19 ms·

FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel

• mintaka5 3y ago
  let's do this!
• causi 3y ago
  Good luck to them. I'm tired of all this prioritization, bundled services not counting against data caps, and using angry e-mails to make Tier-1 providers null-route websites.
• cddotdotslash 3y ago
  One of the biggest arguments I remember being made back when net neutrality was a hot topic was that ISPs would bundle and sell specific websites as tiered plans. Infographics like this one [1] were shared widely. Has this happened in the US? I’ve definitely seen ISPs start to apply data caps and throttling, but haven’t seen the aforementioned packaging (at least with the major ISPs). I ask because this is one of the easy arguments that got many of my less technical friends and family to understand the risks. But if it never happened, they might start to think it’s just a scare tactic and be less interested in vocally supporting it this time around. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/%2B_Smart_Net_-_advertisement_offering_service_packages.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/%2B_Smar...
  • ejstronge 3y ago
    ISPs are offering 'Netflix-included' or discounted Disney+ plans. I don't know how they account for downloads from these services but the bundling is definitely happening.
    • falcojr 3y ago
      Data caps (and services being excluded from them) are different though, aren't they? IIRC these were already happening before net neutrality rules were removed.
      • Goronmon 3y ago
        Data caps existed, but exempting services from specific ones it the problem. Especially when it becomes "pay us to get your service excluded from the caps".
      • sarchertech 3y ago
        It’s about different data caps for different services. It’s favoring one service over another. Especially when many of those services are owned by the same company that owns the ISP, it’s completely anti-competitive. When your new high bandwidth service counts against a customer’s data cap, but your Comcast owned competitor’s data doesn’t, how are you supposed to fairly compete?
    • supriyo-biswas 3y ago
      When a zero-rating agreement is successfully negotiated between ISPs and website operators, they share a list of IP ranges with the ISP, and any traffic towards these IPs are excluded from the consumer’s data cap.
      • parineum 3y ago
        ISPs have already gotten around anti-data cap laws by locating content servers within their network and only charging caps for data that travels outside their network.
    • lr4444lr 3y ago
      That comes with exclusive content, though - not the same thing at all as what the NN acolytes were warning us would happen if common carrier status was lost. The goal-post shifting is not admirable. We were told there would be the end of the free web, and we're almost 6 years out. Time to admit that the evidence suggests this was fear mongering, and not grasp at straws.
    • SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
      They are grouping the service payments. Unless you can show examples of these servcices avoiding datacaps? And even then, in this case it's very likely that allow-lists were OK under NN, just not block-lists.
  • mlindner 3y ago
    No, nothing of that sort has happened in the US because the rules for NN haven't changed. It was a created internet hype machine to push more new restrictive rules by acting like chicken little and shouting that the sky was falling.
  • JohnTHaller 3y ago
    We have gotten it, but with services not websites. Mobile providers will sell you an "Unlimited" data plan that throttles everything after 25GB a month. Streaming Spotify and Apple Music won't count against that soft data cap. Streaming other music services will count against it. Video streaming over YouTube, Netflix, etc is capped at 480p levels. If you pay an additional monthly fee, you get upgraded to "Unlimited Plus" which will increase your soft cap to 40GB a month and your video streaming quality to 1080p. It'll also bundle in Netflix's basic level and give you 6 months of Apple+ for "free".
    • 0xy 3y ago
      How is that remotely the same thing? The infographic above and others clearly claim that ISPs will be blocking services then requiring you to pay for them separately. Exempting services from data caps is not against net neutrality, and for example has been regular practice all across Europe (which has "net neutrality"). Isn't it just shifting the goal posts after the original claims of NN campaigners were discredited and never materialized in any remote fashion after NN was abolished? Let us not forget that net neutrality campaigning was primarily pushed by Netflix, who refused to pay Verizon for infrastructure upgrades as per industry standard going back decades. The standard is that the disproportionate data user pays to upgrade the ports, equipment and/or line infrastructure. This is absolutely fair. A parallel is electricity capacity for homes and businesses, if you require more electricity than the local street infrastructure can provide you pay the power company to upgrade it to accommodate you. Only fair, the heavy users pay. The movement carried water for deadbeat corpos. Netflix wanted to saturate internet links and balked at paying Verizon for new switches and pipes -- so they got their subscribers to complain.
      • UnlockedSecrets 3y ago
        > Exempting services from data caps is not against net neutrality, and for example has been regular practice all across Europe (which has "net neutrality"). UPS doesn't care if it is a Nike shirt or a Gucci shirt in a box, They just deliver the box where it is meant to go. Why should it be any different for an ISP?
  • CalRobert 3y ago
    I seem to recall seeing it more a few years ago but there were definitely "Unlimited whatsapp" etc. style deals around. Maybe it's less relevant as data has gotten cheap enough so as to be a non-issue for most people. https://www.androidauthority.com/freedompop-sim-card-unlimited-free-whatsapp-710626/ https://www.androidauthority.com/freedompop-sim-card-unlimit... for instance (but that's old)
    • vxNsr 3y ago
      NN rules didn’t (and likely won’t) affect mobile carriers due to the limited nature of wireless spectrum, the FCC views throttling and data prioritization as a necessary evil.
