20 ms·

FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

1013 points by throwup238 3y ago

lenerdenator 3y ago
What's this thing the government has been doing recently where they're no longer content to just let major corporations screw consumers?
- tatelax 3y ago
  Election coming up
  - sigzero 3y ago
    100%
  - MrZongle2 3y ago
    Exactly this. Regardless of the winners of said election, expect a return to business as usual afterward.
    - Analemma_ 3y ago
      Would you like to make a wager on that? I would be prepared to bet money (and give you very generous odds) that, contra your claim, if Biden is re-elected in November the FCC will not undo this change and remove net neutrality afterward.
    - llamaimperative 3y ago
      Not really. There has been a continuous stream of pro-consumer actions out of the Biden admin since day one. Lots of anti-trust activity in really critical sectors, for example. You’re not paying very close attention if you can’t spot any substantive differences between the two sides.
    - cogman10 3y ago
      Eh... I wouldn't say so much. I'd expect that if Biden gets a second term, then after the election you can basically expect little to no action for the next 3 years. Business as usual... ish. Major changes will likely happen before the next election just to try and keep a democrat in office. The Trump second term will likely immediately start with rolling back things like Net Neutrality. Biden's admin likely wouldn't do that as that'd keep them from getting cabinet positions in the future and Trump's admin will do it right away because it can both be sold as a referendum on the previous admin and would help them get future positions for the next republican president. For trump, I doubt he'll do anything at the end of his term different from the beginning. I really don't think Trump cares about keeping republicans in office.
      - hobs 3y ago
        It's true that he cares about himself first, but he only stumps for republicans (as long as they support him) and he packed the federal and supreme court with republicans (and they've won important cases about redistricting rules and other things that keep republicans in power). So saying he doesn't care about keeping republicans in office makes no sense as he's probably cemented them in office in places they have no business being elected for another 30 years.
        SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
        >and he packed the federal and supreme court I can tell where the hypocrisy starts and the eye roll begins.
        cogman10 3y ago
        I can't say this for certain, but my guess is that Trump's supreme court picks weren't really him looking at potential nominees and instead were done based on the advice of his cabinet. (I'm certain that's how it is for most presidents). Trump will likely appoint a republican friendly cabinet, for sure, which means their goals and agendas will be centered around the party as much as they are for trump. But that said, I just don't think Trump cares about the republican party. He cares about it in as much as it's a vehicle for him to maintain power. Said another way, I don't think trump the person cares about the republican party. I think the trump admin does. If he wins, the only way I really see him personally caring about the next presidency is if he decide to try and run for a 3rd term (like he's floated).
  - Cody-99 3y ago
    Changing government policy isn't always an instant process. Most of the FCC rules go through the "notice and comment" process that takes quiet a long time. The net neutrality rule for example has been in the works since at least January 2022 [1]. [1] https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/net-neutrality-will-make-a-comeback-again-in-2022/ https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/net-neutrality-will-make-...
  - cal5k 3y ago
    All of the new "rules" being proposed by executive agencies will be subject to court challenge, and some of them (like the FTC's non-compete "rule") will likely be subject to a preliminary injunction. The goal is to get people to think "Yeah! Taking action on non-competes is great! Darn politicized courts!", when in reality this is not something an executive agency should be doing without an act of congress, or it may not even be a matter that falls to the federal government at all. Most employment law, for example, falls to the state in which the worker lives, and some have chosen to ban non-competes via legislation. This is much more democratic than attempting to craft law by executive fiat, even though I tend to agree that non-competes are more harmful than good in many situations.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      >This is much more democratic than attempting to craft law by executive fiat What exactly "more democratic" means is a bit unclear to me. Is an act of Congress more democratic than agency policy because more reps voted on it? Is it more democratic because the reps who voted on it were elected rather than appointed by people who were elected like over at those agencies? Or is a policy democratic based on its alignment with the will of the electorate regardless of provenance?
      - cal5k 3y ago
        > Is it more democratic because the reps who voted on it were elected rather than appointed by people who were elected like over at those agencies? The presidency is not an elected autocracy. The extent of his powers are strictly limited to those granted by a) the constitution, and b) acts of congress. Attempts to circumvent these limitations through clever legal theories are undemocratic, doubly so when that circumvention bypasses duly elected state governments. No act of congress has ever explicitly banned non-compete agreements or authorized the FTC to do so, and the plethora of employment law at the state level strongly supports the notion that it wasn't even a federal matter to begin with. Would you argue that it's more democratic or less democratic when powers previously belonging to states are subsumed by the executive in this way? What if the people of Texas believe non-compete agreements are important? Why not just federalize all laws and tell state legislatures to pound sand?
