Live data from Hacker News

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

nytimes.com

111–120 of 1001 posts

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#111
post #28

This has been asked a few times but never fully answered, can someone explain why this vote in particular is a problem? I understand net neutrality and I am all for it, but there was considerable public doubt before reclassification that this was the proper way to go about it. It also doesn't seem like the internet regulatory state of pre-2015 was a disaster. Would we better off focusing our efforts on increasing com…

It's not that the state of the internet pre-2015 was a disaster but, prior to the 2015 reclassification, we were already starting to see abuses of net neutrality. When ISP's and telecoms started to block VoIP traffic because it cut into their phone services, it was unprecedented because no one had really prioritized data based on the content up until that point. Once that started happening and more companies caught on to it, it became a point of contention. While the 2015 reclassification wasn't a perfect solution, it did encapsulate the gist of the argument by saying that, like phone calls, we can't prioritize data based on content.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#112
post #91
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny, the FCC's mandate isn't to poll the public and do whatever most of them want. Strange how people seem to think it's a numbers game, at least when they feel the numbers are on their side

Why did they solicit public feedback then? And why did they misrepresent public feedback and refuse to acknowledge that most people want net neutrality? Obviously they aren't beholden to what the public wants, but the latter is clearly scummy, is it not?

It is often required to solicit feedback before a rule change. Those in charge of the rule change are not generally required to follow the feedback.

The direct feedback mechanism is voting for those who determine the composition of the rule-making bodies.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#113
post #19

If you voted for Trump, this one's on you.

Non-voters / people on the “there’s no difference” train also deserve a moment of reflection about whether their reality is true.

I did not vote, and I see that as a "vote of no-confidence."

At some point, a president will be elected with only like, 10% of the population having actually voted for them, and that'll be a crisis that forces us to overhaul some things.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#114

This is proof positive that the current FCC commission has ignored the will of the voters on this issue. Support for Net Neutrality was overwhelming and bi-partisan, yet Ajit Pai just plowed forward without consideration for what the citizens demanded. This is government at its worst.

bi-partisan? Pretty sure the vast majority of Republican candidates came out against it last November. People knew what they were voting for.

I believe he was referring to constituents, rather than politicians.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#116
Here are the salient quotes from the repeal which, I think, indicate the tech reaction to it might be overblown and might be "encouraged" by big tech players who aren't doing this for altruistic reasons. The key here is that the repeal allows the FTC to regulate things, and it's better at breaking monopolistic practices. (I'm still not sold on the argument that this will push innovation, though.)

> 500-504 The FTC’s unfair-and-deceptive-practices authority “prohibits companies from selling consumers one product or service but providing them something different,” which makes voluntary commitments enforceable. The FTC also requires the “disclos[ur]e [of] material information if not disclosing it would mislead the consumer,” so if an ISP “failed to disclose blocking, throttling, or other practices that would matter to a reasonable consumer, the FTC’s deception authority would apply.”

> 507-508 Many of the largest ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc.) have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content. These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.

> Invokes Sherman Antitrust acts

FCC also reserves the right to return to Title II classification, which AT&T tried to block in this:

> 176. We also reject AT&T’s assertion that the Commission should conditionally forbear from all Title II regulations as a preventive measure to address the contingency that a future Commission might seek to reinstate the Title II Order.647 Although AT&T explains that “conditional forbearance would provide an extra level of insurance against the contingency that a future, politically motivated Commission might try to reinstate a ‘common carrier’ classification [2015 Net Neutrality Regulations],”648 we see no need to address the complicated question of prophylactic forbearance and find such extraordinary measures [are] unnecessary.

Edit: the vote also keeps the government from classifying the internet as a public utility. I think that's a good thing because the govt could otherwise step in and "regulate" content it doesn't agree with.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#117

Comcast board meeting (RIGHT NOW): "First things first, how do we charge more for netflix streaming."

They're free to do so; companies exist to make money. Cable internet carriers probably will attempt something like this.

The next thing that will happen is, when Comcast goes too far, another provider (cable? wireless carrier? satellite broadband? something new from a startup?) disrupts the market by offering an alternative to Comcasts' egregious policies. Comcast loses subscribers and is monetarily forced to be more consumer-friendly.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#118

Europe has it's problems, but I don't regret moving to London. Not one bit. The innovation here is real and tangible, by and large unencumbered by this kind of crap.

Whenever I become angry about something here in the US and look into emigrating (mostly looking at first-world English speaking countries: CAN, UK, NZ, etc.), my research usually turns up compelling evidence that no country with any sort of socialized health care system (which is pretty much anywhere in the developed world) will accept a person with special needs children.

So I'm stuck here, for good or bad.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#119
post #85

If you voted for Trump, this one's on you.

Sorry but the two are not correlated, as much as I'd like to agree. Trump appointed Carr. Obama appointed O'Rielly and Pai. This one is on all of us. We let Congress become a swamp in the first place.

The FCC is required to be split with the Executive Office filling in the gap for the Commissioner. 2 R, 2 D, and 1 whichever party wins the Presidency.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#120
Common response on HN for the past two months has been nothing short of hyperbolic. "The world will end if NN is repealed".

Speaking as a conservative: When Obama was president, I got told the same thing about the ACA. The world will end, the sky is falling, America is finished. But eight years later, here I am, nothing's that much worse.

I have no reason to believe this is "the beginning of the end" of anything. Life will carry on as normal.

Disproportionate reactions (like HN is doing right now) is not good for anyone. Take a step back from politics. Take a deep breath. Take a walk outside. This isn't the end of the world.

Post reply on HN