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

721–730 of 745 posts

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

#721

Post by dragonwriter »

paulhauggis wrote: post #714
dragonwriter wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everything I have said is fact: Then you should be able to provide the evidence supporting the claims. Lets start with this one: > There are 700 regulations Really? Where is the evidence for this "fact". > which absolutely have not been seen by the American public before being passed into law. They are adopted as regulation (under the law, not as law) and will be published before they become effective, and may be c…

"Really? Where is the evidence for this "fact"." Okay. Now you aren't even admitting that there are regulations. Wow. Just Wow. "They are adopted as regulation (under the law, not as law) and will be published before they become effective, and may be changed (e.g., by legislative action) if the American people are sufficiently unhappy with them to compel their Congressional representatives to act." Have fun with that…

> Now you aren't even admitting that there are regulations.

No, I'm asking for support for your claim that there are 700 new regulations. That the as-yet unpublished order contains regulations is a different claim than that it contains 700 new regulations.

> I don't want to hear one person coming on HN complaining about worse conditions after these new laws are passed.

What new laws?

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

#722

Post by vcarl »

webXL wrote: post #717
vcarl wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think an apt analogy would be if GFS[0] opened a chain of restaurants and started restricting deliveries to other restaurants, unless those restaurants paid an extra fee that the GFS restaurants weren't subject to. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Food_Service

Again, they could only do that if they had monopolistic control of the market. That would be a symptom of problem 2.

True, but the regional monopolies are pretty solid. Net neutrality doesn't fix the root problem, but it makes it harder for ISPs to flex their muscles.

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

#723

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #474
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…

> Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign HN users need to stop accusing their opponents in arguments of being astroturfers. Astroturfing may or may not exist, but sincere disagreement is common. It degrades the discourse badly when sincere disagreers are accused of being shills. It's not that astroturfing isn't a problem. It's that the collateral damage of firing off such accusations indiscrimina…

[deleted]

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

#724

Post by nbardy »

oceanstone wrote: post #496
bobbles wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The headline could say that world hunger was cured but the top comment on HN would still be something like "yes, but X people are still dying in car crashes every year"

There does seem to be a bias towards overly worded critical comments.

It is a problem, but I also enjoy the fact that I can rely on HN for to reason about why things aren't as great as they seem. It's important to know what stills needs fixing and I'd much rather digest it in a matter of fact HN comment than the common world is ending tone many other tend to take towards the US government.

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

#725

Post by unprepare »

protomyth wrote: post #383
unprepare wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't this be more because politicians appoint people to the FCC? Thus an entrenched politician would appoint (or recommend) a corporate-vetted candidate. The advantage (and again i'm not claiming this to be the reality) would be that that the new FCC employee doesnt need to rely on the corporation to continue working at the FCC, Once they have left the corporation, why would they seek to push pro-corporate regula…

"I only meant that there is a logical reason why having non-elected persons creating regulations can be advantageous" We elect people to do that. Perhaps if they were forced to do the actual rule making we would not get 1,000 page bills with all of the rule making to be done later[1]. Perhaps they would pass less bills that need regulation if they had to put them in the bill. The staffers at various agencies are doin…

I definitely agree that the 'revolving door' between lobbyists and regulatory positions needs to end.

But i disagree that pushing regulation onto elected officials would be better.

My point is that non-elected officials are shielded from many aspects that lead to corruption in elected officials. Namely having to re-up on funding every couple years. Non-elected officials do not have to raise money to keep their position.

Is there still corruption with non elected officials? yes I am not saying otherwise nor am i satisfied with the current state of things. But to say that the solution to that corruption is to place the power into the hands of an already corrupt congress seems backwards to me.

Also, I totally agree with you on the language and length of bills. I would go further to say that the congress people should be the ones AUTHORING the bills, let alone reading them. Nothing smells like corruption more than a corporation drafting a bill to regulate themselves and stamping a congress person's name on it.

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

#726

Post by protomyth »

unprepare wrote: post #725
protomyth wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I only meant that there is a logical reason why having non-elected persons creating regulations can be advantageous" We elect people to do that. Perhaps if they were forced to do the actual rule making we would not get 1,000 page bills with all of the rule making to be done later[1]. Perhaps they would pass less bills that need regulation if they had to put them in the bill. The staffers at various agencies are doin…

I definitely agree that the 'revolving door' between lobbyists and regulatory positions needs to end. But i disagree that pushing regulation onto elected officials would be better. My point is that non-elected officials are shielded from many aspects that lead to corruption in elected officials. Namely having to re-up on funding every couple years. Non-elected officials do not have to raise money to keep their positi…

"My point is that non-elected officials are shielded from many aspects that lead to corruption in elected officials"

My point is that the non-elected officials are not shielded and have a different corruption path going. In a lot of ways, a rich elected official is probably better insulated than a high level bureaucrat.

We elect people to make the laws. Regulations are the laws and they should be the responsibility of the people we elect. I cannot vote out of office a bureaucrat. If you believe your congress person is corrupt then vote them out. This whole rule-making process is a corruption of the system.

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

#727

Post by dragonwriter »

protomyth wrote: post #726
unprepare wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely agree that the 'revolving door' between lobbyists and regulatory positions needs to end. But i disagree that pushing regulation onto elected officials would be better. My point is that non-elected officials are shielded from many aspects that lead to corruption in elected officials. Namely having to re-up on funding every couple years. Non-elected officials do not have to raise money to keep their positi…

"My point is that non-elected officials are shielded from many aspects that lead to corruption in elected officials" My point is that the non-elected officials are not shielded and have a different corruption path going. In a lot of ways, a rich elected official is probably better insulated than a high level bureaucrat. We elect people to make the laws. Regulations are the laws and they should be the responsibility o…

Regulations are not the laws, they are applications of the laws, and they are made by processes laid out in the law, by persons empowered to make them under the law, and their substance is constrained by the law.

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

#728

Post by protomyth »

dragonwriter wrote: post #727
protomyth wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"My point is that non-elected officials are shielded from many aspects that lead to corruption in elected officials" My point is that the non-elected officials are not shielded and have a different corruption path going. In a lot of ways, a rich elected official is probably better insulated than a high level bureaucrat. We elect people to make the laws. Regulations are the laws and they should be the responsibility o…

Regulations are not the laws, they are applications of the laws, and they are made by processes laid out in the law, by persons empowered to make them under the law, and their substance is constrained by the law.

Regulations are the law. The thought they are separate is some technicality of the modern world. People get fined and go to jail over them.

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

#729

Post by [deleted] »

protomyth wrote: post #728
dragonwriter wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulations are not the laws, they are applications of the laws, and they are made by processes laid out in the law, by persons empowered to make them under the law, and their substance is constrained by the law.

Regulations are the law. The thought they are separate is some technicality of the modern world. People get fined and go to jail over them.

[deleted]

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

#730

Post by breischl »

spiralpolitik wrote: post #470
verbin217 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... it sounds like we need to do the exact same thing again. But you're advocating the opposite. Why?

Separate infrastructure and service. Require companies to sell access to the infrastructure a wholesale price to anybody who wants in. This way it allows for new entrants to the market who can find different ways of packaging the wholesale price at lower cost to the consumer without requiring them to build infrastructure. (The service part of the infrastructure company pays the same wholesale price as everybody else…

This is exactly what the Baby Bells are required to do with their lines. This is why you sometimes see small regional DSL providers - they're leasing the lines from the Baby Bell and reselling them.

That might also be why the two companies doing really shady net neutrality stuff are both cable providers rather than DSL providers - the DSL providers wouldn't be able to get away with it.

Post reply on HN