5 ms·

> Its chairman has long argued against the rules, pointing out that before they were put into effect in 2015, service providers had not engaged in any of the pr

> Its chairman has long argued against the rules, pointing out that before they were put into effect in 2015, service providers had not engaged in any of the practices the rules prohibited This whole thing just has me stumped as to how we even got into this position. How in the hell does a single bureaucrat have this kind of power in the US to make a unilateral decision affecting millions of people and billions of dollars in commerce?

huntertwo 8y ago
He’s the scapegoat for all the other government officials on both sides of the aisle who have had their pockets filled up by the telecom industry.
- foobarbazetc 8y ago
  Came for “both sides”, was not disappointed.
- sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
  If they are really filling the Dems' pockets, the money's not buying them much influence, is it?
  - stickdogg 8y ago
    Lol. I don't know if they necessarily care about influence on this topic more than they do money in their pockets.
- jonny_eh 8y ago
  Except in this case it was only FCC board members from one party that voted for the repeal, I'll let you guess which one.
  - lopmotr 8y ago
    I guess the party the won the election and therefore has legitimate authority from the citizens to do that. It sounds like a much more fair and accountable system than giving the power to people who are neither elected nor appointed by elected people.
    - Clubber 8y ago
      Right, but the OP said both parties were responsible, which isn't true, since the FCC board voted repeal on party lines. GOP seats voted repeal net neutrality, Dem seats voted to keep. I'm a firm believer that both parties have their hands dirty in one way or the other, but in this instance, it doesn't seem to be so in this case.
    - thatcat 8y ago
      > It sounds like a much more fair and accountable system than giving the power to people who are neither elected nor appointed by elected people. This response is kind of ironic in context of net neutrality being repealed considering it is a decision which empowered those who are neither elected nor appointed by elected people against the will of the overwhelming majority of the citizens.
    - SimbaOnSteroids 8y ago
      I mean the party that won in a system designed to make them win.
    - stickdogg 8y ago
      That is a whole different debate. We could discuss for hours who: "legally won the election".
  - huntertwo 8y ago
    You’re right, I had my facts wrong. However, although not necessarily the case here, voting against certain guaranteed to pass measures is just talking the talk, not really walking the walk. Democrats don’t really push for anti-corporation policy in general.
    - aerotwelve 8y ago
      Would you have preferred the Democratic commissioners had voted for the repeal? I'm not sure what else they could have done here.
- jumelles 8y ago
  The two parties are NOT the same.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    Effectively, both partie:s current position is "let the courts decide." The Republicans are outwardly hostile to it, but the Democrats have only pushed the issue when they knew it couldn't pass or would go to court.
    - aerotwelve 8y ago
      > the Democrats have only pushed the issue when they knew it couldn't pass or would go to court. Net neutrality was part of Obama's presidential platform, and the first attempt at codifying NN rules happened under his first FCC commissioner in 2010. Both parties are not the same with respect to net neutrality.
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        Obama cosponsored a bill in 2006, as Democrats knew that anything else would leave the decision unsure. A bill was introduced in 09, when the Democrats could have ensured net neutrality, but it never got further than that. The Democrats have publicly embraced net neutrality, but have done nothing to ensure it. Even in 2016, the Democrats official stated position was to do nothing, leaving it in the hands of the courts. Both parties actual actions have the same results.
        aerotwelve 8y ago
        > The Democrats have publicly embraced net neutrality, but have done nothing to ensure it. Even in 2016, the Democrats official stated position was to do nothing I don't know where the "Democrat's official stated position" comes from, but I have a pretty good idea as to why Democrats weren't talking often about NN in 2016: Wheeler's FCC solved the problem. The ninth circuit upheld the 2015 rules. That's not nothing.
boomboomsubban 8y ago
He doesn't in multiple ways. First, there's a board at the FCC that voted on this. Not too important though, as the presidents party gets three votes, other party gets two. Next, the FCC's legal mandate to deal with net neutrality is vague. This is why the 2010 rules were overturned in court, and barring a new law being enacted, the legality of the 2015 rules are ultimately in the hands of the courts. Until the courts decide, the FCC can create rules based on their interpretation.
- rsingel 8y ago
  This is untrue. The FCC's mandate to oversee broadband is clear. The 2015 rules on the solid legal foundation of Title II were upheld in court twice. The FCC has repeatedly acted to ensure net neutrality, including a 2005 action against blocking (again under Title II). Then there were net neutrality conditions applied to mergers (AT&T, then Comcast/NBCUniversal), to broadband grants under the stimulus act and to portions of the 4G spectrum. The 2010 rules were overturned in court because the FCC has very little power if it classifies ISPs under Title I, but lots of authority under Title II. Now some of the questions before a federal court are about the 2017 repeal, including 1) was the FCC's reversal of the Title II classification justified and 2) was the proceeding handled fairly under the Administrative Procedures Act.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    The Telecommunications Act that gives them any authority on the matter at all essentially created an exception to label broadband as Title I. In 05 the Supreme Court ruled this distinction to be legal, and as far as I know there has not been a high court upholding the FCC's reclassification. So yes, if they classify it as Title II they have the authority, but it's unclear if they are allowed to classify it such, and if they are can they change it back to Title I.
    - pseudalopex 8y ago
      The DC Circuit upheld the 2015 order and denied review, citing the 2005 Supreme Court precedent. The main argument against it is that switching to Title I and fundamentally reshaping the home broadband market wasn't a major policy change, but bringing back Title II and enforcing long-standing principles was. The challenges to the 2017 reclassification are about whether the FCC justified the change and followed the required procedures, not whether it has the authority.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> How in the hell does a single bureaucrat have this kind of power in the US to make a unilateral decision affecting millions of people and billions of dollars in commerce? The FCC is not a single bureaucrat, it's a five seat commission limited to three members of any one political party; in practice, approximately (not exactly because of term timing), that means three members of the party holding the Presidency and two of the other major party.
paidleaf 8y ago
It's not the lone bureaucrat. Do you really think one guy is behind this? He had support from the industry, the media, politicians and the elites. If you haven't noticed, the elites ( not just in the US ) but in europe, china, russia, saudi arabia, etc have all worked hard to take control over the internet. In the US, the battle has been going on for more than a decade. Look at how google search, youtube, reddit and even HN has changed. The last major holdout was facebook, but we've seen what happened to them. It wasn't by accident or because ordinary people wanted it. It's what the elites wanted. What the people want has never really mattered. Not in the US, not in europe, china, russia, etc. And with the constant merging of content providers and ISPs, the internet will become more like TV for most people. What's funny is how we had so much facebook spam here ( when it was really a non-story ) and so little coverage of such a monumentally important tech topic like net neutrality. I'm guessing between facebook and net neutrality stories only, facebook accounted for 99% and net neutrality accounted for 1% on HN. One would think that "hacker" news would care about the important story and not political fluff. But hacker news hasn't been "hackerish" for a while now.
cmurf 8y ago
Ajit Pai said he was gonna do it all along. He was nominated by the president, and 52 Senators confirmed him. And then he did it, and the Senate had the power to block the rule change, but they didn't. 48 Republican, and 4 Democratic Senators confirmed him.
pofilat 8y ago
That bureaucrat is the appointed head of the FCC appointed by the President and implementing a law enacted by Congress. He's not a lone wolf.

