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

71–80 of 202 posts

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

#71

Post by smolder »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #56
hn8305823 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

At any point, will any company say that they have sufficient funding, subsidies, etc.? ("You've given us enough, thank you!")

Plainly, I don't believe they need or deserve that money merely because they have lobbyists/bought politicians that say they do.

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

#72

Post by yoyohello13 »

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?

Relying on ISPs to not do evil is a losing strategy.

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

#73

Post by l33t7332273 »

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.

Like the other comment said, the internet is basically as interstate as a thing can get by design.

The interstate commerce clause is extremely broadly interpreted. It can, for example, be used to prevent a farmer from growing grain on their own farm to feed their own cattle that reside on that very farm(Wickard v. Filburn)

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

#74

Post by jahabrewer »

Feel pretty jaded about this after reading Ben Thompson on Title II: https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/

Sidebar: I was 1000% pro-Title II last time this came up in 2015 and went through https://www.battleforthenet.com/ , I think to email my legislators.

Fortunately, I used a tagged/aliased email address. That address has apparently gotten into the Democrats' "never lose this email" bin. I regularly get emails from politicians I absolutely never wanted to hear from, all to that email. I try to unsubscribe, but they won't let me go.

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

#75

Post by dfxm12 »

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.

Interesting as this talking about performance degradation and payments from netflix to comcast in Dec 2013-Jan 2014. Nextflix happened to raise prices of their service a few months later in Apr 2014...

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

#76

Post by bityard »

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.

In the neighborhood where I live, there are exactly two choices: Comcast or AT&T. Every time I think I have a grip of which one is more evil, I am proven wrong.

(Starlink is not an option, for a huge number of reasons that I won't get in to here. T-Mobile has an attractive-looking wireless 5G package for home Internet, but hide the fact that you're getting third-world service via CGNAT, which means it is really only useful for content consumption.)

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

#77

Post by kstrauser »

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.

It's been tested and upheld in court. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_P...:

"Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously in January 2022 that California's net neutrality law may continue to be enforced and cannot be overridden by the FCC as, current as of the decision, Internet services were classified as information services."

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

#78

Post by eganist »

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"?

> Did you catch the part about "give the FCC more authority"?

The FCC ceded authority as a way to get around having to make a damning call not to assert net neutrality under the last administration. Unless I'm misreading, this is just a return to form.

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

#79

Post by SllX »

calgarymicro wrote: post #24
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?

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...

What I’ve never understood is the argument that what California does regulating ISPs could actually affect the service plans in 49 other States.

Think about it: these are service plans offered through cables that already exist, and that cross defined borders right? But what all an ISP has to do to offer different service plans in California, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona is to merely offer different terms to different people based off the State they reside in. That’s just paperwork (and you know, delivering on the agreed upon service for the agreed upon price), not automobiles.

So I don’t really buy the argument that because California did a thing, ISPs couldn’t do all the supposed bad evil stuff they were going to immediately do once the FCC failed to “save the internet” anywhere else (although maybe other States also did the thing California did).

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

#80

Post by dfxm12 »

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 was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_California_wildfires#Veri...
Post reply on HN