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

121–130 of 745 posts

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

#121

Post by ForHackernews »

travie7273 wrote: post #62
ForHackernews wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I don't blame him. We have a GOP-controlled Congress, so testifying would just be an hours-long exercise in getting yelled at by old people who don't understand technology or believe in science, but love an opportunity for political grandstanding against an Obama-appointee.

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.

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

#122

Post by badsock »

travie7273 wrote: post #91
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…

Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. IBM, Intel, and Cisco are against it. My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations. It's odd that people like you can't fathom that there are two sides to this issue.

Intel, Cisco, and IBM all sell deep packet inspection products. They have a material interest in not seeing NN go through.

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

#123

Post by unprepare »

protomyth wrote: post #51
unprepare wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree On one hand- the FCC is non-elected and thus the people have less control of them On the other hand, this also means they don't need to seek funding for running a campaign which theoretically could insulate them from what we see with our elected officials currently pandering to business interests. Time will tell with this decision i suppose, whats important from my perspective is that change happens quickly i…

"this also means they don't need to seek funding for running a campaign which theoretically could insulate them from what we see with our elected officials currently pandering to business interests" Check the employment history of FCC folks after their term. It is very much like other staff members in various regulatory bodies in DC, they get high paying jobs in the industry for their work.

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 regulations?

Of course this is all muddled when you see that these people then go BACK to the corporation after their time in the FCC, which leads to well grounded suspicions.

Its really a complicated mess; I only meant that there is a logical reason why having non-elected persons creating regulations can be advantageous

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

#124

Post by travie7273 »

copsarebastards wrote: post #111
travie7273 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. IBM, Intel, and Cisco are against it. My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations. It's odd that people like you can't fathom that there are two sides to this issue.

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?

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

#125

Post by FireBeyond »

jes wrote: post #87
ForHackernews wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I don't blame him. We have a GOP-controlled Congress, so testifying would just be an hours-long exercise in getting yelled at by old people who don't understand technology or believe in science, but love an opportunity for political grandstanding against an Obama-appointee.

Your comment would have been better, in my view, without the ad-hominem attack on older people. Especially if you wish to advocate for a pro-science, reason and evidence approach to argumentation.

He wasn't attacking old people per se, but describing a group. The mean age of Congress is 57 across the board, but the mean age of the Republicans in control of Congress is 63.8.

It's probably a fair assessment to say that most people of that age are going to be on the back side of the bell curve in understanding issues of technology, and it's fairly verifiable through their words and actions that the Republicans in Congress are the most vehemently anti-science, perhaps in our history.

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

#126

Post by ForHackernews »

covzzire wrote: post #108
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…

Nobody is against NN. Nobody wants the internet to be less free. The problem here is that the FCC is detonating a nuclear bomb to try to put out a house fire. It's completely unnecessary and will do more harm than good.

> Nobody is against NN. Nobody wants the internet to be less free.

Yes, absolutely the telecom companies are against net neutrality, because they want to be able to charge a premium for some sites, and give preferential routing to some kinds of traffic.

Also, I just want to highlight that there are lot of brand-new accounts on this thread posting cable-company talking points.

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

#127

Post by copsarebastards »

mudil wrote: post #109
travie7273 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. IBM, Intel, and Cisco are against it. My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations. It's odd that people like you can't fathom that there are two sides to this issue.

Precisely. Also, now as a utility, internet can be regulated for content, be it decency standards or political speech. Maybe not now, not next year, but what about in 5-10 years? Content is content, all bits are equal, all bits are over the same utilities. And internet as a utility is now regulated.

> Also, now as a utility, internet can be regulated for content, be it decency standards or political speech.

To be frank, this isn't something I particularly fear. You're referencing TV regulation, but the main limiters on TV content are corporations owning the airwaves and people's fear of sex. The internet is not limited in space the way frequency bands are, and good luck trying to enforce pornography laws. Pornography laws are a limitation I worry about a bit, but so far I don't see any evidence that anyone is pushing for using utility regulation to limit pornography, and we can cross that bridge when (if?) we come to it.

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

#128

Post by ForHackernews »

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…

Agreed. This thread is super strange and contrary to what I would have assumed the natural HN biases to be.

Edit: http://www.vice.com/read/cables-companies-are-astroturfing-f...

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

#129

Post by unprepare »

dragonwriter wrote: post #86
unprepare wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grass is always greener. Seriously though, I think there was a lot of hype built up around net neutrality(for good reason) and it ended up clouding the discussion. Quickly it became a dichotomy, you must be either for Title II and whatever the FCC decides that entails, or you must be against any change to the status quo. Now that we are passed that dichotomy, we are faced with the reality that we have little cont…

> but someone rather late in the process pointed out to me that the FCC loves to censor things like television I think you mistake "is mandated by Congress" for "loves".

Abosulutely, you are correct - I really meant that they historically have done so, i wasn't really trying to get at their motivations.

Congress has mandated the censorship of TV and radio broadcasts, it was not purely invented by the FCC - sorry for any miscommunications.

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

#130

Post by warfangle »

strictnein wrote: post #20
hgsigala wrote: post #17

This is great news. Over a years worth of fighting on this one.

So you've read all the new regulations? Which one is the best?

These are not the rules the FCC has adopted; these are sections of Title II that could be applied to ISPs if classified as Title II Common Carriers. Keep in mind that DSL was considered Title II until it was reclassified in 2005. It's not like broadband was never regulated under Title II. It used to be, we tried things without it and things went to shit, so we're trying it again.

I like this one:

47 U.S.C. Section 202

(a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

This one is pretty good, too:

47 U.S.C. Section 208

(a) Any person, any body politic or municipal organization, or State commission, complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier subject to this Act, in contravention of the provisions thereof, may apply to said Commission by petition which shall briefly state the facts, whereupon a statement of the complaint thus made shall be forwarded by the Commission to such common carrier, who shall be called upon to satisfy the complaint or to answer the same in writing within a reasonable time to be specified by the Commission. If such common carrier within the time specified shall make reparation for the injury alleged to have been caused, the common carrier shall be relieved of liability to the complainant only for the particular violation of law thus complained of. If such carrier or carriers shall not satisfy the complaint within the time specified or there shall appear to be any reasonable ground for investigating said complaint, it shall be the duty of the Commission to investigate the matters complained of in such manner and by such means as it shall deem proper. No complaint shall at any time be dismissed because of the absence of direct damage to the complainant.

This one is pretty great:

47 U.S.C. Section 251

(a) GENERAL DUTY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS.--Each telecommunications carrier has the duty-- (1) to interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications carriers; and (2) not to install network features, functions, or capabilities that do not comply with the guidelines and standards established pursuant to section 255 or 256.

255 is with regard to the use of telephones by those with disabilities, so it will very likely undergo forbearance.

256 is fairly long, so I won't reproduce it here. The title is pretty important though: "Coordination for interconnectivity." The full text is available here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/256

Post reply on HN