      • rsingel 3y ago
        This is not true. FCC net neutrality rules apply to mobile carriers. So do the ones in California Europe India and Canada. There is leewway for a reasonable ment, but those measures can only be used temporarily during times of congestion and have to be as application agnostic as possible
        • hedora 3y ago
          If that is the case, then 100% of cell carriers are in violation of the law. If you know of a counterexample I'd like to hear it. In particular, California network neutrality says they can't discriminate against services or devices. Complying with the law would imply that any 5G plan could work with any 5G device, so people could use their $10/month tablet add on plans for home broadband and laptops / tethering. Similarly no company would be offering bundles or degrading streaming bandwidth on a per-service basis. For what it's worth, Comcast is also obviously in violation of the above rules, as are the AT&T business 5G terms of service (which specifically say you can't use the service for residential services, such as streaming video, but you can use it for things like video conferencing.) It could just be that the law is not being enforced.
          • 3y ago
  • lr4444lr 3y ago
    The sky was supposed to fall if net neutrality were abrogated, and IME, that hasn't happened. The only change I (and people I know) witnessed was throttling once broad data limits were exceeded, which IIRC wasn't what was at stake, and which I for one didn't object to, i.e., that people would have to pay for what they use. In short, I have not seen bandwidth or pricing weaponized at all to target specific businesses other than for morally objectionable content. Maybe my awareness is limited - I can't confirm that!
    • Goronmon 3y ago
      The sky was supposed to fall if net neutrality were abrogated, and IME, that hasn't happened. ISPs aren't run by complete idiots. They knew this current switch back was a likely possibility. If they had rushed to implement service tiers, it would have given even more ammunition to the net neutrality debate. Now they can say "See we had a chance for a few years to do it and didn't, so we need to pass laws to make sure net neutrality is illegal to protect our freedom." They'll pay some politicians to push something like the "Internet Freedom Act" and then they'll be good to go.
      • somenameforme 3y ago
        And how long do you expect your timeline to playout on? It's been more than 6 years now, and we're talking about corporations that regularly have difficulty seeing beyond next quarter, and have absolutely no qualms pissing off the entire world if it means another buck. Why wouldn't they have rushed to enact the new laws immediately under an FCC political establishment that would have been favorable to such? It seems to me that simple market economics offers a compelling alternative. The more they screw the customer, the more room there is for new or existing competitor, be that something like Starlink or one of the many micro-ISPs being able to grow a bit. You need to create some economic model where these tiers are both profitable and don't expose you to a reasonable fear of competition. That seems quite difficult to do.
        • supriyo-biswas 3y ago
          There is precedent of this happening in countries without Net Neutrality laws such as the Philippines, where ISPs have zero-rating agreements with operators of popular websites, which effectively cements the position of incumbents.
  • aqme28 3y ago
    That didn't happen here, but that is an actual advertisement from a Portuguese ISP, not just some sensationalized propaganda.
    • SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
      So, you are saying some unverified tiny ISP bad marketing decision in Portugal in 2015 or earlier (that image is old) should be used to direct policy for the entire united states regardless of the reality of the actual practices? That is exactly what sensationalized propaganda looks like in this case. You are doing it right now.
      • aqme28 3y ago
        To say that this thing that actually happened didn't actually happen would also be propaganda. Every statement has bias. I'm just pointing out that this isn't a joke image, it's a real image.
  • AlexandrB 3y ago
    If net neutrality is not relevant anyways, why are ISPs so dead set against it?
    • cptskippy 3y ago
      A concern from ISPs is that they will lose the ability to shape and prioritize traffic, something that is often necessary. A concern from consumers is that services will be restricted or rendered unusable by throttling selectively driving customers away from services. A concern from Service Providers is that they will have to make deals with ISPs to ensure quality of service. They're valid concerns on all sides and without Net Neutrality we've seen service restrictions, though they're advertised as benefits (e.g. free OTT messaging on flights from certain providers). We've also seen ISPs bully providers like Netflix into paying to deliver traffic their customers are paying to access (double dipping). It hasn't been the doom and gloom that was hyped but has definitely impacted services. Under net neutrality I expect we'll see a degradation of cellular services or forced consent agreements as WISPs will not be allowed to downgrade or shape traffic otherwise. It cuts both ways and I will be surprised if it makes much difference.
      • dd36 3y ago
        Net neutrality is the law in California. ISPs are doing just fine.
      • hedora 3y ago
        Shaping and prioritizing traffic can be done in a service-agnostic way, so the sorts of shaping they can make money off of are never "necessary." The anti-network neutrality thing is just a money grab. Here's a good-enough traffic shaping algorithm: Each user gets their traffic put into two queues. High bandwidth flows go into a the low priority queues. Low bandwidth (video conferencing, interactive) flows go into the high priority queue. You round robin between all the users' queues at the local node level. If the trunk line is saturated by a few users, then their queues will be long, causing their flows to backpressure. Everyone else's queues will have ~ 1 packet in them, leading to no backpressure and negligible latency. It's extremely difficult to do better than the solution I just sketched. It is stateless, and it is also very easy to approximate in hardware. It even handles the "I want to torrent and VOIP at the same time" problem.
