
FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote - LukeB_UK
http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/26/fcc-passes-strict-net-neutrality-regulations-on-3-2-vote/
======
xnull2guest
Unfortunately the Net Neutrality 'debate' was another lose-lose situation for
the United States. What we wanted wasn't for the big telecom duopoly to be
forced to either run their business as a tiered service or as a regulated
utility. What we wanted was for the US Government to exercise its Anti-Trust
capabilities and bust the universally hated Comcast and Time Warner into a
bunch of small companies, and set "Goldilocks" regulation so that it's easy
for small and new ISPs to compete on both price and service. Additional laws
preventing corporations from discriminating by content, protocol, or customer
may also have been nice, but would have been that extra nice something.

Are Comcast and Time Warner going to be somehow less shitty now? Are they
going to monitor our communications less? Are they going to provide better
prices and better customer service? Are they going to cease fraudulently
charging customers? No.

Of the two options the FCC chose the better one. But it's America's fatal flaw
that all problems have two political solutions, neither of which address real
issues or people's needs.

~~~
grecy
There are two problems, and the FCC has solved one of them perfectly.

Problem 1: ISPs trying to charge to (de)prioritize packets.

Problem 2: The two biggest ISPs suck, and should be broken up, and/or it
should be mandated that competition is much easier.

Would you be happy if they solved problem 2 without solving problem 1?

Leave problem 2 for another day, and celebrate that problem 1 has been dealt
with.

~~~
chaostheory
Wouldn't drastically increased competition solve problem one over time?

~~~
tlb
Quite possibly the opposite: new entrants wouldn't try to compete on general-
purpose internet service but would deploy a service that's cheap because it's
sponsored by large content providers, and those content providers would get
preferential treatment.

~~~
smokinjoe
Oh wow, that's a great point. I've always tried to compromise with opponents
by agreeing that increased competition _should_ alleviate many of my fears but
now that you've mentioned it - I could absolutely see a HULU.net come in,
sponsored by various content creators.

------
ebbv
There's a lot of echoing of telco FUD in here. Let's get some things straight:

\- The FCC is unelected, but so is the EPA, FBI, CIA, DOD, DOJ, etc. We can't
elect everybody who works in government. That wouldn't work.

\- This does not mean the FCC is uncontrollable or unanswerable for what it
does. It answers to both the executive and legislative branches of government,
and of course anything it does can be subject to the courts as well. So it is
checked by all three branches of government.

\- With all the shenanigans and expensive lawyers the telcos have at their
disposal, it shouldn't surprise you that 700 regulations were involved in
this. What do you think, a one page paper that says "The Internet is Neutral.
Don't throttle traffic on it." is enough? Of course it's not. Comcast has you
sign a user agreement that's dozens of pages long just to use their service.

\- Regulations are not usually published before they are done. There would be
little point because they are constantly changing. I can see the transparency
argument that it would be nice to see the proposed regulations being worked on
in "real time", but in progress documents like this have a lot of things added
and taken out constantly. Something that's not going to stay in could be cited
while it's being worked on by pundits to try to sway public opinion against
it. There's a balancing act between transparency and muddying the waters.

\- The regulations will be published. If there is something awful in there it
can be dealt with. This isn't the only thing that will ever happen. Laws get
repealed and changed all the time.

\- This is a good thing for anyone who isn't on the board of a telco.

~~~
supergeek133
I think many of us here call it a generally good move, we just wanted to see
everything that was proposed before it was passed. Not that we could do
anything about it.

~~~
ebbv
We'll see it all soon (as in the next couple weeks) and if there's something
awful in there we can start calling for revision.

~~~
cubano
Nothing is going to happen in the next couple of weeks.

There are going to be lawsuits galore that will hold up any significant
changes to internet services for years.

~~~
ebbv
What? The regulations will certainly be released in the next couple weeks.
Yes, that's also when the lawsuits will start. But I was talking about the
regulations being released (since that's what the comment I was replying to
was talking about.)

Feel free to take your terrible attitude elsewhere.

~~~
cubano
You ad hominem attack aside, whatever wording may or may not be in the
regulations will not matter near as much as how things will actually be
implemented, and how these implemented changes will affect us all here on the
web.

For example, there are 1000's of crazy laws on the books here in the US.
Plenty of websites document "laws" like "it's a misdemeanor to walk your dog
on Sunday within 100 feet of a church"

Since no police actually enforce these type of laws, the wording in the statue
goes unnoticed...no one cares.

But if they did, all hell would break loose and the current local officials
would probably quickly change them.

That is the gist of the direction I was trying to take.

~~~
ebbv
I repeat your attitude sucks. That's not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem
attack is an attack directed at your person, I'm attacking the nature and
premise of your comments; they come from a place of useless negativity.

Your attitude is basically "This means nothing because only the implementation
and enforcement means anything." Which is just absurd.

Of course the implementation and enforcement matter, but the regulations
matter as well.

~~~
cubano
Yes, but of course, my attitude is a part of my "person".

Perhaps it is you who should lighten up a bit, my friend.

