Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#381

Post by nashashmi »

mgiampapa wrote: post #346
karaterobot wrote: post #29

I'm fully in support of net neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the first place. From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, there weren't major protests, news about it even largely disappeared from the front page of HN (!).…

Because California saved it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_P... If any of the companies that wanted to exploit the lack of FCC enforced net neutrality did business with California they would have had a big problem.

the neutrality rule would be applying to ISPs. Those would be local to California. Outside of California, we would see the effects of no net neutrality

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#382

Post by LastTrain »

dantheman wrote: post #334
notatoad wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? there's usually some principled people in the government, and every now an then when an issue is obscure enough they can manage to get something done without the other side caring too much. what's the impetus for blocking this?

it's not needed, the fcc doesnt have the authority, keeping the government away from internet is a good thing

In some libertarian dream the FCC lacks authority...

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#383

Post by gojomo »

kaibee wrote: post #168
gojomo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps because Democrats control half of Congress today, and the general trend of Congressional avoidance-of-clear-rulemaking has been the same even during those periods that Dems or Republicans control both chambers.

The filibuster makes this kind of 'control' moot. You need a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a majority in the House to actually get anything done (and the Presidency, to not veto). 'Control of half of Congress' when that half is the house, is meaningless.

That applies equally when each party is the filibuster-sized minority in the Senate.

And: if Senate majorities really want to pass something, they can change the filibuster rules – and have, for some topics.

Otherwise, the filibuster is maintained out of tradition, courtesy, and its usefulness as a change-of-control 'debounce' mechanism – as well as providing a convenient excuse for posturing more and doing less, as Congress is wont.

Still, in other eras, Congress was able to move compromise legislation forward. Recently, Congress has been unable to – both parties, no matter the relative control. Any belief that it's only "the other guys" is partisan myside blindness.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#384

Post by LastTrain »

callalex wrote: post #373
thisgoesnowhere wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a completely out of reach solution for most people.

If configuring a router into bridge mode is too burdensome of a step, then Comcast is actually providing that person a service by forcibly managing equipment for them at that point. If only the stalking component of it could be made illegal with proper privacy laws instead of piecemeal app bans.

What a weird way to think about it. I often wonder why I have to take those brain-dead ethics courses at work, then someone like you comes along and reminds me. Comcast can only fully take advantage of people who don't have the technical skills to not get fucked, that is what is happening.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#385

Post by advael »

karaterobot wrote: post #29

I'm fully in support of net neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the first place. From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, there weren't major protests, news about it even largely disappeared from the front page of HN (!).…

I wouldn't be surprised if your experience hadn't changed: Net neutrality rules were gutted at the same time as the internet has been largely consolidated, so major players paying for "fast lanes" and the ISPs throttling other kinds of traffic is, statistically, likely to have gone mostly unnoticed by you as an end user. If you have internet use cases beyond that which is endorsed by corporate tech, you will likely have noticed a stark difference. I've found that things like SSH tunnels have been less reliable, that there is noticeable slowdown when I find myself on a smaller website (Like those maintained by a shrinking minority of local vendors and artists who don't do everything on instagram). The most obnoxious thing about shady degradations of infrastructure in the name of profit is that these changes are often made in a way that's hard to specifically pinpoint, and by entities that make it somewhere between infuriating and futile to address any kind of complaint to.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#386

Post by pictureofabear »

mvkel wrote: post #176

The quote "markets can stay irrational for longer than you can stay solvent" comes to mind. Governments can stay irrational longer than you can stay vigilant. It's frustrating that a decision can be made at great effort in support of net neutrality, only for a new bill to easily be introduced that undermines it yet again. I guess that's a feature of democracy, not a bug. But I can imagine these battles gets harder an…

If Congress stepped in to mandate it, the flip-flopping wouldn't happen.

You said it. This is a feature of the US government. It allows prototyping of policies before codifying them.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#387

Post by barney54 »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #374
dantheman wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not needed, the fcc doesnt have the authority, keeping the government away from internet is a good thing

> keeping the government away from internet is a good thing See, I would have agreed more with this if most of our internet infrastructures were not controlled by three megacorps with more power than many small to medium sized economies in the world. As it stands, the only valid option is to fight fire with fire.

And what has happened after the Trump FCC un-wound the previous net neutrality rules? Did the internet go to hell?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#388

Post by acdha »

nashashmi wrote: post #381
mgiampapa wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because California saved it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_P... If any of the companies that wanted to exploit the lack of FCC enforced net neutrality did business with California they would have had a big problem.

the neutrality rule would be applying to ISPs. Those would be local to California. Outside of California, we would see the effects of no net neutrality

Yes, but the big ISPs would have a much harder time explaining the difference. Imagine them going into court or Congress having to explain why they needed to shakedown Netflix in NYC but not LA or explain why it suddenly became cost-prohibitive to run a network when you cross the border into Oregon or Arizona.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#389

Post by acdha »

bko wrote: post #321
Barrin92 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the last few years have proven that we don't need this legislation. Given that large states like California and New York passed independent net neutrality laws and there were continuing legal battles in almost half of all US states I don't think you can draw many conclusions. ISP behavior very likely never changed because they knew they were just one decision away from having to comply. Sort of proven by this v…

Here is something I found. Seems like "unfair" since they're favoring their videos but as a user its okay by me since I get something for free and preventing them from not counting their content doesn't mean they'll necessarily just drop their data cap. If ISPs just behave because it's always just a ruling away, then I'm fine with that status quo. I don't want unintended consequences from invasive legislation that co…

> invasive legislation that could eventually be used to control what ISPs can show us

What specific legal principle do you think would lead to this? Network neutrality is the polar opposite of that - it’s like arguing that we shouldn’t have restaurant health codes because the government could start requiring us to eat peas.

Post reply on HN