- objektif 3y ago
  Administration sees they are losing the young vote. Administration checks what can get them more young votes…..
  - spywaregorilla 3y ago
    Which is democracy working as intended and not a cynical thing at all.
  - triceratops 3y ago
    Politicians doing what voters want?! What a radical concept!
    - objektif 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - MrZongle2 3y ago
      Funny how they seem to rack up most of these high-profile accomplishments in election years....
      - triceratops 3y ago
        Tell me you've never started an assignment the day before it's due.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    Ahh yes courting the young vote, that group famous for going out to the polls in large numbers. The 16-25 age group is really into FCC regulation and anti-TikTok right now.
    - objektif 3y ago
      Check to see if Biden loses what will most likely cause it.
- tootie 3y ago
  Not to be glib, but it's just Democrats. They are not immune from corporate interests, but they are not wholly owned by them. And really, corporate interests are American interests so long as they don't needlessly harm citizens.
zer00eyz 3y ago
FCC rules... The other day it was FTC and banning non competes, there's also talk right now on the home page regarding KYC and an executive order. I would love for us to be able to get back to making laws in the US. Executive orders and agency rulings are a bad way to run a "democratic republic"
- redserk 3y ago
  It's worth noting that these agencies and their powers did not spring up out of thin air. Various elected Congress sessions wrote the laws that created and empowered these agencies to create rules. This is a reasonable implementation of a "democratic republic" as Congress still has oversight.
  - chrisfinazzo 3y ago
    Yet the Chevron decision empowers agencies to make rules independent of Congress in cases where the rules don't already exist or are unclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura.... Unsurprisingly, Kavanaugh and the rest of the conservatives would prefer this approach be relegated to history. Of course, the areas of particular interest that he cites as examples (securities e.g, finance, communications, and environmental laws) just happen to be those where the two parties could not possibly be further apart in their approaches. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...
    - fallingknife 3y ago
      It seems to me that the Chevron doctrine has essentially created a fourth branch of government with minimal democratic oversight. It feels like an end run around the constitution. In many cases the agencies exercise legislative, executive, and judicial powers all at the same time.
      - chrisfinazzo 3y ago
geuis 3y ago
Here's the FCC announcement (pdf) for those interested: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-restores-net-neutrality https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-restores-net-neutrality
- reaperman 3y ago
  I'm looking for full text of the actual action / implementation. Like the document containing the text that they actually voted on, specifically. Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40160960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40160960
  - TechDebtDevin 3y ago
    Vote first, plan the project later. Allocate money to your donors then let them figure out how to go over budget and ask for 1.5X more in 5 years. All congressional laws are essentially money laundering operations now where the main priority is getting govt funds to your best donors. Gg.
andy_xor_andrew 3y ago
great, what are the odds they reverse the reversal next year in a hypothetical new administration?
- anderber 3y ago
  I'd say 50/50
- tootie 3y ago
  By "they" you mean voters. This policy isn't top priority for very many voters, but the battle lines on this are clear. Trump will overturn (he already did once). Biden will protect it. A vote for Trump is a vote to overturn.
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    Obama set the FCC on a course to lower jail and prison phone call prices (which is understood to decrease recidivism by keeping prisoners in contact with their support systems). Trump came in and replaced the FCC head with this guy: https://nypost.com/2017/08/10/fcc-chairman-under-fire-for-conflict-of-interest-in-sale-of-prison-phone-company/ https://nypost.com/2017/08/10/fcc-chairman-under-fire-for-co...
- paulddraper 3y ago
  If there is a new administration, close to 100%.
  - devindotcom 3y ago
    yep imo it's dead in that case: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/04/net-neutrality-wont-survive-a-trump-presidency/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/04/net-neutrality-wont-surviv...
- kelnos 3y ago
  Fortunately this won't be the end of the world, as quite a few states and localities now have net neutrality laws of their own, which would presumably go back into effect if it were deregulated at the federal level again. Of course, the FCC could presumably create a rule that explicitly allows ISPs to do non-neutral shenanigans, and then the DoJ could start suing states, saying the federal rule preempts them. Not sure how that would pan out, though I'm sure the current composition of SCOTUS would be fine backing the FCC in this case, if the challenges got that far.
SeanAnderson 3y ago
I'm happy this reversal occurred, but I am exhausted by the continuous flip-flopping of legislation depending on which party is in charge. Feels like we're stagnating as a nation by going in a circle rather than finding commonality to go forward. Maybe it's always been this way though and I'm just getting old enough to be bothered by it?