~~~
Karunamon
"Your attitude sucks" is not an ad hominem argument, "Your argument is
incorrect because your attitude sucks" is.

The first is an observation and has no bearing on the facts.

------
Frondo
I'm in the camp that the astroturf is running high right now; but moreover,
the claim that "we haven't seen it!!" is also, I think, meaningless and
irrelevant.

I keep thinking about that Richelieu quote, "If you give me six lines written
by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which
will hang him."

My suspicion is, the people clamoring about not seeing the regulations, given
a chance to see them, would _still_ find something to object to, because, like
a lot of other people here suspect, the point isn't a rational objection, the
point is to collect a paycheck by faking widespread grassroots outrage.

~~~
kijin
Trying to discredit a good-enough proposal by yelling "But it's not perfect!"
is typical of modern politics. And the tactic is terrifyingly effective.

We in the hacker community should know better than anyone else that iteration,
not a once-and-for-all solution, is the key to ultimate success.
Unfortunately, it is difficult even for well-educated people to throw off the
influence of the dominant political rhetoric. The fact that our political
systems are designed to make iteration difficult doesn't help, either.

But the U.S. government ain't going anywhere for the foreseeable future, and
neither is Comcast. Today's announcement is little more than an MVP. There'll
be plenty of opportunity for iterative --and sometimes even revolutionary --
improvement in the years and decades to come.

~~~
Frondo
There's even a saying that gets at what you're going for:

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Is this the perfect government regulation? Probably not. Better than the old
way? Oh yes.

Same thing for Obamacare. Perfect way to give health care to a nation?
Definitely not. Better than it was before? As someone who was ineligible for
health insurance due to a surgery I'd had in my 20s, oh yes.

(On a side note, and as a general rule, I look to see: are big, entrenched,
unpopular companies fighting a regulation? If they are, that's a sign that
it's probably a regulation that's good for consumers, probably one I'd
support.)

------
keslag
Okay, as a Canadian with no dog in this fight, this seems to be a good thing
for America. So I'm having a very hard time understanding the opposition.

The arguments for title II are pretty clear and logical. The arguments against
include giving up personal freedoms (You live in America, you've been giving
up most of your personal freedoms willing for the pack two decades) and this
isn't one of them. There are some comments about the extra rules that no one
has seen, but this is standard FCC practice. Lawsuits will bear this out. Then
there are a lot of illogical arguments that don't hold up. Does anyone have a
clear argument against this. My argument would be that there is no last mile
access, so competition won't increase, so this is at best a half measure until
we get either some disruption in the space, or they finally open up that last
mile.

So what are the actual logical, non-fearmongering arguments?

~~~
grecy
It's pretty common for Americans to argue against things that are actually
good for them. The dis-information campaigns funded by billions in
contributions are very good at convincing people universal healthcare, etc.
would actually be bad.

Of course, every other developed country knows the truth.

~~~
mortehu
> It's pretty common for Americans to argue against things that are actually
> good for them. The dis-information campaigns funded by billions in
> contributions are very good at convincing people universal healthcare, etc.
> would actually be bad.

It doesn't have to be disinformation. For example, some may think that
principles are more important than results. This could mean you care more
about how infrastructure and healthcare is funded than the actual cost.

I've also seen people claim that others oppose universal healthcare because it
would disproportionately benefit some ethnic groups they don't like.

------
shmerl
Congratulations, but it's far from enough to improve things. It will just
prevent some abuse. Now, as a next step they should pass unbundling of the
last mile.

~~~
malchow
Shmerl, love to learn more about what you mean by this. Do you mean a rule
that a network could not sell to consumers both TV and internet access and
phone?

~~~
shmerl
No, that competitors should be allowed to use the last mile to provide
service. See:

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_local_exchange_car...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_local_exchange_carrier)

~~~
hawkice
A rural Washington state regulatory and infrastructure organization, KPUD, is
attempting to encourage access to the fiber they've added to the Kitsap county
area. They have implemented this rule in a fairly watered down sense. The
result is that, years after the large federal government grant to help high
speed rural internet access, and almost two years after construction has been
completed, no one in Kitsap county has access to fiber internet.

I have spoken to entrepreneurs and investors, and the reason they refuse to
get involved is, without exclusive access to the last mile infrastructure,
they would be spending thousands of dollars per building and be immediately
replaced by anyone who could bankroll loss-leading services the longest
(notably Comcast, who is setting up Fiber in Seattle).

This issue may be politicized, but I've run the unit economics with these
people. The people of Kitsap county will simply not have fiber internet until
this rule is removed.

