6 ms·

They keep using terms like "Internet Freedom" or "Open Internet", but this isn't so much about the internet as it's about ISPs. They are the gatekeepers of the

They keep using terms like "Internet Freedom" or "Open Internet", but this isn't so much about the internet as it's about ISPs. They are the gatekeepers of the internet and Net Neutrality requires them to keep the gate open and free of obstacles.

clarkmoody 9y ago
Reminds me of the previous administration always offering "common sense" proposals for everything controversial.
smacktoward 9y ago
In fairness, it does restore the freedom of ISPs to hold you upside down and shake you until money stops falling out of your pockets. So there's that.
- ddingus 9y ago
  That is, in fact, freedom.
  - ddingus 9y ago
    Meant as sarcasm. I do not favor these changes, just to be clear.
- mark-r 9y ago
  The perverse part of this is that they're not just shaking you down, they're shaking down the services that you're using. Burning the candle at both ends.
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  Welcome to GPL vs BSD manifested.
hackuser 9y ago
The title is click-bait and propaganda. Perhaps the HN title should be changed to 'FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Net Neutrality.'
willow9886 9y ago
The frequent usage of these terms is a dead giveaway that the proposed new rules would do the exact opposite.
hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
Yeah, I'm so sick of the blatant Orwellian "Internet Freedom" newspeak. It's not even attempting to be subtle anymore.
- ojbyrne 9y ago
  I think you can safely leave out the word "Internet" there and the sentiment is still valid.
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  In fairness, almost all politicians engage in euphemisms to describe their policies. "Forcible redistribution of wealth" vs "safety net", for example. It's just that this time you happen to disagree with the policy being given the Newspeak treatment.
  - abeyer 9y ago
    True, but that's a specious comparison, as taxation is always a forcible redistribution of wealth. No matter what you call a tax, people know it's a tax. It's very different when there are two opposing directions on an issue and you intentionally mangle language to hide your intent, or worse yet co-opt the language of the opposition to deceive.
    - duncan_bayne 9y ago
      Firstly - not always. Voluntary taxation is a thing (although that's perhaps a poor name for it, although charity doesn't work either). Secondly, there absolutely are opposed viewpoints on the matter, and the use of euphemisms is partly responsible for the vast majority of the population not even considering alternatives.
      - abeyer 9y ago
        > Voluntary taxation is a thing Is it? I've heard it as a theory, but never as an actual example. I'm not aware of its ever being applied on a practical scale in modern history, and a quick google didn't turn up any obvious examples. Citations? > Secondly, there absolutely are opposed viewpoints on the matter, and the use of euphemisms is partly responsible for the vast majority of the population not even considering alternatives. I'm not saying that their aren't opposing viewpoints, I'm saying that the language isn't intentionally unclear to hide that. As things stand, any bill to do X is going to raise and/or reallocate taxes to fund doing X. Calling a bill "The X Bill" rather than "The bill that raises taxes to do X" isn't a euphemism, but just a practical use of language where the 'raise taxes' part is universally assumed and implied. Maybe there are better alternatives to that model, and I agree that people probably don't stop to consider such alternatives as much as they should, but there's still a fundamental difference between omitting something that is implied and being actively deceptive.
