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

61–70 of 202 posts

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

#61

Post by connicpu »

foota wrote: post #53
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.

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.

Whether they do or do not have the authority isn't something that can be answered by anything but speculation until it's been tested in court, and I don't think any of the ISPs had enough to gain through packet prioritization that it was worth the risk of going to court.

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

#62

Post by ezfe »

welder wrote: post #50
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?

Net Neutrality Violations: A Brief History https://www.freepress.net/blog/net-neutrality-violations-bri... Ask HN: Internet magically gets faster when opening speedtest? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31062799 T-Mobile begins blocking iPhone users from enabling iCloud Private Relay in US https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29880073

The T-Mobile thing was eventually deduced to be:

>T-Mobile’s situation is a little more complex: most customers shouldn’t have any issues with iCloud Private Relay. But those who use content filtering services (like the carrier’s Family Controls) won’t be able to use iCloud Private Relay, the carrier tells us.

Which is reasonable, since a content filtering service is incompatible with a VPN

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

#63

Post by smolder »

edmundsauto wrote: post #21
falcolas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How do they lie on speed tests? I thought that measured actual data throughput.

Your ISP controls the flow of traffic to many different networks. Speedtest is always on a fast connection to give you the big number. Meanwhile they may aggressively throttle traffic to 80% of the other networks. Fast.com is a better speed test that is more (but not wholly) representative of your bandwidth to the internet at large.

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

#64

Post by Facemelters »

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.

The internet pretty squarely falls under the Commerce Clause

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

#65

Post by downWidOutaFite »

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?

I think Tier 1 ISP Hurricane Electric blocking traffic to Kiwi Farms because they don't like the content would qualify: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/isps-should-not-police...

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

#67

Post by kstrauser »

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.

The FCC declared that it didn't have authority to regulate net neutrality. When they did, California declared that if it's not in-scope for the FCC, then there's no federal-state conflict in California regulating it themselves.

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

#68

Post by kstrauser »

talent_deprived wrote: post #41
a2tech wrote: post #3

Fantastic is all I can say.

> the reclassification will give the FCC more authority to protect national security on broadband networks. It's good? Did you catch the part about "give the FCC more authority"?

I caught that. Yes, that's a good thing.

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

#69

Post by wddkcs »

connicpu wrote: post #61
foota wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whether they do or do not have the authority isn't something that can be answered by anything but speculation until it's been tested in court, and I don't think any of the ISPs had enough to gain through packet prioritization that it was worth the risk of going to court.

Funny if the benefit was that negligible when it seems like they fought for it so hard originally.

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

#70

Post by aldousd666 »

behringer wrote: post #45
subtra3t wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iirc they also limited data speed on netflix and other ott platforms, no?

yes as I understand it netflix is or has sent some ISPs "protection" money, specifically Comcast. https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-t... If you value the internet at large, never get your service from Comcast.

Tell PA to stop granting them a local monopoly in my area then. I'll gladly switch when I have an alternative that works. I have nothing here in rural western PA except comcast and they have just been jacking the cost up year after year and sucking more and more.
Post reply on HN