huntertwo 8y ago

He’s the scapegoat for all the other government officials on both sides of the aisle who have had their pockets filled up by the telecom industry.

foobarbazetc 8y ago
Came for “both sides”, was not disappointed.
sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
If they are really filling the Dems' pockets, the money's not buying them much influence, is it?
- stickdogg 8y ago
  Lol. I don't know if they necessarily care about influence on this topic more than they do money in their pockets.
jonny_eh 8y ago
Except in this case it was only FCC board members from one party that voted for the repeal, I'll let you guess which one.
- lopmotr 8y ago
  I guess the party the won the election and therefore has legitimate authority from the citizens to do that. It sounds like a much more fair and accountable system than giving the power to people who are neither elected nor appointed by elected people.
  - Clubber 8y ago
    Right, but the OP said both parties were responsible, which isn't true, since the FCC board voted repeal on party lines. GOP seats voted repeal net neutrality, Dem seats voted to keep. I'm a firm believer that both parties have their hands dirty in one way or the other, but in this instance, it doesn't seem to be so in this case.
  - thatcat 8y ago
    > It sounds like a much more fair and accountable system than giving the power to people who are neither elected nor appointed by elected people. This response is kind of ironic in context of net neutrality being repealed considering it is a decision which empowered those who are neither elected nor appointed by elected people against the will of the overwhelming majority of the citizens.
  - SimbaOnSteroids 8y ago
    I mean the party that won in a system designed to make them win.
  - stickdogg 8y ago
    That is a whole different debate. We could discuss for hours who: "legally won the election".
- huntertwo 8y ago
  You’re right, I had my facts wrong. However, although not necessarily the case here, voting against certain guaranteed to pass measures is just talking the talk, not really walking the walk. Democrats don’t really push for anti-corporation policy in general.
  - aerotwelve 8y ago
    Would you have preferred the Democratic commissioners had voted for the repeal? I'm not sure what else they could have done here.
jumelles 8y ago
The two parties are NOT the same.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  Effectively, both partie:s current position is "let the courts decide." The Republicans are outwardly hostile to it, but the Democrats have only pushed the issue when they knew it couldn't pass or would go to court.
  - aerotwelve 8y ago
    > the Democrats have only pushed the issue when they knew it couldn't pass or would go to court. Net neutrality was part of Obama's presidential platform, and the first attempt at codifying NN rules happened under his first FCC commissioner in 2010. Both parties are not the same with respect to net neutrality.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      Obama cosponsored a bill in 2006, as Democrats knew that anything else would leave the decision unsure. A bill was introduced in 09, when the Democrats could have ensured net neutrality, but it never got further than that. The Democrats have publicly embraced net neutrality, but have done nothing to ensure it. Even in 2016, the Democrats official stated position was to do nothing, leaving it in the hands of the courts. Both parties actual actions have the same results.
      - aerotwelve 8y ago
        > The Democrats have publicly embraced net neutrality, but have done nothing to ensure it. Even in 2016, the Democrats official stated position was to do nothing I don't know where the "Democrat's official stated position" comes from, but I have a pretty good idea as to why Democrats weren't talking often about NN in 2016: Wheeler's FCC solved the problem. The ninth circuit upheld the 2015 rules. That's not nothing.