~~~
shmerl
And other people will never have fiber Internet, lower prices and higher
bandwidth because current monopolist in their area doesn't care to do any of
the above. So how do you propose to fix that? Unbundling is the only way. Not
sure about Kitsap, but unbundling worked well in Europe. How weren't they
scared there of the same thing?

~~~
hawkice
A lot of the difference in economics between Europe and rural Washington state
has to do with the extremely high fixed cost of "last mile" internet
connection in rural areas, which are, for a number of reasons, substantially
more prohibitive in America. Trying to pay off $9000 in fixed costs with
$30/mo internet simply isn't going to happen if a competitor can swoop in and
offer the same service for $20/mo with no investment in infrastructure. If the
cost is lower, due to having either higher population density or more
available infrastructure to scaffold off of, this becomes a less-insane
business prospect.

But I'm somewhat confused by your initial sentiment. At least four small,
local ISPs have investigated installing last mile connectivity to the fiber,
and all declined. The status quo (largely a single provider per household) has
little to do with this.

Are you saying we need unbundling because otherwise we won't have both fiber
internet and low prices? Without the rules regarding ISPs being unable to have
ownership over infrastructure they pay 100% of the costs for, fiber could be
provided profitably for less than $90/mo. to many portions of Kitsap county.

Additionally: There are some households in Kitsap that have never had internet
access at all -- surely blaming "the monopoly" is nonsense for those
customers, and yet they too are hurt by this local policy.

EDIT: I anticipate this being non-productive. Suffice it to say, I'm not
trying to say "Unbundling is not the best policy." I'm saying, while we
consider this policy, let us understand that it is not a pure, unalloyed good
in all situations for all people. Policy decisions should not seem one-sided.

~~~
shmerl
_> Are you saying we need unbundling because otherwise we won't have both
fiber internet and low prices?_

I guess it can differ in scenarios when there is no infrastructure in place
yet, and when it's already there.

For instance when infrastructure is in place and there is one monopolist
owning it (it can be already fiber, or coaxial cable for example) charging
high prices for mediocre bandwidth while having an ability to provide way more
bandwidth for lower price, unbundling can fix it. But if there is nothing
there, it's of course different. May be unbundling rules can be applied based
on that difference.

There sure should be some incentive to build up the network, but it has to be
balanced with restricting the natural monopoly which develops when that
network is built.

------
billions
Unpopular opinion below - downvote constructively!

Last mile deregulation was the only thing that was needed. 10s of last mile
providers would have battled for that $50/month. Comcast would be irrelevant
in 10 years. Tom Wheeler knew this and this was what he fought to keep. In the
mounting public pressure, this was the compromise.

~~~
elchief
100% of what I've read online about the net neutrality debate was disallowing
differential charges, but now it's magically about the last mile?

~~~
forgottenpass
It is completely outside the avenue the FCC perused on this fight. However, it
has not gone undiscussed over the years. It's just had lower traction at a
policy level and taken a backseat to conversations on the more-likely
scenarios. I'm not surprised if people comment they would have preferred that
approach.

------
QuantumRoar
Congratulations to all the people who've put so much effort into this. It's a
good day for the internet. I hope some day something like this will happen in
Germany as well.

~~~
72deluxe
Out of interest, what is the situation like in Germany with regard to the
networks?

~~~
QuantumRoar
Mostly depressing. Basically the Telcos are acting in the same way as the ones
in the USA. But we didn't have such an uproar from the people without which, I
assume, the new NN rules couldn't be established in the USA.

Politicians are influenced mostly from the telcos and seem to follow their
line of argument. We do have some services that would violate net neutrality
rules, like the circumvention of data caps sold by Deutsche Telekom (totally
different from T-Mobile US) for users of Spotify.

In addition there doesn't seem to be much hope for the internet's
infrastructur. Germany has one of the world's worst FTTH market penetration.
It's literally non-existent. Telcos try to use the old copper lines and cable
to avoid investing and they seem quite succesful in convincing the government
that fibre optics is not necessary.

The last frustration came from a government agenda a few months ago. It states
that until 2018 everyone should have 50MBit/s. But it doesn't state by which
means or whether this applies to the downlink or peak speed or whatever. Many
people fear that the telcos will meet the goal by simply putting up some LTE
towers with data caps and "theoretical peak transfer rate" of 50Mbit/s.

The agenda's goal would be met, since it's formulated so vaguely. However, we
are just postponing the necessary FTTH build-out, while the big telcos make
stupidly high profits from infrastructure that has amortized decades ago.

There's also the issue with peering. Up until recently Deutsche Telekom was
basically non-existent at the DE-CIX (Germany's largest Internet Exchange).
Now they have a little band-width there. However, as Deutsche Telekom was once
a state-owned company (still partially state-owned) and owns basically all
copper infrastructur (ISPs can rent the last-mile), they are on a high horse
and expect everyone to pay for peering, similar to Comcast.

So yeah, up until recently, Germany and the USA could have a shittiness
contest when it comes to the inet. Now, the winner is more clear.

~~~
_mulder_
"the circumvention of data caps sold by Deutsche Telekom (totally different
from T-Mobile US) for users of Spotify."

This is not net neutrality, it is just Deutsche Telekom bundling a product
with their subscriptions. It only becomes a net-neutrality problem if DT begin
to prioritise Spotify traffic over other traffic (ie; let's allow Spotify
traffic, but throttle iTunes).

~~~
QuantumRoar
Considering that you can't really use music streaming with the usual caps here
(200MB, 500MB, 1GB, 3GB), it makes it impossible to compete with Spotify,
unless you also pay DT.