- bgentry 3y ago
  It's partly what happens when such important rules are determined by who is appointed at an executive agency, rather than requiring an act of Congress. The former can be trivially gamed by the party in power after each election, whereas getting Congress to take action on something can be difficult and requires you to first get them motivated to do so at a given moment.
  - bearjaws 3y ago
    I'd flip it and say its what happens when Congress has been dysfunctional for over a decade. It's not even possible to get a house bill with net neutrality passed without it included 99 other things that will inevitably get the bill punted on forever. Congress could have drafted this anytime if they had seen fit, but they are "too busy" fighting ideology wars.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - cityofdelusion 3y ago
        There are de-facto one party systems in many cities, counties, and some states. They all suffer from getting nothing done. “Both sides” is a legitimate observation by those who recognize politics as upper class nobility vs the peasants. They run in the same social circles. We’re still primates at our core.
      - seanp2k2 3y ago
mise_en_place 3y ago
> Safeguard National Security – The Commission will have the ability to revoke the authorizations of foreign-owned entities who pose a threat to national security to operate broadband networks in the U.S. The Commission has previously exercised this authority under section 214 of the Communications Act to revoke the operating authorities of four Chinese state-owned carriers to provide voice services in the U.S. Any provider without section 214 authorization for voice services must now also cease any fixed or mobile broadband service operations in the United States. That seems rather vague. The timing is also rather interesting, given the forced divestiture of TikTok.
- pdabbadabba 3y ago
  > That seems rather vague. The timing is also rather interesting, given the forced divestiture of TikTok. This is just a press release. The actual decision is more than 400 pages long and will come out in the next few days. Here's the draft of the order released three weeks ago: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf (Of course, parts of this will inevitably be vague as well.) The timing is almost certainly a coincidence. They started the process of adopting these rules as soon as they could after democrats regained a majority of seats on the FCC last year and got them done as fast as they could.
  - reaperman 3y ago
    I'm not sure that's the order itself or just a very detailed "fact sheet" about the orde. It seems like it references the content of the order in great detail, allowing someone to figure it out, but I don't see the raw text of the rule there unless I just don't understand what FCC rules look like. I read a lot of FTC rules and court documents, but this the first time I'm looking for the full text of something the FCC voted on or was something close to it (like an earlier version of the exact document they voted on).
    - nobody9999 3y ago
      https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf
bastard_op 3y ago
[flagged]
karaterobot 3y ago
I'm fully in support of net neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the first place. From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, there weren't major protests, news about it even largely disappeared from the front page of HN (!). So, I would be beyond shocked if this was an election year issue of substance. What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? Has the lack of net neutrality caused issues that I just have not heard about?
- notatoad 3y ago
  >What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? there's usually some principled people in the government, and every now an then when an issue is obscure enough they can manage to get something done without the other side caring too much. what's the impetus for blocking this?
  - dantheman 3y ago
    it's not needed, the fcc doesnt have the authority, keeping the government away from internet is a good thing
    - polygamous_bat 3y ago
      > keeping the government away from internet is a good thing See, I would have agreed more with this if most of our internet infrastructures were not controlled by three megacorps with more power than many small to medium sized economies in the world. As it stands, the only valid option is to fight fire with fire.
      - barney54 3y ago
        And what has happened after the Trump FCC un-wound the previous net neutrality rules? Did the internet go to hell?
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40159776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40159776
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
theoperagoer 3y ago
ISPs should be allowed to throttle traffic for services. Otherwise, the result is going to be increased costs for all end-users.
- wtallis 3y ago
  I think you need to provide a lot more explanation and clarification of what you mean; your comment as written sounds like nothing more than a hollow talking point. What kind of throttling in what situations would be prohibited by these regulations and how would that cause increased costs?
  - gwbas1c 3y ago
    Maybe DDOS protection? IE: Things that ensure that a malicious user can't negatively impact other users on the network.
    - wtallis 3y ago
      Have you ever seen even a draft of a proposed regulation that didn't already have clear exceptions for that?
- Cody-99 3y ago
  No they shouldn't. I don't think that logic makes any sense at all. No one is paying increased costs because their neighbor is watching netflix, youtube, or browsing reddit. Users already pay for internet service they shouldn't have to pay again because the ISP wants to be greedy and double dip from fees to avoid throttling.
  - theoperagoer 3y ago
    If netflix traffic is straining ISPs to the point of requiring hardware upgrades etc., I think it is fair for ISPs to ask them to pay some of that cost.