  • exabrial 3y ago
    No it hasn’t. We’re fighting a boogieman. Instead, we’re going to do is further entrench local monopolies, since only the large guys will be able to afford to comply with regulation. You literally can’t force corporate Americas to act beneficial to their consumers of incentives are misaligned. It takes literal FDA-levels of regulation to accomplish that, and even that has failures while generally making the entire process expensive while consolidating things down to just a few market players.
    • deltarholamda 3y ago
      Like many government regulations, it has a great name, "Net Neutrality," which, when it is actually implemented, will do much more than make the 'Net neutral. Maybe, at first, it will have something to do with "you can't throttle Web services," but it will morph into "you MUST throttle this particular Web service, it spreads disinformation, which makes the Net less neutral." It is what always happens. It is more reliable than gravity.
      • mattnewton 3y ago
        What? How would regulation that “you must not throttle” lead to regulation for “you just throttle”? That makes no sense.
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
        • deltarholamda 3y ago
          How much of the Patriot Act was patriotic? The US government does this sort of thing all the time.
        • somenameforme 3y ago
          The most typical way this is done is through selective enforcement. You create rules that most of anybody can be argued to be breaking, but only enforce it for individuals or organizations that you have an issue with. With net neutrality it's pretty easy to see how this would happen. The previous net neutrality rules, under Tom Wheeler, included a carveout for nearly all rules under anything that could be justified as "reasonable network management." This carveout is necessary due to the nature of network management, but it creates an interesting scenario. That term was used literally dozens of times, but also defined absolutely nowhere. This now gives politicians the ability to interpret it, as they see fit. For a company that runs afoul of the powers that be, suddenly it's a standard that can't be met. For those in favor, anything can be accepted as "reasonable network management." And this is how corruption and tyranny typically works works. The cases of a somebody going completely rogue, or a politician doing something after being handed golden bars or a bag of cash - do still happen. But, by and large, the system is big enough, and complex enough, that if somebody with enough power wants to screw somebody - they can do it legally. And if somebody protests inequitable or unfair treatment, just call it a whataboutism.
  • ericmay 3y ago
    If it never happened no harm in making sure it doesn’t happen either.
    • cddotdotslash 3y ago
      Sure, but the argument kind of loses merit, no? I remember the entire collective internet having site wide shutdowns, urging users to write to congress, etc. It was an extensive campaign that looped in many non technical folks to a very technical topic. You can only cry wolf like that a few times. If a similar campaign were to launch again, I’m almost certain it would fail to get the same mainstream support, especially because the “sky is falling” arguments made last time never came true (or at least not in the ways claimed). Lost credibility is hard to regain for the next time there truly is an existential crisis.
      • mattnewton 3y ago
        No it doesn’t lose merit because the fight isn’t over. It’s not like all major ISPs are going to immediately ramp up to 11; even if they wanted to make that blunder while people are still clearly educated about the issue and paying attention, negotiating payments for services exempt from traffic shaping is a long b2b sales cycle that has only started. They are going to slowly boil the frog after watching the others get away with more in their region.
        • wredue 3y ago
          Yeah. This thread is getting to me. Okay. Net neutrality died and ISPs didn’t immediately turn the internet in to subscriptions to different cloud providers. The fact is that they CAN, and to be so deliriously ignorant as to believe that “it didn’t happen yet, so it will never happen” is just… what is happening here? Is this thread just ChatGPT bots? Regardless of if Microsoft, google, Amazon and ISPs have not yet managed to cooperate in to cable style subscriptions to what parts of the internet you get, we are WAY better off enshrining to law that they cannot do it.
          • 3y ago
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • temporallobe 3y ago
    I’m with you, but “bundling” sites like cable companies bundle channels is not even a correct analogy. Doing so would fundamentally break the internet as we know it and I am pretty certain the site owners wouldn’t like it either, since it could break ad-delivery. It would be a complicated mess that the ISPs would have to backpedal on. The simpler solution is just to change more money for everything and throttle, though I suppose they could create app-only access like what you’re describing (basically no direct access to port 80 via normal browsers). Or, recreate the glory days of something like AOL.
  • KingLancelot 3y ago
    [dead]
  • adrr 3y ago
    It happens on airplanes and paid WiFi. Some allow free browsing of certain sites and charge for full access. Some airlines charge more for streaming access. Some provide basic messaging on a low priced tier.
  • dfxm12 3y ago
    People were screwed, but not like this. ISP's mostly put the screws to streaming services. Just point them to Netflix's price hikes shortly after they felt the effects of NN getting repealed in ~2019, or the constant back and forth between Verizon and Netflix. Mobile customers didn't get away scot free though. This did enable mobile service providers to offer more tiered plans, which on average raised prices on worse service via caps and throttled speeds. Some people may still be "grandfathered" in to old unlimited plans, but a lot of people either paid more, got worse service, or both.
  • op00to 3y ago
    It's more insidious than simply bundling together access to certain websites. The main way that ISPs extract $$ out of content providers is by charging the content providers to peer to their network. If there isn't a recurring peering agreement in place, the ISP will let the content provider's peering interface overload which drives service quality down. Of course, the ISP ensures /their/ content provider is always on an interface with plenty of bandwidth to spare.