boomboomsubban 8y ago

He doesn't in multiple ways. First, there's a board at the FCC that voted on this. Not too important though, as the presidents party gets three votes, other party gets two. Next, the FCC's legal mandate to deal with net neutrality is vague. This is why the 2010 rules were overturned in court, and barring a new law being enacted, the legality of the 2015 rules are ultimately in the hands of the courts. Until the courts decide, the FCC can create rules based on their interpretation.

rsingel 8y ago
This is untrue. The FCC's mandate to oversee broadband is clear. The 2015 rules on the solid legal foundation of Title II were upheld in court twice. The FCC has repeatedly acted to ensure net neutrality, including a 2005 action against blocking (again under Title II). Then there were net neutrality conditions applied to mergers (AT&T, then Comcast/NBCUniversal), to broadband grants under the stimulus act and to portions of the 4G spectrum. The 2010 rules were overturned in court because the FCC has very little power if it classifies ISPs under Title I, but lots of authority under Title II. Now some of the questions before a federal court are about the 2017 repeal, including 1) was the FCC's reversal of the Title II classification justified and 2) was the proceeding handled fairly under the Administrative Procedures Act.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  The Telecommunications Act that gives them any authority on the matter at all essentially created an exception to label broadband as Title I. In 05 the Supreme Court ruled this distinction to be legal, and as far as I know there has not been a high court upholding the FCC's reclassification. So yes, if they classify it as Title II they have the authority, but it's unclear if they are allowed to classify it such, and if they are can they change it back to Title I.
  - pseudalopex 8y ago
    The DC Circuit upheld the 2015 order and denied review, citing the 2005 Supreme Court precedent. The main argument against it is that switching to Title I and fundamentally reshaping the home broadband market wasn't a major policy change, but bringing back Title II and enforcing long-standing principles was. The challenges to the 2017 reclassification are about whether the FCC justified the change and followed the required procedures, not whether it has the authority.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> How in the hell does a single bureaucrat have this kind of power in the US to make a unilateral decision affecting millions of people and billions of dollars in commerce? The FCC is not a single bureaucrat, it's a five seat commission limited to three members of any one political party; in practice, approximately (not exactly because of term timing), that means three members of the party holding the Presidency and two of the other major party.

paidleaf 8y ago

It's not the lone bureaucrat. Do you really think one guy is behind this? He had support from the industry, the media, politicians and the elites. If you haven't noticed, the elites ( not just in the US ) but in europe, china, russia, saudi arabia, etc have all worked hard to take control over the internet. In the US, the battle has been going on for more than a decade. Look at how google search, youtube, reddit and even HN has changed. The last major holdout was facebook, but we've seen what happened to them. It wasn't by accident or because ordinary people wanted it. It's what the elites wanted. What the people want has never really mattered. Not in the US, not in europe, china, russia, etc. And with the constant merging of content providers and ISPs, the internet will become more like TV for most people. What's funny is how we had so much facebook spam here ( when it was really a non-story ) and so little coverage of such a monumentally important tech topic like net neutrality. I'm guessing between facebook and net neutrality stories only, facebook accounted for 99% and net neutrality accounted for 1% on HN. One would think that "hacker" news would care about the important story and not political fluff. But hacker news hasn't been "hackerish" for a while now.

cmurf 8y ago

Ajit Pai said he was gonna do it all along. He was nominated by the president, and 52 Senators confirmed him. And then he did it, and the Senate had the power to block the rule change, but they didn't. 48 Republican, and 4 Democratic Senators confirmed him.

pofilat 8y ago

That bureaucrat is the appointed head of the FCC appointed by the President and implementing a law enacted by Congress. He's not a lone wolf.