    - 3y ago
fallingknife 3y ago
I feel like this is positive, but it doesn't really go far enough to have an impact on the internet as it exists today. The network itself being neutral doesn't make much difference at all to the average user when the majority of internet usage is through private platforms that are not bound by any such rules. We need to have some utility style regulation for the large web platforms too.
richwater 3y ago
Remember when the Internet freaked out and "when dark" to protest how the lack of NN would ruin the internet?....and then nothing changed? The boy who cried wolf...again.
- Mountain_Skies 3y ago
  You're being down voted for telling the truth, which is extremely inconvenient. Notice all the debate in this thread is about partisan score keeping and no one is able to explain why they want these rules back after all their predictions of terrible doom failed to happen. They need them back so they can claim doom was just around the corner if they hadn't been passed. The longer they went without being in effect, the more difficult it would be to explain why the doom never came to be. It is 100%, Grade A partisan score keeping to preserve future doomsaying without being called out on this absolutely failed predictions. Looks as bad for the doomsayers as a Bush administration's doomsaying about Weapons of Mass Destruction piling up in Iraq, ready to attack the US if we didn't invade. Incredible what people will let their partisan brains twist reality into. Of course, when this is used against them in the future, they'll scream like banshees, claiming it's unprecedented. This is the power of a brain addicted to partisanism.
- amelius 3y ago
  This is a bit like removing a traffic light from an intersection and then after a day saying "see, nothing happened, we don't need regulation from traffic lights". Laissez faire, everything will be alright.
  - richwater 3y ago
    > and then after a day It's been ~5.5 years since "the internet was doomed" by the FTC[0] How long are we supposed to wait for your doom prophecy to realize? [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-agency-to-vote-to-repeal-net-neutrality-rules-fcc-chief-idUSKBN1DL21A/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-exclusive/ex...
    - 3y ago
exabrial 3y ago
I mean great. I don't really want the things it's trying to ban, so good? But this is sorta like plastic straw bans: 0.0000000001% actual impact, all while making HUGE headlines, while doing absolutely zero to solve root systemic issues: Entrenched Local Monopolies by telco providers. So yeah, good, glad my Nebula won't be slower than my YouTubes, while all along I just wanted to ditch the assholes in the first place and use a different ISP.
- tentacleuno 3y ago
  > glad my Nebula won't be slower than my YouTubes To be fair, wouldn't this still be the case? Google peer with many ISPs, and have a lot of server / networking prowess, so the YouTube experience is normally pretty good across the board. Nebula, on the other hand, is a fairly new player from my understanding.
  - mdasen 3y ago
    Yes, YouTube might have better CDN solutions, but ISPs can't unfairly discriminate against Nebula. Nebula is a new player, but presumably they're using CDNs with good reach. The point isn't that Google can't build a better CDN. The point is that we don't want ISPs creating a situation where they've inked a deal with Google to prevent good performance from YouTube competitors. We don't want a situation where "YouTube is the exclusive 4K video provider on ISP-X."
    - tentacleuno 3y ago
      > The point isn't that Google can't build a better CDN. The point is that we don't want ISPs creating a situation where they've inked a deal with Google to prevent good performance from YouTube competitors. We don't want a situation where "YouTube is the exclusive 4K video provider on ISP-X." Definitely not, and I would never advocate for that -- I was perhaps being slightly pedantic in the above comment :-)
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Nebula fares just fine on my internet at 1080p and 2x speed.
thinkerswell 3y ago
[dead]
Zenzero 3y ago
As much as I support the decision are we just going to keep playing this game flipping back and forth across administrations?
- ImJamal 3y ago
  Yes until the congress actually does their job and passes a law.
tbeseda 3y ago
https://archive.li/ITyf1 https://archive.li/ITyf1
- martinbaun 3y ago
  Thanks
  - pc86 3y ago
    You're welcome
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
feoren 3y ago
This flip-flopping happens because there is no commonality to find. One of the only (effectively) two major political parties of the United States is completely uninterested in governing. They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. Their only goal is the piecemeal selloff of government powers to the highest bidder, and they convince their stalwart followers of this by making sure they get their daily dose of other people suffering. As long as others are suffering, their base will support the wholesale takeover of government by the rich. The other half is pretty bad at governing, but at least they try to govern. So when they're in power, the first thing they have to do is try to build back up the institutions that have been disabled or dismantled by the party of government-cannibals. Don't ask me which half is which. You know.