  • birdyrooster 3y ago
    They don’t upgrade their interconnects with other residential ISPs which is making it hard for decentralized alternatives to displace the big cloud based vendors.
• djoldman 3y ago
  https://archive.ph/RyFFH https://archive.ph/RyFFH
• amadeuspagel 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • bonzini 3y ago
    HE was refusing to provide internet connectivity to Kiwi Farms's host, that's a different thing than net neutrality. They're not interfering with traffic even though the EFF puts it that way, they're dropping a customer. A "neutral" ISP can't refuse to get that host's packets if they transit through their network (including delivering the packets to the ISP's end users), but they can absolutely refuse to do business with anyone, including Kiwi Farms or Kiwi Farms's host or Kiwi Farms's host's host.
• stuckinhell 3y ago
  Do we need net neutrality ? I didn't even know it was gone. My internet is the same as ever
  • georgeplusplus 3y ago
    Same.
  • acheron 3y ago
    It was always a con. A regulation had been in place since 2015, they repealed it in 2017, it never mattered. Some politicians tricked people into screaming about it, and I’m sure they were able to get some fundraising because of the screaming.
    • WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
      > It was always a con. A regulation had been in place since 2015, they repealed it in 2017, it never mattered. This sounds like one of the pregurgitated anti-neutrality mantra. Specifically, the one that ignores the many growing trends (caps, prioritization, purposeful peering congestion) before neutrality and how those trends mostly paused when neutrality was passed. It also ignores what ISPs know - that not every administration has full-throated support for anti-consumer practices. That is, not every admin will provide the cover ISPs need to get consumers used to increasing mistreatment. Better to keep the pause on consumer harms in place until a friendlier environment can be secured for the long term. Meanwhile it's still safe screw consumers on other fronts. One is further entrenching ISP monopoly/duopoly positions by having lobbyists write state anti-munibroadband laws for paid legislators to pass.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• woeirua 3y ago
  It really seems unnecessary at this point. Now that we have satellite based internet and 4G/5G are legit competitors to regular wire based ISPs it just seems that the market has solved this by itself. Sure, Comcast _could_ still start doing prioritization. But honestly I’d be a lot more worried about how Google/Meta/Microsoft are using your data for GenAI.
  • WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    > It really seems unnecessary at this point. Now that we have satellite based internet and 4G/5G are legit competitors to regular wire based ISPs None of those things compete with wireline, on either performance or price. Satellite internet is 2x-10x more expensive and requires expensive equipment. It has significant lag and greatly reduced upload. 5G speeds exist in small, limited zones. Cellular internet in general is slower, comes with tiny to small data caps, is more expensive, has more lag and reduced upload. Here's what meaningful competition looks like. Next month I'll be able to choose from several fiber ISPs. Backstory: We currently have one cable provider. Following the recent broadband funding, my neighborhood was just trenched for fiber. It's an open infrastructure and any ISP that wants to sell service to us - can. This is how DSL used to work back in the late 90s-early aughts, until ISP lobbyists paid for enough elections to get those mandates unwound.
    • _chu1 3y ago
      I actually get badass 5G speeds in the middle of nowhere rural Alabama with T-Mobile, the only issue is it being a CGNAT preventing me from playing most PS3 games online.
      • thomastjeffery 3y ago
        If you're lucky enough to live near an updated and uncongested tower, then yeah. The same thing happened for my parents in rural Utah, just with FTTH instead. Unfortunately for them, they are overcharged enough that it's probably worth it at this point to switch to 5G.
  • mywittyname 3y ago
• pcdoodle 3y ago
  9 year old "Juice Rap News" video expressing the importance of net neutrality, it's a banger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-xSP_T0VqU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-xSP_T0VqU
• woudsma 3y ago
  At my previous job I worked on a digital campaign protesting the repeal of Net Neutrality[0]. It was a nice technical challenge to save (and render) those millions of leaflets. More about the project here[1] [0]: https://paperstorm.it/ https://paperstorm.it/ [1]: https://studiomoniker.com/projects/paperstorm https://studiomoniker.com/projects/paperstorm
  • dantheman 3y ago
    Glad you failed. This is pure propaganda.
    • SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
      Anyone downvoting you should actually clink those links. There is no honest and good faith discussion there at all.
• jerkstate 3y ago
  interesting that nobody is talking about how net neutrality is needed to prevent censorship anymore
  • snickerbockers 3y ago
    Now the main thread of discussion seems to be that NN is really convenient for Netflix's business model as if i should care.
    • monocasa 3y ago
      It's probably not now that they've had to deal with it. Instead the web of business relationships they've had to build and the constant capital they have to spend creates a moat around incumbent players in the video space like Netflix.
  • birthdaydog 3y ago
    It's predictable from the title. HN is an intensely conservative site.
    • Tostino 3y ago
      A ton on here like to pretend to take a moderate viewpoint when espousing strictly conservative views or talking points.
      • SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
        A quick question... If everywhere else on the internet you went to was extremely liberal / progressive / whatever... And then you came here to see older and more professional people with different opinions that were some conservative, but most more moderate, and many still very liberal... How would you know if you were the center point or an outlier?
