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

FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 202 posts

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#51

Post by ThrowawayIP »

falcolas wrote: post #18
pyuser583 wrote: post #11

Did any of the bad effects of not having net neutrality actually occur when it was gone? Did ISPs throttle competition? I haven’t seen any reports of this happening. I haven’t seen any studies showing this happening systematically. I’m woefully uninformed, so I really would like to hear more about this. What has been happening these past few years?

There have been many reports of ISPs overwriting ads and adding content to non-https content. Also bundled content on mobile providers not counting against caps, etc. Many also lie on speedtests, though I don't know if that counts.

My ISP absolutely was replacing ads with "Locally relevant content." I've got that email somewhere buried in my inbox.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#52

Post by ImJamal »

l33t7332273 wrote: post #32
calgarymicro wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth noting that California's net neutrality law[0] probably stymied most efforts by ISPs to start prioritizing traffic nationwide. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_P...

I thought the internet was purely a federal law domain. It looks like this law was challenged on those grounds, but the challenge lasted until after Biden was elected and the suit dropped.

Why would you think it was a federal law domain? The federal government is technically only allowed to do what is granted in the Constitution. The 10th amendment says anything else is left to the states. Last I checked nothing in the constitution mentioned the internet. Not that the federal government lets that stand in their way.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#53

Post by foota »

bojo wrote: post #44
l33t7332273 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the internet was purely a federal law domain. It looks like this law was challenged on those grounds, but the challenge lasted until after Biden was elected and the suit dropped.

I think the point is that California, a sizable and notable state, implemented a law that affects everyone regardless of federal law.

Parent is saying that California may not have the legal authority to regulate the internet in that way, since some powers are given only to the federal government.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#54

Post by RHSeeger »

pyuser583 wrote: post #11

Did any of the bad effects of not having net neutrality actually occur when it was gone? Did ISPs throttle competition? I haven’t seen any reports of this happening. I haven’t seen any studies showing this happening systematically. I’m woefully uninformed, so I really would like to hear more about this. What has been happening these past few years?

My phone plan (Verizon, common plan) limits the resolution of videos I can watch on my phone.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#55

Post by criddell »

snarfy wrote: post #48
l33t7332273 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think bundling other paid services counts. It’s only if the ISP treats the traffic to/from those paid services differently that you run afoul of net neutrality.

But they do. Typically the bundled video services like Netflix or Apple don't count against your bandwidth usage.

TMobile gives me free Netflix, but I use it on my television which uses my home internet. So even if they zero-rated that service, in my case it's irrelevant.

Plus I think I have an unlimited* plan, so zero-rating something doesn't have much impact.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#56

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

hn8305823 wrote: post #37
98codes wrote: post #8

> Title II regulation isn't just about net neutrality, Rosenworcel said, arguing that the reclassification will give the FCC more authority to protect national security on broadband networks. "When we stripped state-affiliated companies from China of their authority to operate in the United States, that action did not extend to broadband services, thanks to the retreat from Title II. This is a national security looph…

There was at least one major (non-residential) ISP that used Huawei routers in a lot of places. Due to the previous law/rulings they were required to replace all of them with non-prohibited vendors. The quoted segment sounds like they want to extend that to residential ISP's which makes sense to me. Using network hardware from an adversary nation is very risky. Especially when it's China which has an extensive record…

> There was at least one major (non-residential) ISP that used Huawei routers in a lot of places. Due to the previous law/rulings they were required to replace all of them with non-prohibited vendors.

That ISP not be fulfilling that requirement due to insufficient funding.

https://www.lightreading.com/regulatory-politics/-rip-and-re...

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#57

Post by darknavi »

RHSeeger wrote: post #54
pyuser583 wrote: post #11

Did any of the bad effects of not having net neutrality actually occur when it was gone? Did ISPs throttle competition? I haven’t seen any reports of this happening. I haven’t seen any studies showing this happening systematically. I’m woefully uninformed, so I really would like to hear more about this. What has been happening these past few years?

My phone plan (Verizon, common plan) limits the resolution of videos I can watch on my phone.

Ignorant here, do these FCC rules only apply to residential ISPs or do they also apply to cellular networks?

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#59

Post by connicpu »

ilyt wrote: post #46
bojo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that California, a sizable and notable state, implemented a law that affects everyone regardless of federal law.

Also see emission standards.

Exactly. Even if their laws only technically apply within California, no car maker is going to build a car that cannot be legally sold in the single largest market in the US. It gets even more difficult with the internet as there are few internet providers who don't have at least some kind of connection to California and therefore fall under its jurisdiction, and ensuring you only apply prioritization to packets that don't involve California is extremely tough.

Re: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

#60

Post by tracedddd »

ImJamal wrote: post #52
l33t7332273 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the internet was purely a federal law domain. It looks like this law was challenged on those grounds, but the challenge lasted until after Biden was elected and the suit dropped.

Why would you think it was a federal law domain? The federal government is technically only allowed to do what is granted in the Constitution. The 10th amendment says anything else is left to the states. Last I checked nothing in the constitution mentioned the internet. Not that the federal government lets that stand in their way.

I don’t know the specifics of federal authority when it comes to internet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it fell under interstate commerce, which is how they justify federal drug laws.
Post reply on HN