- s3r3nity 3y ago
  > They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. This is an unfair analysis, and is either naive at best or disingenuous at worst. I'm not a registered Republican, but I AM strongly against an all-powerful centralized body of government that continues to expand exponentially. I would rather focus powers in a more decentralized direction closer to the individuals and the States themselves. e.g. "Think globally - act locally." The parent's comment is the EXACT problem that comes with a central government that is too powerful: you have to be mindful that "your party" will not be in "charge" about ~50% of the time. For a concrete example, I don't like expanding Presidential powers nor extensive use of Executive Orders because likely there will be a president I don't support in that position, and I'd rather her/him NOT have that type of power. States and local communities are more knowledgable about what their constituents need, and the more local you go, the more homogeneous that group becomes - leading to a higher degree of success for those policies. For example, I have never lived on a farm, nor have every lived remotely _near_ a farm...so how can I properly empathize with their needs or considerations in a fair way? States and more local forms of government also provide solid grounds for the greatest real-life A/B test of policies in the world: if you are living in an area that doesn't align with your values and/or needs, you have _so many_ other options to consider settling. e.g. if you like living in California where virtually all the policies and politicians are left of center, then great! You can live there and it doesn't impact me in any way over in where I live.
mvkel 3y ago
The quote "markets can stay irrational for longer than you can stay solvent" comes to mind. Governments can stay irrational longer than you can stay vigilant. It's frustrating that a decision can be made at great effort in support of net neutrality, only for a new bill to easily be introduced that undermines it yet again. I guess that's a feature of democracy, not a bug. But I can imagine these battles gets harder and harder to win as time progresses.
- pictureofabear 3y ago
  If Congress stepped in to mandate it, the flip-flopping wouldn't happen. You said it. This is a feature of the US government. It allows prototyping of policies before codifying them.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    Is that actually true or would the flipping just happen every time the majority party changes?
    - kelnos 3y ago
      Despite the required process for changing regulations in a log of executive branch agencies, I feel like laws Congress passes are a bit more durable. Even with a different majority, there's still horse-trading that needs to go on to get things done, and it's not always easy to push through things that are unpopular with the minority party. With executive branch agencies, whoever is in the White House pretty much has complete control, modulo rules that slow things down, anyway.
- komali2 3y ago
  IMO this is why communities should do everything they can to build their own infrastructure independent of these massive institutions that can't possibly represent their needs - some being comcast, others being the USA federal government. I find the concept of "the People's internet" fascinating https://urbanomnibus.net/2019/10/building-the-peoples-internet/ https://urbanomnibus.net/2019/10/building-the-peoples-intern... not to mention distributed networks like this are more rugged in the face of disaster.
EcommerceFlow 3y ago
The whole net neutrality discussion seems pretty hypocritical in hindsight, since huge portions of people who furiously supported NN stayed silent or encouraged censorship after 2016 (including the sitting president of the united states) on Facebook, Twitter, IG, etc. Why would someone only advocate for an open, unrestricted internet at the hardware/ISP level? The whole point of NN was to ensure ISPs couldn't act as gatekeepers, yet people are fine with trillion dollar tech companies (that hold enormous market share) gatekeeping certain content now?
- dvngnt_ 3y ago
  Makes sense to me. ISPs acting like a utility service should not offer special deals to some companies in a way that harms competition. A social media site enforcing their terms of service appears entirely different.
  - EcommerceFlow 3y ago
    If ISP's are the utility pipes, platforms are the water and control what flows through them. The whole point of NN is to stop ISPs from "playing favorites" since they hold too much power over what we can access. But if you ignore the fact that a few big tech companies (which hold a MUCH bigger market share compared to comcast/other big ISPs) basically decide what gets seen and what gets hidden, it's the exact same problem in a different disguise.
    - a_wild_dandan 3y ago
      ISPs are roads, and websites are businesses and homes.
    - Majora320 3y ago
      These are categorically different situations. In many places, people literally only have 1 or 2 choices for their ISP - not so for social networks. The degree to which the logic of neutral platforms applies depends on the availability of other options and the cost to switch; in the ISP case, the options are very limited and the cost is monetary and very high, and in the case of social networks the cost is low and purely social and there are many available options.
StuffMaster 3y ago
[flagged]
- asynchronous 3y ago
  [flagged]
IamLoading 3y ago
[flagged]
chriscappuccio 3y ago
What a huge waste of time, effort and resources
- MiguelHudnandez 3y ago
  Remember when Comcast throttled Netflix to ISDN speeds because... hey... no net neutrality? Those were good times. Comcast's perspective was that Netflix was using "their pipes" for free. Those "pipes" are what their paying customers are paying for. Not to mention the hefty government subsidies that go to cable companies to establish internet service in the first place. A google search today reveals plenty of VPN providers offering workarounds Comcast's throttling which is still going on today. ISPs should deliver bits in a way that's fair to their paying customers. Period.