bjt2n3904 9y ago
And wasn't "Net Neutrality" supposed to be about "Internet Freedom" and "Open Internet"? I saw the exact same terms being thrown around back then, and I was just as suspect of that legislation as I am this one.
- dublinben 9y ago
  What legislation? Which pro Net Neutrality legislation was introduced, and used the same language?
  - pseudalopex 9y ago
    Not legislation, but the net neutrality regulations were published as "Open Internet" orders.
- cat199 9y ago
  So, since these positions are essentially the exact opposite, you're saying you're uninformed, and that this is scary to you?
weberc2 9y ago
It seems like everyone would be better served by addressing the root problem, which is that ISPs enjoy local monopolies. This would be a free-market solution that ought to satisfy both free-market and privacy advocates would win. Of course, I don't know if there's a good solution for fixing monopolies that doesn't involve additional regulation...
- rayiner 9y ago
  We could eliminate regulation that makes it impractical to build competing networks. DC has three different broadband providers: Comcast, RCN, and Verizon. All three are in the process of rolling out gigabit service. That's possible because DC is pretty liberal about letting providers only build in the locations where they can make a profit (instead of demanding they cover the whole city in one go). 5G technologies in particular are going to make it extremely easy for startups to break into existing markets. I did a speedtest.net run the other day in Annapolis, and I got 150 mbps--what I get on my fiber connection at home. And that's just with LTE-A. Fiber might still be faster, but that doesn't matter. It's fast enough for plenty of people and would be meaningful competition for incumbents. Cities just have to get out of the way and let companies build those networks in an incremental and demand-driven way. (I'm not free market fundamentalist--I think it would also be fine to just have to government build the networks. But this stuff is expensive and somebody has to write those billion-dollar checks, and you need to make sure they have the incentive to do so.)
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > We could eliminate regulation that makes it impractical to build competing networks. Property rights of holders of real estate?
    - rayiner 9y ago
      If you're building in a place with electricity, the main relevant property right holder is the utility that owns the poles and conduits (and a regime exists for getting access to those, though it could be improved). Siting things like fiber cabinets isn't as big a deal because hold-out property owners have little leverage. If one won't let you build a node on their property, just build it across the street, and run the fiber along the poles and conduits that are already there. The real hurdles are cable franchise and zoning boards. When AT&T tried to build fiber in SF, it wasn't individual property owners that tried to stop it from building fiber cabinets--it was NIMBY's acting to get the city to stop development. When Verizon tried to build fiber in Baltimore, it wasn't property owners that stopped it; it was the city, which wouldn't give it a TV license.
jdormit 9y ago
Exactly this. "Internet Freedom" should really mean a decentralized, equally-distributed network in which my server gets treated the same as every other server in the network. By increasing the power of ISPs, the FCC is in fact increasing centralization, allowing Comcast et al. to determine who gets network traffic and who does not. Internet freedom isn't so much being eroded as it is being demolished.

