5 ms·

If anyone here supports Net Neutrality, I challenge you to explain why you want the FCC to have more power. Do you approve of its regulation of content? Would

If anyone here supports Net Neutrality, I challenge you to explain why you want the FCC to have more power. Do you approve of its regulation of content? Would you like to see such regulation occur on the internet? The FCC regulating the internet is a sure path to speech restrictions (censorship, etc.) and taxation of the internet. Why? Because it becomes a one stop shop for cultural conservatives who want the internet regulated.

jamesbressi 17y ago
I believe issues are being confused among those passionate on net neutrality. I don't think ANYONE here wants the FCC to have any further jurisdiction (especially over the internet) and power. People view it as a loss for the net neutrality fight and overlook the implications of the FCC being the white knight to win the battle. BUT, I think many here agree that the FCC should be able to enforce net neutrality in the sense of having jurisdiction over the delivery of the service known as the internet and it stops there, just like telephone. The FCC can't sensor what you say on a telephone, but they could have dropped the hammer on a telco for not allowing you access to certain area codes or making you wait longer to connect with someone just because they feel like it.
- grandalf 17y ago
  Do you think the FCC (or those who lobby it passionately) will stop with a small bit of power voluntarily?
  - apu 17y ago
    Do you think a company like Comcast will stop with a little bit of price discrimination? The FCC can be held accountable by the public to a much larger extent than any company.
jbooth 17y ago
Slippery slope arguments are almost never persuasive. Giving the FCC a mandate to enforce openness is in no way giving it a mandate to enforce censorship. The world doesn't exist on a 1-dimensional plane between zero FCC power and ultimate FCC power. There's other stuff going on.
- grandalf 17y ago
  What else is going on? Currently there are lots of entrenched lobbyists who influence FCC policy. This is why things like nipple slips or use of the word "ass" on prime time TV are a big deal. Do you think those lobbyists wouldn't immediately start lobbying for internet "decency" regulations the minute the FCC gained additional power to regulate the internet? Such restrictions will start in obvious ways on largely uncontroversial subjects -- perhaps a law that appears at first to target only pedophiles or hard core pornography viewing by minors -- then more and more ambiguity creeps in until you have horrible censorship going on. Have you read quotes by recent FCC chairmen? They generally consider themselves to be stewards of good taste. This is scary stuff.
  - apu 17y ago
    Although the entire premise is a little absurd (either A or B), I'd much rather have the FCC making stupid decisions than a private company (Comcast/Time Warner) block chunks of the internet that are not in their best interest to show. Public entities have at least some measure of accountability (yes, I know about corruption and influence and lobbying) -- but companies have absolutely no accountability until they start to flagrantly violate the law (which again, they often influence a great deal in any case). If we had a real market in the US for choosing different service providers, the equation would change quite a bit, but right now with effectively monopolies (or sometimes duopolies) in the majority of regions in the US, losing Net Neutrality is a very frightening prospect.
  - chrischen 17y ago
    Grandolf, assuming the FCC doesn't fall down that slope, do you support forced net neutrality? Remember in the case that censorship does become an issue you can fight that, but there's nothing about net neutrality that gives the FCC that power. I want net neutrality and I'll be quite specific about what the FCC can do about that. Plus if the FCC is already headed towards the censorship department, blocking net neutrality isn't going to stop that.
    - grandalf 17y ago
argv_empty 17y ago
All it takes is for a new law to state that the FCC has the responsibility to keep the internet an open medium. Then the FCC is explicitly given the authority to maintain net neutrality and disallowed from censoring it.
- grandalf 17y ago
  The FCC has shown itself to be tremendously sensitive to lobbying efforts from cultural conservatives. All it will take are a few "harmless" bills that penalize content that everyone already agrees is offensive, and the next thing we know we have to worry about typing "fuck" in a HN comment, unless HN uses a NC17 SSL cert (for example)
lallysingh 17y ago
Lobbyists for cultural conservatives don't have anything (financially) compared to the porn companies they'd be competing with. A few shell companies and they can buy as many members of congress or senate that they wish.
wmf 17y ago
Perhaps NN should be under the FTC instead.

jamesbressi 17y ago

I believe issues are being confused among those passionate on net neutrality. I don't think ANYONE here wants the FCC to have any further jurisdiction (especially over the internet) and power. People view it as a loss for the net neutrality fight and overlook the implications of the FCC being the white knight to win the battle. BUT, I think many here agree that the FCC should be able to enforce net neutrality in the sense of having jurisdiction over the delivery of the service known as the internet and it stops there, just like telephone. The FCC can't sensor what you say on a telephone, but they could have dropped the hammer on a telco for not allowing you access to certain area codes or making you wait longer to connect with someone just because they feel like it.

grandalf 17y ago
Do you think the FCC (or those who lobby it passionately) will stop with a small bit of power voluntarily?
- apu 17y ago
  Do you think a company like Comcast will stop with a little bit of price discrimination? The FCC can be held accountable by the public to a much larger extent than any company.

jbooth 17y ago

Slippery slope arguments are almost never persuasive. Giving the FCC a mandate to enforce openness is in no way giving it a mandate to enforce censorship. The world doesn't exist on a 1-dimensional plane between zero FCC power and ultimate FCC power. There's other stuff going on.

grandalf 17y ago
What else is going on? Currently there are lots of entrenched lobbyists who influence FCC policy. This is why things like nipple slips or use of the word "ass" on prime time TV are a big deal. Do you think those lobbyists wouldn't immediately start lobbying for internet "decency" regulations the minute the FCC gained additional power to regulate the internet? Such restrictions will start in obvious ways on largely uncontroversial subjects -- perhaps a law that appears at first to target only pedophiles or hard core pornography viewing by minors -- then more and more ambiguity creeps in until you have horrible censorship going on. Have you read quotes by recent FCC chairmen? They generally consider themselves to be stewards of good taste. This is scary stuff.
- apu 17y ago
  Although the entire premise is a little absurd (either A or B), I'd much rather have the FCC making stupid decisions than a private company (Comcast/Time Warner) block chunks of the internet that are not in their best interest to show. Public entities have at least some measure of accountability (yes, I know about corruption and influence and lobbying) -- but companies have absolutely no accountability until they start to flagrantly violate the law (which again, they often influence a great deal in any case). If we had a real market in the US for choosing different service providers, the equation would change quite a bit, but right now with effectively monopolies (or sometimes duopolies) in the majority of regions in the US, losing Net Neutrality is a very frightening prospect.
- chrischen 17y ago
  Grandolf, assuming the FCC doesn't fall down that slope, do you support forced net neutrality? Remember in the case that censorship does become an issue you can fight that, but there's nothing about net neutrality that gives the FCC that power. I want net neutrality and I'll be quite specific about what the FCC can do about that. Plus if the FCC is already headed towards the censorship department, blocking net neutrality isn't going to stop that.
  - grandalf 17y ago

argv_empty 17y ago

All it takes is for a new law to state that the FCC has the responsibility to keep the internet an open medium. Then the FCC is explicitly given the authority to maintain net neutrality and disallowed from censoring it.

grandalf 17y ago
The FCC has shown itself to be tremendously sensitive to lobbying efforts from cultural conservatives. All it will take are a few "harmless" bills that penalize content that everyone already agrees is offensive, and the next thing we know we have to worry about typing "fuck" in a HN comment, unless HN uses a NC17 SSL cert (for example)

lallysingh 17y ago

Lobbyists for cultural conservatives don't have anything (financially) compared to the porn companies they'd be competing with. A few shell companies and they can buy as many members of congress or senate that they wish.

wmf 17y ago

Perhaps NN should be under the FTC instead.