  - iwontberude 3y ago
    In my eyes, we will see a resurgence of P2P and home-hosted services. The reason is that without net neutrality, only companies like Akamai, Netflix, Google, and Meta are able to consistently deliver their bits to customers with low latency and high bandwidth. We have to pay a premium to the VPNs in order to connect to our friends and not get packet loss and jitter. It's one of the main reasons game servers have become so centralized in my opinion.
surge 3y ago
The FTC chair and this honestly is the best reason to vote for the Biden Administration (I feel like at this point whose in office largely doesn't matter 98% of the time, they're too old and or self absorbed to be heavily involved). Really just voting for the people they put in charge of everything below them, which was always the case, just more so now.
- quasse 3y ago
  This has generally been my opinion on the office of the President. The actual quality of the administration comes from the level underneath the chief executive and I have been very pleased with the people in this administration. The FTC, Department of Interior and FCC all seem like they have very competent (and non-corrupt!) people running them. Can't say I have strong feelings on Biden but I think he's shown good sense in who he appoints to actually manage the Executive Branch.
  - surge 3y ago
    Now if only Buttigieg was a more than a do nothing position and the FAA/FDA, etc stopped acting like captured agencies and do their jobs. Boeing is like what, our one major airline manufacturer and because they're part of the military industrial complex, they get a free pass and get to murder whistle blowers after asking them to stay an extra day in town.
  - mkoubaa 3y ago
    I agree for all departments except the state department which seems to be as incompetent as they come
- kelnos 3y ago
  I think these are great reasons to vote for Biden (or Democrats in general), but... I mean... the best reasons? I'd think the best reason would be not putting the country back into the hands of a wannabe dictator who has said he will target his political opponents if he's re-elected. That seems quite a bit more high stakes than the good work that the FTC and now FCC have been doing on Biden's watch.
vampiresdoexist 3y ago
I’m very surprised by some of the comments here questioning the value of restoring net neutrality. Times have changed.
- ohdannyboy 3y ago
  It's probably because none of the hysterics or doomsday propaganda actually came to pass.
  - vampiresdoexist 3y ago
    Hm. I would encourage a different, less intense angle here. It’s possible the doomsday didn’t come to pass because a lot of passionate people worked very hard to make sure we avoided it.
    - ohdannyboy 3y ago
      Possible, but is there any reason to believe so? I'm open to hear it. The whole point was that companies like Comcast don't give a crap what we think and will engage in this anti competitive behavior unless the FCC stops them. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt they would if it was in their financial interest. But can we agree that it is also possible that market incentives aligned and the infographics depicting tv-bundle-like internet packages weren't actually around the corner? To me it seems like the easier explanation. The incentive could be as simple as Comcast not wanting a new monopoly court case or to start being classified as a utility in areas where they have no real competition.
      - vampiresdoexist 3y ago
        Sure, maybe those bundles weren’t right around the corner. But the fight for NN probably incentivized the MBA grads to not explore those options with fervor. And it’s very reasonable to assume that avoiding a monopoly case or being classified as a utility is enough of an incentive. But I have a preference for putting up the defenses on all fronts when it comes to ISPs and their unlimited creative chicanery.
ostenning 3y ago
This battle has been happening for a better part of a decade and won’t seem to go away. Every time it’s defeated it seems to pop back up.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > This battle has been happening for a better part of a decade Closer to 3; it started almost immediately after the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and the FCC first adopted nondiscrimination prinicples that underlie net neutrality as a basis for policy (but not as regulation) in 2004.
- devindotcom 3y ago
  in a sense it goes back to 1966 https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/30/commission-impossible-how-and-why-the-fcc-created-net-neutrality/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/30/commission-impossible-how-...
_heimdall 3y ago
Interesting to see this come through effectively at the same time as the law granting powers that allows the government to ban TikTok and others in the future. I can't help but assume there's a connection there. I also don't know why the new law allowing a ban on foreign influenced social media would be necessary if the FCC decides again that it can regulate ISPs as utilities. Weren't the powers there already strong enough to force an ISP-level ban on a service deemed a national security threat?