clarkmoody 9y ago

Reminds me of the previous administration always offering "common sense" proposals for everything controversial.

smacktoward 9y ago

In fairness, it does restore the freedom of ISPs to hold you upside down and shake you until money stops falling out of your pockets. So there's that.

ddingus 9y ago
That is, in fact, freedom.
- ddingus 9y ago
  Meant as sarcasm. I do not favor these changes, just to be clear.
mark-r 9y ago
The perverse part of this is that they're not just shaking you down, they're shaking down the services that you're using. Burning the candle at both ends.
arca_vorago 9y ago
Welcome to GPL vs BSD manifested.

hackuser 9y ago

The title is click-bait and propaganda. Perhaps the HN title should be changed to 'FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Net Neutrality.'

willow9886 9y ago

The frequent usage of these terms is a dead giveaway that the proposed new rules would do the exact opposite.

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago

Yeah, I'm so sick of the blatant Orwellian "Internet Freedom" newspeak. It's not even attempting to be subtle anymore.

ojbyrne 9y ago
I think you can safely leave out the word "Internet" there and the sentiment is still valid.
duncan_bayne 9y ago
In fairness, almost all politicians engage in euphemisms to describe their policies. "Forcible redistribution of wealth" vs "safety net", for example. It's just that this time you happen to disagree with the policy being given the Newspeak treatment.
- abeyer 9y ago
  True, but that's a specious comparison, as taxation is always a forcible redistribution of wealth. No matter what you call a tax, people know it's a tax. It's very different when there are two opposing directions on an issue and you intentionally mangle language to hide your intent, or worse yet co-opt the language of the opposition to deceive.
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    Firstly - not always. Voluntary taxation is a thing (although that's perhaps a poor name for it, although charity doesn't work either). Secondly, there absolutely are opposed viewpoints on the matter, and the use of euphemisms is partly responsible for the vast majority of the population not even considering alternatives.
    - abeyer 9y ago
      > Voluntary taxation is a thing Is it? I've heard it as a theory, but never as an actual example. I'm not aware of its ever being applied on a practical scale in modern history, and a quick google didn't turn up any obvious examples. Citations? > Secondly, there absolutely are opposed viewpoints on the matter, and the use of euphemisms is partly responsible for the vast majority of the population not even considering alternatives. I'm not saying that their aren't opposing viewpoints, I'm saying that the language isn't intentionally unclear to hide that. As things stand, any bill to do X is going to raise and/or reallocate taxes to fund doing X. Calling a bill "The X Bill" rather than "The bill that raises taxes to do X" isn't a euphemism, but just a practical use of language where the 'raise taxes' part is universally assumed and implied. Maybe there are better alternatives to that model, and I agree that people probably don't stop to consider such alternatives as much as they should, but there's still a fundamental difference between omitting something that is implied and being actively deceptive.

bjt2n3904 9y ago

And wasn't "Net Neutrality" supposed to be about "Internet Freedom" and "Open Internet"? I saw the exact same terms being thrown around back then, and I was just as suspect of that legislation as I am this one.

dublinben 9y ago
What legislation? Which pro Net Neutrality legislation was introduced, and used the same language?
- pseudalopex 9y ago
  Not legislation, but the net neutrality regulations were published as "Open Internet" orders.
cat199 9y ago
So, since these positions are essentially the exact opposite, you're saying you're uninformed, and that this is scary to you?

weberc2 9y ago

It seems like everyone would be better served by addressing the root problem, which is that ISPs enjoy local monopolies. This would be a free-market solution that ought to satisfy both free-market and privacy advocates would win. Of course, I don't know if there's a good solution for fixing monopolies that doesn't involve additional regulation...

rayiner 9y ago
We could eliminate regulation that makes it impractical to build competing networks. DC has three different broadband providers: Comcast, RCN, and Verizon. All three are in the process of rolling out gigabit service. That's possible because DC is pretty liberal about letting providers only build in the locations where they can make a profit (instead of demanding they cover the whole city in one go). 5G technologies in particular are going to make it extremely easy for startups to break into existing markets. I did a speedtest.net run the other day in Annapolis, and I got 150 mbps--what I get on my fiber connection at home. And that's just with LTE-A. Fiber might still be faster, but that doesn't matter. It's fast enough for plenty of people and would be meaningful competition for incumbents. Cities just have to get out of the way and let companies build those networks in an incremental and demand-driven way. (I'm not free market fundamentalist--I think it would also be fine to just have to government build the networks. But this stuff is expensive and somebody has to write those billion-dollar checks, and you need to make sure they have the incentive to do so.)
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > We could eliminate regulation that makes it impractical to build competing networks. Property rights of holders of real estate?
  - rayiner 9y ago
    If you're building in a place with electricity, the main relevant property right holder is the utility that owns the poles and conduits (and a regime exists for getting access to those, though it could be improved). Siting things like fiber cabinets isn't as big a deal because hold-out property owners have little leverage. If one won't let you build a node on their property, just build it across the street, and run the fiber along the poles and conduits that are already there. The real hurdles are cable franchise and zoning boards. When AT&T tried to build fiber in SF, it wasn't individual property owners that tried to stop it from building fiber cabinets--it was NIMBY's acting to get the city to stop development. When Verizon tried to build fiber in Baltimore, it wasn't property owners that stopped it; it was the city, which wouldn't give it a TV license.

jdormit 9y ago

Exactly this. "Internet Freedom" should really mean a decentralized, equally-distributed network in which my server gets treated the same as every other server in the network. By increasing the power of ISPs, the FCC is in fact increasing centralization, allowing Comcast et al. to determine who gets network traffic and who does not. Internet freedom isn't so much being eroded as it is being demolished.