Therefore, in the context of mobile, all other music streaming services are
essentially throttled when compared to "exclusive partners of DT."

------
malchow
I would be curious to get emails from network ops people who really think
today's move was not a good idea, but who do support the traditional, open,
handshake peering internet. (I am asking because I am advising a very senior
policymaker in Washington.)

ji -at- malchow -dot com-

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

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

~~~
product50
Stop being so cynical. Not sure what is up with this community. When FCC was
reluctant to do anything on net neutrality everyone here was up in arms. Now
that FCC has passed something, you are still up in arms. So much cynicism -
for all you know most of the regulations passed might be pro-consumer. At
least I would like to believe that it is better than the current model - which
in itself is a good step forward.

~~~
strictnein
You're stating that you think the US government can create 700 new Internet
regulations and not mess things up?

I'm stating that I think the US government is mainly made up of morons,
especially in regards to technical issues.

The cynicism is from the fact that there are 300+ pages to do what would
apparently be a fairly simple change, so there's more to it than just the "Net
Neutrality for everyone!" bit.

~~~
daughart
The Affordable Healthcare Act was gigantic and created by morons, but by most
metrics is improving the American healthcare system. The argument that the
government can not act in a way that improves things, even if it is not the
perfect solution, is contrary to fact.

EDIT: I treat down-votes in the absence of a counter-argument as up-votes.

~~~
O____________O
_The Affordable Healthcare Act was ... created by morons_

Really? I thought it was drafted by very clever, largely self-interested
people.

 _I treat down-votes in the absence of a counter-argument as up-votes._

Good luck with that. Sounds like a great way to eventually find yourself
banned.

~~~
daughart
The morons part was just me being facetious. Since I edited my comment I went
from -3 to 0, so apparently people agree. I don't know why asking for a
counter-argument would get me banned, or how you know anything about being
banned from HN when you've been a member for 86 days and I've been a member
for over 600 days. I've never actually heard of banning here.

~~~
O____________O
_I don 't know why asking for a counter-argument would get me banned_

You didn't do that. You wrote snark about downvotes.

 _or how you know anything about being banned from HN when you 've been a
member for 86 days_

What, you think they charge for accounts around here, or something? Why in the
world would you think I haven't used other accounts before? If you made it to
600 days and haven't heard of the slow-down (whatever it's called) or hell-
banning, then you haven't been paying much attention.

------
thebouv
The devil is in the details as they say. I really want to see the full list of
regulations passed. Though I'm sure the jargon will send me for a loop.

------
eatdatcake
I hope you guys save this page and open it up ten years from now to read your
own comments again.\

When you read my comment again, say these words to yourself:

"I asked for this."

------
scarmig
My initial instinct is to be excited for this, but to be honest I have only a
very cursory understanding of the issues.

Reflecting on my motivations, I would say 90% of my support comes from the
signal of Comcast squealing about it, and 10% comes from WMF and EFF support.
Which I grant is arational, but it's probably a major driving force behind
much of the support in the tech community.

So, to opponents: you're likely to have a more effective argument if you can
convince me that this isn't correcting a government-guaranteed fiefdom of
monopoly power to Comcast, and that the political forces opposing it aren't
pawns of Comcast.

------
Friedduck
Unless you're going to fund the infrastructure costs publicly you're always
going to have a few large players that can sustain the capital investment
necessary to build.

I don't see that happening any time soon ("socialized internet!")

So I applaud the FCCs move. What blows me away is that lobbyists have
convinced average joes that this is a bad thing. I don't think people grasp
how much control a company could exert over what you see simply by
prioritizing traffic.

------
bcheung
Can someone clarify "paid prioritization" and "fast lane"?

If I buy the 50Mbps ISP plan and someone else buys the 10Mbps isn't that a
faster lane / paid prioritization?

What about if a company decides to put their server in a datacenter instead of
hosting out of their office? Aren't they paying for better access?

What about CDNs? Aren't those "fast lanes"?

It doesn't seem like this is the intent but based on how it is worded, it
seems like it would apply.

~~~
forgottenpass
Offering different levels of service to be purchased at the types of endpoints
you describe is not the target of this. It is (generally) about network
peering, and throttling based on deep packet inception.

------
arenaninja
I wonder how this will affect T-mobile's offering with free music streaming
services

------
gameshot911
Amazing that a change of this magnitude rests on a 5-person vote.

~~~
tdicola
Not really, there are two people in the world who have the power to completely
obliterate it with a full scale nuclear strike.

A small committee of people making a proposal, giving 9 months to comment on
it, then vote on it sounds like a normal procedure to me.

------
theandrewbailey
Chairman Wheeler proves that he isn't a dingo.

~~~
quasarj
Actually, if you watch any of the various hearings and what-not that he's been
in, talking about his plans (and previous attempts) to preserve net
neutrality, I think it was pretty clear he was on the right track all along.
Surprising, I know, given his background, but still.