- pseudalopex 3y ago
  Your assumption is wrong. The net neutrality fight is older than TikTok. The process for this vote started in September. It would have started in 2021 if Biden's FCC nominee was approved. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act does not involve the FCC. Regulating ISPs as utilities does not empower the FCC to force ISPs to block services. Never mind regulate app stores and hosting services.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    I wasn't actually proposing that the FCC would have the power to remove apps from the app store, only that they could force ISPs to block specific servers. I was thinking the FCC regulations would have that power to implement such a ban based on national security, though I could be wrong. I'd have to look back at the Patriot Act as well, I'd expect that to offer similar powers but I don't remember for sure.
demondemidi 3y ago
After countless useless online protests it just randomly gets restored.
pyuser583 3y ago
I thought Net Neutrality was a “has been” idea … Opponents have been doing a victory lap for some time. COVID especially showed how much better the US Internet expands and contracts based on demands. As far as I know, nobody has accused ISPs of throtteling Netflix. The whole idea behind CDNs is we should stop treating all Internet users as equals, and connect based on geography. Not dystopian censorship, but the sort of thing neutrality enforcers would have to approve.
- wmf 3y ago
  Several ISPs used intentional congestion to extort Netflix into paying peering fees they shouldn't have to pay. AFAIK Netflix is still paying.
- clarkdale 3y ago
  This is why Netflix built fast.com
- snailmailman 3y ago
  Many plans do throttle. On my “unlimited data” cell phone plan, YouTube, Netflix, etc all can only really load at 480p, even in areas where speeds are fast enough for hd video. In those areas, I can use a vpn and easily get hd video. Although, the cell network is pretty terrible where I am, and more often than not there is no hope for streaming hd video.
  - itopaloglu83 3y ago
    It’s really infuriating when T-Mobile forces YouTube down to 420p and then says (roughly) “you can get 720p with only $10 a month” condescendingly.
  - fingerlocks 3y ago
    Mobile carriers have always been excluded from net neutrality, but even so, this doesn’t apply anyway. NN regulates the L3 peering agreements
jojobas 3y ago
Common Carrier ISPs when?
qwerty456127 3y ago
It's going to be sad yet funny to see the same agency repeal it again once (and if) Donald Trump wins the coming elections.
jacob019 3y ago
T-Mobile has a variety of plans that selectively throttle video streaming for known streaming services. I wonder if this will force them change it.
deviantbit 3y ago
These are not the net neutrality rules I personally was looking for. They allow a base traffic speed with data caps, and then you buy a la carte for the additional speeds you want. They still allow prioritizing traffic. There is nothing neutral in these new rules. The rules under Obama were far better, and strangely better under Trump. They have taken the privacy provisions back that were allowed previously. Please read the fine print, and call your congress person, and senator and let them know you demand true net neutrality, and your privacy needs to be protected, with emergency services only having priority above other traffic. Please read these new rules.
euroderf 3y ago
While they're at it they could restore the FCC fairness doctrine, repealed in 1987.
- codewiz 3y ago
  As a United States immigrant, I had never heard of the fairness doctrine before. My first thought is: how would it be compatible with the freedom of the press granted by the First Amendment?
  - BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
    There's a ton of precedence for fraud protection law blocking perverse applications of the first amendment. The right to free speech is not a right to commit fraud or slander against another. If it were, society would fall into catastrophic disarray. I can say what I want, but if I lie to you or try to trick or swindle you there are allowed to be consequences. It should be obvious here that even the most succinctly and universally stated rights have certain correct limits needed to protect society from individual selfishness. So the fairness doctrine can be seen as compatible with the first amendment in exactly the same way that consumer protection laws against false advertising are compatible with the first amendment, because it is observably the case that a media institution selectively using its platform to attempt to control and direct the public mindset in a particular direction is itself a form of intentional public harm for selfish interests.
    - Dracophoenix 3y ago
      > For example, the right to free speech is not a right to commit fraud or slander against another. If it were, society would fall into catastrophic disarray. Fraud and slander are not illegal purely on the basis of content of the speech used to conduct the activities. A sufficiently culpable and provable malicious intent must also exist. It's not fraud or slander to state an opinion one sincerely believes in, and obtain money or credibility for it. > So the fairness doctrine can be seen as compatible with the first amendment in exactly the same way that consumer protection laws against false advertising are compatible with the first amendment in a world where it is observably the case that a media institution selectively using its platform to direct the public mindset is itself a form of intentional public harm for selfish interests. I don't think you understand what the fairness doctrine was in practice or why it existed. It's regulation of private conduct. It didn't begin with television, but rather radio at the end of WW2 in an attempt to prevent future Father Caughlins from having access to a private audience over the airwaves. GE and RCA were not their targets. If anything, the fairness doctrine stifled competitive and independent media over the airwaves, with most such individuals and organizations functionally limited to local broadcast where they could get away with it and newsletters. The doctrine never applied to Voice of America or "friendly" news organizations and the FCC wasn't compelled to apply it equally across the political spectrum (so much for equal liberty under the law!). If one wanted to provide supportive commentary on the Kennedy's invasion of Vietnam without a competing voice denouncing it, one was free to do so without fear of a costly suit or a revoked broadcasting license. Just like most regulations, the fairness doctrine was little more than a selectively used cudgel for political purposes. Even the Wikipedia page for the topic cites members of previous administrations making admitting to it.