• snickerbockers 3y ago
  I don't see the point of NN as long as the only "service providers" it applies to are the ones implementing layers <= 3. The main threat to online freedom is that corporate America can collude together to remove you from the internet entirely if you piss them off. See parler, 8chan, kiwifarms etc; not that i think any of those sites is particularly worth defending but there's a principle at stake which is that this can happen to anybody. And with NN being championed by a lot of the same services that cut off the above-mentioned it seems less like something meant to preserve the freedom of the Internet and more like something meant to keep one group of corporations in control of it.
  • stewx 3y ago
    Kiwifarms was down for like 2 days. Side note: the Blocked and Reported podcast looked deeply into the allegations that led to that that site being initially shut down and they concluded they were bogus.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • bombcar 3y ago
      Cloudflare continues to run in front of literal DDoS selling sites, and animal crush sites, and more (you really don’t want to know).
  • tbrownaw 3y ago
    I'd expect a neutral layer 3 to make it easier to implement protections against layer 8 attacks.
• dahfizz 3y ago
  If you believed the scare tactics at the time, losing net neutrality literally threatened the end of the internet as we know it. But my internet has worked the same before, during, and after net neutrality. I really don't get what all the fuss is about. However, if you really do believe this is a civilization defining piece of regulation, Why leave it to the FCC? It seems like people on both sides are happy to leave this super duper important decision to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats. Everyone loves executive overreach when its their side that does it I guess.
  • mattnewton 3y ago
    The argument is not that the internet would suddenly die, it’s that it would get chopped up and rebundled a-La cable tv. And we’re seeing isps give preferential treatment to services that pay them, just not instantly and only that because it’s been only 2 years (edit: comment below points out it’s been 5), business sales cycles are long and they aren’t stupid enough to immediately turn the heat up to 11 while the frog is still paying attention.
    • parineum 3y ago
      > The argument is not that the internet would suddenly die From honest/informed actors, you're correct but the FUD campaign during the repeal was incredibly dramatic and exaggerated.
    • dahfizz 3y ago
      > because it’s been only 2 years The net neutrality repeal took effect in 2018, its been 5 years https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/technology/net-neutrality-repeal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/technology/net-neutrality...
      • mattnewton 3y ago
        Apologies idk where I got the 2 years from. But I still feel like this too short a time period to claim the experiment is run , especially when several states like California[0] have their own net neutrality laws since 2018. I feel it’s kinda like saying that we don’t need federal emissions standards because the sky hasn’t fallen without them (but they are in major markets like California). [0] https://mashable.com/article/california-net-neutrality-can-be-enforced https://mashable.com/article/california-net-neutrality-can-b...
• Aloha 3y ago
  Provided network neutrality is limited to banning 'bundling' - meaning some services do not count against a data cap but others do - I think it's an unqualified good. If it goes beyond that, it gets stickier for wireless operators - because of the shared access medium inherent to wireless, you must do much more in the way of network optimization than you would on a wireline operator. I'd be much more comfortable with treating information services as common carriers, which has an existing regulatory and interpretive framework to decide what that means - most of which can be directly applied to information services (internet access). I get this is a somewhat unpopular opinion, but I don't trust the courts to decide cases which are highly technical in nature.
• zzzeek 3y ago
  all good news but at this point I'd prefer if they can turn cable providers like my own Altice / Optimum into public utilities so I don't have to pay $110/month for 100 mpbs with zero alternatives, when my uncle in Wisconsin has 300 mpbs for less money.
• cainxinth 3y ago
  A lot of people in these comments are making the case that removing net neutrality didn’t do much harm, so why bother bringing it back. Let me make the counterclaim. The argument against net neutrality is that it might stifle innovation. Well, we had net neutrality for many years and innovation didn’t seem all that stifled. Hence, what’s the harm in bringing it back?
  • cltby 3y ago
    Because we should have strong priors disfavoring regulation, and this is a stalking horse for yet more internet regulation.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • xwdv 3y ago
    The harm is that it takes away resources from other important issues that require our focus right now.
    • Keegs 3y ago
      I know you're kidding, but it surprises me how often I hear the idea that an organization the size of the FCC can't multitask.
      • Tostino 3y ago
        Especially when never bringing up what some of those more important things could be.
      • IshKebab 3y ago
        You didn't hear that idea. You heard the idea that the FCC doesn't have unlimited resources. Do you disagree with that? (For the record I don't agree that this is unimportant, but you're arguing against a straw man.)
    • 3y ago
• PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  You can always trust politicians to do the exact opposite of their claim. For example: inflation reduction act, affordable health care act, voting rights act 2023. The propaganda is strong with net neutrality. It is just another play for more government control over information.
  • hn_acker 3y ago
    Would you mind explaining specifically how the FCC's intention to add net neutrality rules again (actually Chairwoman Rosenworcel's intention, and dubious in mettle [1]) would give the government "control over information"? Additionally, would you mind describing what you mean by "government control over information"? A required condition of net neutrality is that the ISPs be considered common carriers once again. Common carriers are an exception to the legal paradigm of compelled speech. So the most you can say is that the government would be disallowing the ISPs from engaging in money-motivated censorship. If that falls under your idea of "government control over information" then you would be correct (but only pointlessly correct in my opinion). [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/07/14/finally-close-to-having-a-voting-majority-will-the-biden-fcc-actually-restore-net-neutrality/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/07/14/finally-close-to-having-...