~~~
theandrewbailey
I was skeptical up until I read a few weeks ago that he started doing
something like cable internet in the 80s, but was shut out of the system. He
saw one of his colleagues strike it rich with dial up AOL, while his tech
(although much faster) failed in the market. I sort of imagined that today's
decision was his revenge on the industry.

[http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-
neutra...](http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality)

------
pgrote
When will the whole thing be published?

~~~
strictnein
No idea if this is accurate, but I read that there is still some hammering out
of details that may mean it will be a couple of weeks.

------
Zei33
> Commissioner Michael O’Reilly criticized the proposal to reverse Title II:
> “I see no need for net neutrality rules. I am far more troubled the
> commission is charting for Title II.” He continued, calling the move a
> “monumental and unlawful power grab.”

More interested in politics than his job.

------
eatdatcake
I hope you guys save this page and open it up ten years from now to read your
own comments again.

When you read my comment again, say these words to yourself: "I asked for it."

------
Shivetya
a thank you note from Obama to reddit
[https://imgur.com/dZqiFrX](https://imgur.com/dZqiFrX)

------
em3rgent0rdr
one question, can I now run a media server of my own legal content in my home
with the full upstream bandwidth I pay in my contract?

------
MnMike
Free markets lead to better profits, better profits lead to better innovation.
Better innovation leads to cheaper prices. I guess no one learned from the
last multi-hundred page bill (that no one was allowed to see) that didn't
"lower prices" as it was chanted with religious zeal. Self-righteous power
grabs in the name of the common good are always more important than actual
consequences in reality.

------
Shivetya
Curious how the American Disabilities Act will be applied to the internet
through these regulations. It could mean anything from requiring all content
providers to meet unknown rules to providing special equipment in homes as
part of service requirements. Let alone, what is protection from
discrimination when it comes to the internet?

This is the problem with such open ended rules, there are no real limits. Why
no public review?

~~~
adventured
What, you don't trust one of the least trust-worthy governments in modern
history?

You don't trust the government that is actively, hyper aggressively abusing
nearly every aspect of human privacy one can imagine?

Comeon now, this is a gentle, freedom loving, privacy loving government. They
would never put anything in those 300 clandestine pages enabling vast
expansion of censorship or spying powers.

------
paulhauggis
What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen)
that got passed.

I wouldn't sign a contract without reading it (and having the person on the
other side telling me all of the reasons why I should), and neither should
you. But apparently, the general population (and many here) will.

I watched the entire live broadcast and the pros played only on emotion
(safety, helping out the disadvantaged,etc) and did not really mention any of
the regulations. Facts and rationality was only brought up by the opposition.

*edited: I see the down votes. The pro-NN astro-turfing is high here. This is just my opinion. If there is nothing to fear, you shouldn't be trying to silence it.

~~~
Zancarius
Funny how something intended to prevent ISPs from throttling content turned
into a debate about helping out the disadvantaged, etc. It worries me that
issues like this are co-opted to turn them into a one-size-fits-all batch of
regulations sidelining their original intent.

On the other hand, it's my understanding that the FCC will enter a period of
public comments after voting on the rules but prior to enacting them. So
there's also a chance for further revisions to take place, but I'm not overly
optimistic given the 300+ pages of regulations for what should have been a
fairly simple issue.

I suspect if the rules are too far-reaching, they'll be mired in litigation
for years. Hopefully the regulations will be released to the public so we can
start disseminating them today or tomorrow. Although the FCC doesn't commonly
release rules it's voting on prior to a vote, I do think this illustrates a
dysfunction of government agencies and transparency. Maybe that's something we
should change.

~~~
carlisle_
>Funny how something intended to prevent ISPs from throttling content turned
into a debate about helping out the disadvantaged, etc

Isn't that just politics in general?

~~~
Zancarius
Yep.

It's like everything else in the last 20+ years. Someone drafts a bill that
sounds like a good idea, then before you know it, it balloons to thousands of
pages of rhetoric drafted by every lobbyist in Washington.

I don't know what the answer is. I can think of a few solutions, but they're
impractical and would never happen.

~~~
canvia
Limit the length of bills and require them to be read out loud into public
record in their entirety before passage.

------
paulhauggis
Something everyone is forgetting is the FCC regulation of radio. It was a
little like Net-neutrality today. Radio stations needed to be regulated
because they could crank up the wattage and overpower smaller radio stations.
It needed to be regulated and the intent was to just focus on the
infrastructure, not the content.

What happened? Speech deemed immoral is banned from the radio waves and
content is clearly being regulated. I fear the same thing will eventually
start happening with the Internet, which I personally do not want.

~~~
zymhan
Radio waves are different than wireline Internet. The FCC regulates radio
because there is a limited amount of usable frequencies, and these are
supposed to belong to the people, so they need to be distributed and managed
by a central organization. Any since the Supreme Court has ruled that the FCC
has the legal authority to enforce censorship, we're stuck with it.

Radio is also different because it is a broadcast medium. Any person who turns
on their radio will hear what is being broadcast. Internet communication is
much more analogous to a phone or mail conversation than radio or TV.

The Internet is totally different. No one has (reasonably) claimed that Title
II regulation provides for the FCC to censor what is transmitted. The FCC
doesn't censor phone calls now, why would they censor the Internet using the
same rules?

