggregate opinions in order to make policy decisions. I don't directly have a problem with the specific procedure. My concern comes from the historical results of US regulatory agencies, which I am not impressed by. I do not know if the public commenting process has a significant effect on those results.

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

#523

Post by baddox »

venomsnake wrote: post #507
Zebra20 wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we should kill the USDA safety measures, as well as the USDA itself. These rules should be issued at the state level, where we the people can keep a closer eye on it, rather than the federal government. By the way, how do you like that the USDA is arming itself? Do you thing it's a good thing? Did you even know about this? http://www.naturalnews.com/045141_USDA_submachine_guns_param...

State level issue is great. If US citizens never cross state borders. Just think of the joys is we have different standards for sterilization across the board.

On the contrary, one reason state level regulations are preferable is that US citizens can and do cross state borders much more easily and often than national borders.

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

#524

Post by dragonwriter »

Zancarius wrote: post #10
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…

Funny how something intended to prevent ISPs from throttling content turned into a debate about helping out the disadvantaged, etc. It worries me that issues like this are co-opted to turn them into a one-size-fits-all batch of regulations sidelining their original intent. On the other hand, it's my understanding that the FCC will enter a period of public comments after voting on the rules but prior to enacting them.…

> On the other hand, it's my understanding that the FCC will enter a period of public comments after voting on the rules but prior to enacting them.

No, the usual process is NPRM, comment period, Final Rule. The NPRM was last spring, the comment period took up much of last year, and the Final Rule is now.

> I suspect if the rules are too far-reaching, they'll be mired in litigation for years.

There'll be litigation for years in any case (whether the rules will be blocked while it proceeds is less certain.)

> Hopefully the regulations will be released to the public so we can start disseminating them today or tomorrow.

They won't be published until all the commissioners have finished their commentary (particularly, the opposing commissioners). That will almost certainly take more than a day or two.

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

#525

Post by supergeek133 »

TheHypnotist wrote: post #384
supergeek133 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember when this guy was appointed, everyone flipped out because of his history and called it a bad move. Now this happens and he's the messiah! Haha.

Teraflop just posted this above your comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8999657 So while you are right, you are muddying who you consider to be "everyone".

It's a figure of speech, and I believe it was top news on here at the time.

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

#526

Post by dragonwriter »

nsxwolf wrote: post #519
grecy wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two problems, and the FCC has solved one of them perfectly. Problem 1: ISPs trying to charge to (de)prioritize packets. Problem 2: The two biggest ISPs suck, and should be broken up, and/or it should be mandated that competition is much easier. Would you be happy if they solved problem 2 without solving problem 1? Leave problem 2 for another day, and celebrate that problem 1 has been dealt with.

Did problem 1 really need 700 distinct new regulations to be solved?

I have yet to see any basis for the "700 distinct new regulations" claim, and given the parallel claim, often from the same posters, that the Order is only on the order of 300 pages, find "700 distinct new regulations" to be highly suspicious, and suspect that if it is even loosely tied to fact, its tied to a count of the number of numbered sections, not the number of things that are in any sense distinct regulations.

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

#527

Post by novalis78 »

Karunamon wrote: post #393
novalis78 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it be: "governments are prone to being co-opted by special interests, therefore we rather allow companies to compete with each other freely in an open market and let consumers make the choice"

Competition requires a "free open market", which isn't a thing that exists, and it depends on a knowledgeable and informed consumer base, which also isn't a thing that exists, and this all depends upon there being choice in the marketplace, which as has been demonstrated ad nauseum, also isn't a thing that exists. Hence regulation.

What if the free market in telecommunication does not exist "yet" or is, due to a long history of regulation and government involvement, inhibited, we need to add another bureaucratic layer? If Google Fiber shows up in my neighborhood and Comcast did everything to upset us, would not we all switch and Comcast realize that it needs to adjust (its service, pricing, quality, speed)? I guess my difficulty lies in not understanding why this market warrants a different approach than any other market.

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

#528

Post by [deleted] »

venomsnake wrote: post #505
rayiner wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be inconvenient if my ISP was keeping 100 year old infrastructure running like my power company. Or refusing to upgrade aging lead pipes leaking poison into the drinking water like my water company. The U.S. has a multi-trillion infrastructure deficit, and regulating utilities as dumb services is a huge part of that. Legislating the wires into "dumb pipes" has certain advantages in terms of openness, but the…

No its not the reason. You could always price the service high enough to get some sane ROI. It is zero risk investment. I don't mind paying for what my service is worth. I mind giving someone else control over my digital life.

[deleted]

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

#529

Post by loqi »

Alupis wrote: post #492
loqi wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point of good argument isn't to convince the other party they are woefully wrong and everyone should just eventually come to the same conclusion. Applied to both parties in the argument, yes it is. Argument is digging for truth. The most productive outcome is for some or all of the parties involved shift their beliefs to more accurately reflect reality. Just to clarify - when you argue, are you attempting to pr…

> > Some debate for sport/fun > In the context of a serious discussion, I believe the term for this is "trolling". That's not always true. Have you never had a sporting debate with a friend who's opinion you knew full well going in? In addition, a common debate preparation tactic for "serious" debates is often to argue from the opponent's side. This forces one to better understand the opposition's stance, better prep…

> Have you never had a sporting debate with a friend who's opinion you knew full well going in?

Huh? You mean have I argued with a friend about a belief of theirs I was aware of ahead of time? Yes? If you're asking if I was disagreeing with them just for fun, while pretending to be serious, then no, because I try not to be a jerk to my friends.

I'm well aware of debate tactics and devil's advocacy, and for the most part I think they're epistemic poison. It's great to examine your own arguments for flaws, because you might actually be wrong! But the idea that you would do so merely for the sake of patching up any holes you find is revolting.

I suggest you google "arguments as soldiers" if you're not familiar with the phrase. Not for the sake of learning or gaining perspective or anything, it'll just help you understand where I'm coming from so you'll be better-equipped to take me down.

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

#530

Post by rayiner »

venomsnake wrote: post #505
rayiner wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be inconvenient if my ISP was keeping 100 year old infrastructure running like my power company. Or refusing to upgrade aging lead pipes leaking poison into the drinking water like my water company. The U.S. has a multi-trillion infrastructure deficit, and regulating utilities as dumb services is a huge part of that. Legislating the wires into "dumb pipes" has certain advantages in terms of openness, but the…

No its not the reason. You could always price the service high enough to get some sane ROI. It is zero risk investment. I don't mind paying for what my service is worth. I mind giving someone else control over my digital life.

Utilities don't set their own rates, for obvious reasons. Public rate-setting boards do, and they are beholden to municipal politics, which target the lowest-common denominator. If you tried to raise rates to upgrade the network, you'd be shouted down by people talking about old folks on fixed incomes.

What do you think is going to happen at a rate-setting meeting? For every young nerd who thinks the utility should invest in fiber, how many people like my parents will be there (who wanted to switch from FiOS to cable to get Indian channels)?

Post reply on HN