• bilsbie 3y ago
  I’m pro net neutrality AFAIK. BUT We owe it to ourselves to go and look at all the fearmongering they were putting out about ending net neutrality and figuring out why it didn’t come to pass. And hopefully learning from that for future policy debates.
  • mattnewton 3y ago
    It’s only been a few years. I don’t think we owe our selves to call all experiments at such a short time frame. People are acting like this is some chemical reaction they should be able to observe in an afternoon instead of something slow and pernicious like large American businesses when they know they are being watched. Edit: also several states have net neutrality laws on the books, so if you are typing this from California it’s no wonder you aren’t seeing the end of the world: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/californias-net-neutrality-law-and-the-case-for-zero-rating-government-services/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/californias-net-neutralit...
    • SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
      Can we apply the same argument of time and precedence? Machine guns were legal for new purchase in the USA from their invention in 1892 to 1986. That's 94 years of precedent so, if a couple years of "no chemical reaction" is the gauge, I bet we could roll into and back on a lot of things, right?
  • dd36 3y ago
    States passed net neutrality laws.
  • Covzire 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
      Does no one else remember Reddit and Google running dial-up looking gifs of their logos to show how evil the ending of NN would be? Yea... we got a worse internet alright but it definitely wasn't because images load slowly.
• dantheman 3y ago
  Once again the FCC tries to expand it's powers to 'solve' a non problem.
• jmyeet 3y ago
  I fully support net neutrality. Those who oppose it, like former FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, are really just bowing to ISPs who want to charge companies like Netflix and Google for "pushing" data onto their networks. But net neutrality isn't actually what we need. What we need is municipal broadband. The major ISPs in the US are objectively awful. The best Internet access in the US are in places with municipal broadband eg Chattanooga. A good start would be regulating ISPs as a utility.
• gdubs 3y ago
  A lot of these comments reflect never having lived in a rural or underserved area. Like most services in life, if you live a relatively upper class life in a competitive market, things like net neutrality are probably not gonna be very loud on your radar.
  • ultra_nick 3y ago
    How?
• sershe 3y ago
  Semi-unrelated, on bundling: about 20-25 years ago, there were a bunch of these tiny hyper-local ISPs in Russia that would wire up several adjacent flat blocks with a LAN, get an internet uplink and start signing customers within those flat blocks (your only other option at that time was dial-up). The uplink was probably expensive and so they charged per Gb (or had a very low cap) but... "a free local share with terabytes of warez, mp3s, movies and porn is included in your base fee!". I think it might have even been in the official ads, in a slightly less blatant form.
  • toyg 3y ago
    The first pure-fiber ISP in Italy effectively had the same for many, many years. Because speeds were so good between their customers but still slow towards the wider internet (this was the early '00s), they effectively closed both eyes as people established mega-shares with all sorts of goodness. I think they eventually cracked down on it, but it went on for at least a decade.
    • sershe 3y ago
      In the Russian case, ISP itself would host the share :)
  • sznio 3y ago
    That's same as an ISP I used in 2006. My internet access was 128k, but I could get warez from the local DC++ at gigabit speeds.
• shockeychap 3y ago
  I believe it's supposed to be "U.S. Democrats", not "us Democrats".
  • SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
    On this site, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference. Shockingly to me, someone else in this thread writes how this is a conservative site... Well that guy must have a wildly different perspective from me!
    • daveoc64 3y ago
      On a global scale, the Democrats in the US are extremely conservative. "There are two major parties in America - a conservative party, and a very conservative party".
      • SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
        I know that is a popular line to say. Economically, maybe, but not really. I think Europe is a lot better about hiding their corporate interests than the USA, but I think it's still largely capitalism-for-real behind the socialism-for-show. I can't think of how that statement is true, unless you look at things USA Left wants that they are unable to get, then saying they're conservative because they didn't get them. Like socialized healthcare. What part are Democrats conservative over Europeans liberals? Healthcare, no I don't think so. Immigration? No. Guns? No. Free speech? No. Low taxes and small government? No. Abortion? lol no. Democrats in the USA were so up in arms over a 15 week limit in Missippi that they took it to the Supreme Court and lost Roe v Wade, but most of Europe is happily swimming along with 12 week bans. So, maybe I just don't see it, but I hear this line all the time from progressives that are frustrated at Democrats for not doing all the hard left things they want. What am I missing? USA Democrats aren't conservative because they have a conservative party that opposes them. What are USA Democrats so conservative at in their actual actions and desires?
      • TMWNN 3y ago
        As SV_BubbleTime said, that is nonsense no matter how often the claim is repeated. I'll give two more examples. Voter ID is uncontroversial everywhere in Europe and Canada. Formerly government-run postal services have long since been privatized almost everywhere in Europe, while no one advocates doing so with the USPS (despite the TDS-driven hysteria over the so-called sabotaging of same in 2020).
• Slava_Propanei 3y ago
  [dead]
• KingLancelot 3y ago
  [dead]
• shockeychap 3y ago
  This feels a bit like arguing over the arrangement of the furniture as the house burns. The web is a hot mess of garbage SEO, ads, incendiary clickbait, and political echochambers. THIS is the thing that warrants fixing first?