~~~
paulhauggis
"Radio is also different because it is a broadcast medium. Any person who
turns on their radio will hear what is being broadcast. Internet communication
is much more analogous to a phone or mail conversation than radio or TV."

It's not though. A phone conversation is only one person (or less than 10) at
a time. You can broadcast a message on the Internet that can reach millions of
people. Twitter, Facebook, and even HN are broadcast mediums.

"The FCC doesn't censor phone calls now, why would they censor the Internet
using the same rules?"

The Phone is not a broadcast medium and does not have the same power as the
Internet.

"The Internet is totally different. No one has (reasonably) claimed that Title
II regulation provides for the FCC to censor what is transmitted. "

Although I don't think content is regulated, we still haven't seen any of the
regulations passed today.

*edit: are astro-turfers out again? I was merely stating my opinion on the topic..and was down voted. Is this an example of an open and free Internet?

~~~
anigbrowl
Most of us find significant qualitative differences between using a radio and
a web browser or even an app.

 _edit: are astro-turfers out again? I was merely stating my opinion on the
topic..and was down voted. Is this an example of an open and free Internet?_

Yes, it is. People are freely expressing their disagreement with your fallacy-
laden arguments.

~~~
paulhauggis
"Most of us find significant qualitative differences between using a radio and
a web browser or even an app."

Even from this statement, I can tell you don't know what I am even talking
about. Using is much different than broadcasting.

"Yes, it is. People are freely expressing their disagreement with your
fallacy-laden arguments."

Down voting is not disagreeing. It's silencing. Disagreeing would be actually
having a point and having a civil debate. I see none of that here. Saying it
is a "fallacy" doesn't count.

I'm tired of arguing with people that want their rights taken away. When and
if it happens, I will have enough money to just buy what I need anyway.

~~~
anigbrowl
I understand perfectly well what you are talking about. I just think your
ideas are foolish. Also, I have no difficulty in reading your posts despite
the downvotes they have received, so I'm not sure why you feel you're being
silenced. Clearly, this conversation isn't going anywhere, though.

~~~
paulhauggis
"I understand perfectly well what you are talking about. I just think your
ideas are foolish. "

I suppose you sign contracts before looking at them? If so, let's do business!

This is essentially what has happened with the American people and you have
nothing to say about it..except personally attacking me. I find this suspect.

Everything I have said is fact: There are 700 regulations, which will control
the state of Internet in the US, which absolutely have not been seen by the
American public before being passed into law.

This is scary. I'm still unsure why there are so many people that just don't
care. We can have Net Neutrality in less than 700 regulations.

The foolishness of the American people is why I have lots of money saved to
get out of the country when it finally implodes due to pure laziness.

I have no sympathy going forward..and yes, if there are undesirable
consequences, it is your fault.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Everything I have said is fact:

Then you should be able to provide the evidence supporting the claims. Lets
start with this one:

> There are 700 regulations

Really? Where is the evidence for this "fact".

> which absolutely have not been seen by the American public before being
> passed into law.

They are adopted as regulation (under the law, not as law) and will be
published before they become effective, and may be changed (e.g., by
legislative action) if the American people are sufficiently unhappy with them
to compel their Congressional representatives to act.

~~~
paulhauggis
"Really? Where is the evidence for this "fact"."

Okay. Now you aren't even admitting that there are regulations. Wow. Just Wow.

"They are adopted as regulation (under the law, not as law) and will be
published before they become effective, and may be changed (e.g., by
legislative action) if the American people are sufficiently unhappy with them
to compel their Congressional representatives to act."

Have fun with that. Like I said. I don't want to hear one person coming on HN
complaining about worse conditions after these new laws are passed.

I'm going to say this now: I told you so.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Now you aren't even admitting that there are regulations.

No, I'm asking for support for your claim that there are _700 new
regulations_. That the as-yet unpublished order contains regulations is a
different claim than that it contains 700 new regulations.

> I don't want to hear one person coming on HN complaining about worse
> conditions after these new laws are passed.

What new laws?

~~~
paulhauggis
I'm tired of you playing semantics to try to win the argument. I would rather
discuss this with someone that has some actual substance.

------
chetanahuja
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 comment threads, a person new to the issue might get the impression as
if the US government just nationalized comcast. I'm finding it hard to believe
that the regular HN crowd has suddenly turned virulently anti Title II. This
definitely smells like a coordinated campaign to spread FUD.

~~~
rayiner
> This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good
> thing.

This is revisionist history. Up until very recently, Title II was the "nuclear
option."[1] There's plenty of people who are pro-net neutrality who were
skeptical of Title II. That's why they originally threw their support behind
the FCC's last attempt at net neutrality, which tried to impose neutrality
without reclassification.

The EFF only came out in favor of reclassification in June of last year, in a
very measured and deliberate release:
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/fcc-and-net-
neutrality...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/fcc-and-net-neutrality-
way-forward).

And some reasonably, technologically savvy people are opposed to net
neutrality period: [http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2015/02/mark-cuban-
faults-...](http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2015/02/mark-cuban-faults-
silicon-valley-groupthink-says-fcc-broadband-rule-a-mistake.html) ("Mark Cuban
faults ‘Silicon Valley groupthink,’ says FCC broadband rule a mistake")

[1] Conservatives don't like it because it allows the FCC to do things like
rate-setting, even if this administration chooses not to use that power.
Liberals don't like the specter of FCC regulation of content.

PS: The accusations of astroturfing on HN are a vile sort of rhetorical
tactic.

