

Ask HN: What can we do about the new FCC proposal? - eximius

Contrary to the doomsayers, the internet is not dead yet. However, I think we can all agree, regardless of the ultimate extent of the consequences, this proposal is a bad thing.<p>Now, we know that we, as the public, have the power to change things. Unfortunately, it takes a massive, concerted effort like the SOPA blackout in order for our dimwitted&#x2F;corrupt&#x2F;greedy&#x2F;spineless&#x2F;etc politicians to take note.<p>So, what can we do? Specifically, what can we do 1) on May 15th and 2) by the day they actually vote on it?
======
seventytwo
This is going to take an amendment to the constitution. The appeals court has
ruled multiple times against core ideas of net neutrality [1][2], meaning
that, fundamentally, net neutrality goes against the "law of the land". Well?
We need to change the law of the land, then. Brazil has just passed an
internet bill of rights [3], and I strongly believe that the internet cannot
and will not be protected until the United States enacts something similar
within our own constitution.

The thing to remember here is that laws are not really the governing rules...
it is the society which decides what laws to make, and therefore, it is the
job of law to reflect the values and needs of the society.

Edit - Maybe I should make myself clear in lieu of the downvoting: The threat
of a walled-internet will not go away without proactive legislation to protect
it in it's current form. The constitution guarantees "negative liberties"[4]
for the people, meaning it protects the people from encroachment of their
rights. What the internet needs is a similar protective piece of legislation
which prevents encroachment on some of it's fundamental structures.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/technology/appeals-
court-r...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/technology/appeals-court-
rejects-fcc-rules-on-internet-service-providers.html)

[2] [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/business/fcc-to-propose-
ne...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/business/fcc-to-propose-new-rules-on-
open-internet.html)

[3] [http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2014/04/23/306238622/bra...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2014/04/23/306238622/brazil-becomes-one-of-the-first-to-adopt-internet-
bill-of-rights)

[4]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty)

~~~
eximius
You don't think convincing the FCC to rule that ISPs fall under common
carriers is enough?

~~~
seventytwo
That would be a huge win, certainly! But it doesn't necessarily provide
_protections_ for the internet. Unless there are protections built into our
legal infrastructure, the internet will continue to be whittled away.

------
gojomo
We do not "all agree". The internet got to where it is today without the FCC
shepherding it along; it'll be just fine.

The FCC is the USA's only national censorship agency - fining broadcasters for
"dirty words" or other indecency. It enforces the telecommunications wiretap
requirements (CALEA). If we ever get a national blacklist like in the UK or
Australia, it'll be the FCC that enforces it – the exact same ISP-meddling
staff that would be imposing some "neutrality" formula.

At most, the government should be enforcing antitrust rules when concentration
occurs, _not_ dictating service details and pricing. (Doing that actually
tends to benefit national, concentrated operators – because those know how to
work DC to their benefit.)

Tell the FCC to have no more regulatory control over the internet – digital
publishing – than the total non-involvement it has in book and periodical
publishing. Don't invite it into a position of extra power.