  • ultra_nick 3y ago
    Are you arguing that freedom of speech doesn't matter because people can say bad things?
• Andrex 3y ago
  Was losing net neutrality as bad as we all feared? No, not immediately. But safeguards are important to the future, and we want to prevent this particular slope from getting any more slippery.
• Tempest1981 3y ago
  "us Democrats" -> "US Democrats" What a difference capitalization makes. Or was it deliberate?
• trinsic2 3y ago
  I work closely with an ISP in my field. It seems to me that the biggest threat to customer choice is independent ISP's being able to provide service through the building out of the cable infrastructure, at least in northern California. Most municipalities have a grandfathered in cable network from ATT and Comcast, because of this they have been recently dictating how and when ISP can deploy their service. Because of the democrat to republican administration change in the past, the rules have changed regarding line sharing and infrastructure build out. In many cases, the big players, who were previously prevented from interfering with other ISP's build-out, are now able to actively make it more difficult (costly) for independent ISP's from expanding their network. If this continues, its going to put smaller ISP's out of business. So IMHO, this is more important that forcing the big players to play by the net neutrality rules in regards to throttling services, Id go so far as to say they are using that as red herring to distract people from the real problem. If there is no competition, you don't have anywhere to go when an ISP suddenly decides to do something that is anti-competitive.
• readyplayernull 3y ago
  Isn't Cloudfare a worst evil for net neutrality, to fight?
• tivert 3y ago
  This is good, but it's so obvious this was a super low priority thing for the Democrats. It's been almost three years since they took power, and they let the FCC sit in an Ajit Pai-inspired limbo for most of that time. They hit a roadblock and just stopped for years instead of adapting.
  • sigmar 3y ago
    >They hit a roadblock and just stopped for years instead of adapting. When did they stop? Gigi Sohn was nominated in 2021 and was repeatedly renominated until she withdrew this year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigi_Sohn#FCC_nomination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigi_Sohn#FCC_nomination
    • tivert 3y ago
      > When did they stop? Gigi Sohn was nominated in 2021 and was repeatedly renominated until she withdrew this year. Exactly there. Instead of renominating her to perpetual failure, they should have nominated someone else. When they finally did the work to find another candidate, they actually got results. That should have happened years ago. But it didn't and that either means they're insane (as in doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result) or the just don't care that much.
  • Terr_ 3y ago
    > It's been almost three years since they took power, and they let the FCC sit in an Ajit Pai-inspired limbo for most of that time. There ought to be a name for this fallacy, like "alternating dictatorship single color lump-government." Pretty much from day-one the Biden administration was trying to get a new FCC member to the understaffed commission, however with the slimmest possible 51-49 Senate majority it only takes one "blue dog" Democrat (or one heavily reliant on industry donations) to block it all. [0] That state of affairs continued until the latest attempt finally passed this month. [1] [0] https://prospect.org/politics/democratic-majority-at-the-fcc-still-blocked/ https://prospect.org/politics/democratic-majority-at-the-fcc... [1] https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2023/9/cantwell-applauds-senate-confirmation-of-anna-gomez-to-complete-the-federal-communications-commission-end-years-long-deadlock https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2023/9/cantwell-applauds-sen...
• adolph 3y ago
  Seems like the headline is misleading. The FCC is a tool of political will. Some politicians who will determine future FCC rule-making wish to reinstate net neutrality. Seems like this back and forth could go on for some time. It would probably be better to come up with a solution that can supported across changes in control. Given the discussion here it isn’t clear to me what the middle ground might be other than some scorched earth. Maybe net neutrality for consumer benefit only on a non discriminatory basis? For example, a MVNO could not penalize any Internet traffic but they could offer a no capacity cap service as long as any other comparable service had the same access. Such a setup would probably be cause for a large number of lawyer billable hours which will make lawyers in both sides happy.
• BurningFrog 3y ago
  The internet developed without Net Neutrality. 2015-2017 there was Net Neutrality. 2018-2023 there was not. Empirically, the disaster that Net Neutrality claims to avoid, is hard to observe.
  • eximius 3y ago
    Ribbit.
  • xenadu02 3y ago
    That is not correct at all. The internet developed with "net neutrality" because that's how ARPANET and later the internet had always worked. Peering agreements developed based on symmetrical traffic loads and providers regularly upgraded links as needed. NN was originally imposed by the FCC because Verizon started blocking VPNs, requiring customers to pay for a "business" plan if they wanted VPN support. That was the first wide-scale break with internet tradition and it rightly freaked a lot of people out.
    • eindiran 3y ago
      > The internet developed with "net neutrality" because that's how ARPANET and later the internet had always worked. OP is making a claim about de jure net neutrality, you are making a claim about de facto net neutrality.