~~~
Spooky23
Mark Cuban's position isn't technically savvy, it's an opportunity for him to
make more money. He says flat out that the Internet model that has worked for
decades is broken now, because Netflix. Oh, and QVC should have a right to pay
for preferred treatment and lower latency.

The reality is that building core network capacity to handle the likes of
Netflix and 8k television is possible and gets cheaper as time goes on. I just
participated in the buildout of new datacenter... The cost of building
densities of network interconnect and compute unfathomable in 2005 is actually
lower than the old 1gb stuff. WAN and telecom equipment that used to take up
10k ft^2 now take two racks and cost 80% less.

The capital investment issues the ISPs face have nothing to do with
interconnect -- their dollars are spent in the last mile.

The public interest isn't compatible with Mark Cuban's ability & desire to
throw millions of dollars at telcos to give his ventures an advantage. Market
forces don't apply when the ISP business is slowly consolidating into a circa
1965 AT&T redux.

~~~
spiralpolitik
Isn't this what it boils down to for the opponents of Net Neutrality ? Either
they can't make as much money or they can't buy themselves advantage.

Also expect to see someone like Cuban challenge this on 1st amendment grounds.
Given that for the 1% mindset spending money equals speech, the government
stopping them spending money to again an advantage is in their mind a
restriction on speech. Sad but true.

~~~
artemisu
So was this a good or a bad thing? im sensing overwhelming good

~~~
spiralpolitik
If it sticks its a good thing. My optimism is tempered the nonsensical court
decisions of recent times.

------
somanim
Like it will make a difference. what is to stop them from manipulating packets
if there is no visibility into what they do with our packets. Let alone that
the average consumer doesn't even understand the concept of throttling or why
it is bad for them.

------
db102892
test

------
randomname2
So will internet prices go up now, just like with cable, where the FCC
initially got involved to keep prices down?

------
supergeek133
So everyone hates Comcast enough to let them pass this with little fanfare, we
can all only hope now that all of the regulations are consumer friendly and
not some other interest.

The willingness of everyone to let this happen without being able to see
EVERYTHING scared me!

~~~
dragonwriter
> So everyone hates Comcast enough to let them pass this with little fanfare

"Little fanfare"? Have you been living under a rock since the NPRM on this
issue was published last year?

~~~
supergeek133
Were you able to read the regulation before it was passed? Not that we could
change anything, but weren't you in the least bit interested?

By little fanfare I mean the fact that everyone read his editorial, and
cheered and let it be.

Again, I think most people agree this is the right move, but we talk about how
it's important for the internet to be open and neutral but I didn't hear much
screaming and yelling to see everything before it passed.

So no, I haven't been living under a rock. I guess I just expected more out of
the community.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Were you able to read the regulation before it was passed? Not that we could
> change anything, but weren't you in the least bit interested?

Sure, I'm interested; I'm also aware enough of the regulatory process to not
expect to see anything published between a NPRM and the next official
regulatory action, even though that next action is likely to be a final
rule/order and even though there are likely to be interesting drafts produced
in the process (whether or not the process is in a regulatory venue where
there is a single decision-maker to approve official action or a vote of a
multimember commission.)

Similarly, while I'm interested, I don't expect to see copies of drafts of
decisions while a court is considering a case.

> By little fanfare I mean the fact that everyone read his editorial, and
> cheered and let it be.

Aside from being a misuse of "little fanfare", that's also factually
incorrect; lots of people -- both supporters and opponents of net neutrality
-- reacted to the editorial with specific concerns that the content of that
the outline presented of the direction of the proposal, and by many reports
some of those responses had an effect on the final form of the regulations. No
doubt both supporters and opponents will continue to have reactions to the
details of the adopted regulations.

~~~
supergeek133
Again, I never said I was against it, all I want to to is to be able to read
and question the damn thing. Why are you and others acting like that's a
crime?

I get treated like a bad person, and questioned, because all I want is to be
able to read a regulation. I didn't even say I was against it.

Even if you look at past comments, all I wanted was clarity, not editorials
and speeches, the damn text.

Good lord.

~~~
anigbrowl
You will be able to read and question the damn thing when it's published in
the Federal Register as a Notice of Proposed Rule Making. That is the long-
standing procedure for government commissions/agencies to promulgate the
administrative rules in accordance with their congressionally-delegated
responsibilities.

This is in fact how things work. If you follow government regulations closely
in any sphere, then you pay attention to the contents of the Federal Register
because it is, quite literally, the government's To-Do list. Most countries
operate this way, publishing some sort of national gazette or official
newspaper that detailsadministrative matters, solicits bids for public works
contracts, announces the formation or dissolution of official agencies, etc.
etc. etc.

Check it out, it's quite user-friendly and you can literally see how your tax
dollars get spent:
[https://www.federalregister.gov/](https://www.federalregister.gov/)

------
ck2
Yay we maybe have neutral, expensive internet but no healthcare for many
millions of people suffering.

We have very strange priorities.

~~~
darkstar999
Fixing healthcare is a much, much larger problem. Totally irrelevant to this
conversation.

------
mudil
FCC has now "fixed" something that was not broken, and gov't is now regulating
internet. I am on this one with Mark Cuban, who is scared shitless of this
gov't take over. Speaking of shitless, is everyone ready for decency
standards?

~~~
smileysteve
Netflix was having to make back market deals (with companies with conflicts of
interest) to have the isp's customers (who were paying for access to) have
access to their service. How was this "not broken"?

~~~
cheald
No, they didn't. Netflix had plenty of options for transit to Comcast - they
didn't _have_ to use Cogent. But it would have cost them a lot more. Cogent is
famous for both cut-rate transit and peering disputes with last-mile
providers.

The fact that they bought from Comcast rather than someone like Level3 or XO
should tell you that they rate they got from Comcast was _better_ than what
they'd have gotten from another transit provider.

If you serve content on the internet, you have to buy transit from _someone_.

Edit: Would the downvoters like to point out what's wrong about my assertion?

~~~
malchow
Netflix didn't buy transit from Comcast; they paid Comcast some large fee to
upgrade links to one or more transit providers that Comcast would in the
ordinary and traditional course of business done itself, so as to continue
delivering its traditional unrestricted internet product to customers.

Netflix can't reach every Comcast node around the country, so it couldn't have
'bought transit' from Comcast. It did try the next best thing: colocating, at
its own expense, servers at Comcast POPs with cached Netflix content. Comcast
said no thanks to that one. Netflix also tried buying extra capacity from
other transit providers (Tata and some others.) I think -- but am not certain
-- that, when Comcast learned that that deal had happened, it began failing to
upgrade those links, too.

It's hard to think of an explanation for these peering disputes between
CDNs/transit providers and consumer ISPs that doesn't imply ISP hostage-
taking. (Where the consumer is hostage.) These consumer ISPs have an easy job:
keep these links to the middle networks and backbone networks up to date. And
keep the copper in decent shape.

~~~
cheald
> they paid Comcast some large fee to upgrade links to one or more transit
> providers

Do you have a link for that? I was unaware of any of that happening. It was my
understanding that Netflix is engaging in paid peering directly with Comcast
now ([http://bgp.he.net/AS2906#_peers](http://bgp.he.net/AS2906#_peers)).

You're right that Netflix isn't technically buying transit from Comcast, but
they replaced their transit purchased from Cogent with paid peering purchased
from Comcast; the net effect is the same.

> It's hard to think of an explanation for these peering disputes between
> CDNs/transit providers and consumer ISPs that doesn't imply ISP hostage-
> taking.

I think that's _exactly_ what's happening here, but it's done as a bargaining
chip in the never-ending peering wars, rather than Comcast specifically
engaging in rent-seeking from Netflix. The history of settlement-free peering
is long and sordid, and last-mile providers have been at odds with the T1s for
decades. Netflix massively amplified that dispute simply by virtue of the
amount of bandwidth they consume.

------
db102892
One need only look back at the Bell Telephone example to know that problems in
the current Internet/ISP environment are not true problems.

But the FCC "fix", which will incorporate the same operating standards, will
create many of the same problems that kept the phone system from making major
advances for about 50 years. Then, in 1984, it all changed -- for the better.

If the government wants to experiment with its theories on "net neutrality",
let it first test those theories on the operation of the Post Office.

------
zxcvcxz
What I'm worried about is that the internet could become like radio, requiring
anyone who wants to broadcast (hook up a server) to obtain a license to do so.

    
    
       All people have the right to connect as many devices
       as they want to the internet, and connect their own 
       server(s) on their own network to the public internet,
       and allow others to use their servers for any and all
       purposes including to connect to the internet.
       
       People have the right to serve and distribute content
       on the public internet from their own network or
       server and any other network/server giving them
       permission to do so.
    
       People have a right to serve and distribute content in
       a way that a maximum number of devices can access it
       with ease.
    

I believe the rapid social change we're experiencing regarding progressive
thought (marijuana legalization, gay marriage, stem cells, etc) is because
people have these rights. The longer we have these rights the more our society
will change as a collective and many of the mistakes that the government and
other overseers have made will be corrected.

~~~
URSpider94
This is exactly what Net Neutrality is trying to prevent, though not in the
way you think.

Without net neutrality, we would evolve towards a pay-to-play world in which
you could hook up your server to the Internet, but nobody would be able to
download your content unless you paid their broadband provider for bandwidth
access.

With net neutrality, the government is preserving your right to be heard just
as much as the billionaire down the street. That's the entire point.