      • xenadu02 3y ago
        Because the context is relevant here. Net neutrality is not some government over-reach. It was a specific reaction to a captive telco trying to fundamentally change how the internet works by having an intermediary convert certain packet traffic into a "premium" service. The only reason net neutrality wasn't already law or part of the peering or ARIN contracts to even be on the internet at all was that no one could imagine that ISPs would become monopoly/dualopolies that might try to block traffic to extract extra rents from from both their existing paying customers and the owners of the servers their customers wanted to connect with. In retrospect it should have been part of the contract to get a netblock from one of the NRO organizations (like ARIN) that such conduct is prohibited. And before anyone raises a straw man: the policy could have been clear that traffic-shaping for fairness, QoS, network health, or even non-service-specific transfer caps was allowed. In some ways how ISPs handle transfer caps is similar: their stated reasoning is garbage. The cap does nothing to discourage high use during peak periods and punishes customers who do bulk transfers at midnight when the ISP's network has plenty of capacity. The real purpose of caps is to extract more rent for doing nothing. The ILEC and Cable ISPs look back on the $1/minute long distance telephone days of Ma Bell with sparkles in their eyes. Funny for a service that entirely depends on the government giving them free access to my and your property for right-of-way.
• TheCaptain4815 3y ago
  Isn't the entire notion of NN outdated given the mass censorship that's sprung up the past 4-5 years? Isn't it vastly more important to ensure free speech on the internet than the speed of your netflix stream. Seems like a misguided battle.
  • SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
    You should know a lot of the people you are asking that good question to, and the very people pushing for NN again are the people that saw no issue with the past 4-5 years because "the right people" were being censored. In a more steelman argument, you could probably discuss that another form of censorship could always come in the form of a tier that only includes "approved sources" or throttling anyone deemed as "misinformation".
  • triceratops 3y ago
    > Isn't it vastly more important to ensure free speech on the internet than the speed of your netflix stream If they can slow down your Netflix stream, they can also impair others' access to your self-hosted blog. I can't think of a more direct, fundamental threat to free speech than that. It's the same as the power company turning off service to your printing press.
    • TheCaptain4815 3y ago
      Who's "they"? Every ISP collaborating together to censor specific websites? Highly doubt that ever happens. Plus, companies like Starlink have made that practically impossible. Add in 5g internet options and I can't see how that could be practical. All of that has been added in the past 3-5 years too.
      • triceratops 3y ago
        Then contrary to what you originally claimed, there's no free speech issues on the internet right now, Unless you're talking about having your "free speech" on whatever site or service you want. That's not free speech. It's more like communism. > Highly doubt that ever happens It would be a serious free speech violation. Best to make it illegal so it never does. If you're censored on literally all social media you can still host your own website or IRC server. If ISPs start censoring you it's game over. Even one ISP slowing down specific websites by a bit would be very bad. Slowness tends to decrease traffic, and people would almost never notice. And then add in the fact that it's so difficult to change ISPs: spend an hour on the phone with the cancellation department, schedule an installation for the new service yada yada yada.
• DrThunder 3y ago
  These sorts of bills aren't necessary if you create an environment that provides enough competition. A lot of areas are getting more ISP's coming in and laying fiber which is forcing the big companies like ATT and Spectrum to compete. Imo the government stepping in is just another instance of them refusing to use the tools at their disposal to break up monopolies and instead inserting themselves into a position that gives them more power over the internet. As usual they create problems and then come up with MORE laws to fix the problems they've created, which inevitably leads to more issues down the road.
• hedora 3y ago
  I'd rather they focus on universal broadband access: 1) Set a minimum 1th percentile download and upload speeds and 99th percentile RTTs, bucketed in 1 minute intervals over a 30 day period. If an ISP falls below that for more than 1% of customers, then they automatically lose any right of way exclusivity that they hold, and also are broken into a common carrier and retail group. 1a) Throttled / non-prioritized / blocked services count toward the SLA. 2) If a telco is not meeting the universal access requirements in an area, then their networks are automatically transferred to a telco that is meeting the requirements. The receiving telco must hold the infrastructure until it meets SLAs for 10 years. If all the local telcos fail, then ownership reverts to a locally-owned (no more than 100K subscribers) co-ops.
• hn_acker 3y ago
  Net neutrality is gone, so why is the internet mostly the same (to people with money to spare for higher bandwidth tiers which are just as overpriced as the lower tiers)? Because STATES (Washington, Oregon, and California) passed net neutrality laws to partially compensate for the lack of regulation from the top [1]. But in the first place, net neutrality does nothing about affordability [2], subsidy fraud + corruption [3], deceptive pricing [4], and regulatory capture [5]. Net neutrality would be a relatively minor consequence of a competitive internet service market. In other words, net neutrality is a necessary outcome and nothing close to a sufficient condition. [1] https://www.naruc.org/nrri/nrri-activities/net-neutrality-tracker/ https://www.naruc.org/nrri/nrri-activities/net-neutrality-tr... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/what-low-income-people-will-lose-deadlocked-fcc https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/what-low-income-people... [3] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/09/19/senator-ted-cruz-pretends-to-care-about-wasteful-broadband-subsidies/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/09/19/senator-ted-cruz-pretend... [4] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/fcc-says-too-bad-to-isps-complaining-that-listing-every-fee-is-too-hard/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/fcc-says-too-bad... [5] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/09/07/after-years-of-stupid-games-the-senate-finally-gives-the-biden-fcc-a-voting-majority-now-what/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/09/07/after-years-of-stupid-ga...
• jscipione 3y ago
  After us Democrats? I didn’t realize that Bloomberg were Democrats but I did realize that deceptive capitalization is a big problem on HN.
• Warclouda 3y ago
  [dead]