xondono 3y ago
The amount of pro-net neutrality in here is a clear demonstration of the opinion forming power of John Oliver, by dressing the issue as affecting users instead of companies. A lot of people seem very confused about what “neutrality” means, and it’s consequences. As an analogy, VAT is an equal tax (everyone pays the same VAT) but it’s a very non-progressive tax (it burdens poor people more than rich people. Your ISP doesn’t really care about your speed, it could increase yours and all your neighbors speed by a big chunk and it won’t really notice it. The problem is that to handle a Netflix they need to do a massive investment. Yes, non net neutrality is about creating differentiated “highways”, but you are not going on that “highway” no matter what. The discussion is if internet is considered infrastructure (as roads are) and thus they should be built with everyones money, no matter how specific they are to a single company, or if we should leave it to the market. I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why a company that makes massive amounts of money from the internet shouldn’t be paying a higher proportion of the infrastructure costs than a user.
- nabla9 3y ago
  Net neutrality laws are not an US only thing. EU (The Net Neutrality Regulation 2015) and many other countries have net neutrality laws. >I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why a company that makes massive amounts of money from the internet shouldn’t be paying a higher proportion of the infrastructure costs than a user. Because ISP is in business of selling internet access to consumer. ISP can sell different tiers of service to the consumer, but can't sell the product twice. Netflix pays huge sum in their end. This is how money flows: customer--->[ISP]-->|backbone|<---Netflix >The framework we adopt today does not prevent broadband providers from asking subscribers who use the network less to pay less, and subscribers who use the network more to pay more You see.
  - xondono 3y ago
    > Because ISP is in business of selling internet access to consumer. ISP can sell different tiers of service to the consumer, but can't sell the product twice. Netflix pays huge sum in their end. The network is not some amorphous blob. If a new streaming company called Notflix enters the market (with dedicated hardware), ISPs will have to build dedicated infrastructure that connects that competitor to the network. One of the obvious ways of gaining a foothold in the market is to go where other services have poor connectivity and setup shop there. Of course the ISP that sets up that infrastructure will take big cut for their work, as they should. With Net Neutrality in effect, the supply side of heavy use internet services becomes constrained, creating a barrier of entry for new competitors. It’s just plain old regulatory capture.
jayde2767 3y ago
This makes my week! Long overdue and finally the middle finger back to Comcast/Universal, Verizon, Spectrum, and AT&T etc. The regulations should never have been tampered with.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  What's the value of the middle finger?
iwontberude 3y ago
Woah, this is amazing! So tired of having to pay VPNs or Akamai to not have insane packet loss to other peers. P2P is coming back!
theknocker 3y ago
[dead]
sprague 3y ago
A little-discussed consequence of this rule is that it opens the door for the FCC and others to monitor your internet traffic.

1013 points by throwup238 3y ago

What's this thing the government has been doing recently where they're no longer content to just let major corporations screw consumers?

tatelax 3y ago
Election coming up
- sigzero 3y ago
  100%
- MrZongle2 3y ago
  Exactly this. Regardless of the winners of said election, expect a return to business as usual afterward.
  - Analemma_ 3y ago
    Would you like to make a wager on that? I would be prepared to bet money (and give you very generous odds) that, contra your claim, if Biden is re-elected in November the FCC will not undo this change and remove net neutrality afterward.
  - llamaimperative 3y ago
    Not really. There has been a continuous stream of pro-consumer actions out of the Biden admin since day one. Lots of anti-trust activity in really critical sectors, for example. You’re not paying very close attention if you can’t spot any substantive differences between the two sides.
  - cogman10 3y ago
    Eh... I wouldn't say so much. I'd expect that if Biden gets a second term, then after the election you can basically expect little to no action for the next 3 years. Business as usual... ish. Major changes will likely happen before the next election just to try and keep a democrat in office. The Trump second term will likely immediately start with rolling back things like Net Neutrality. Biden's admin likely wouldn't do that as that'd keep them from getting cabinet positions in the future and Trump's admin will do it right away because it can both be sold as a referendum on the previous admin and would help them get future positions for the next republican president. For trump, I doubt he'll do anything at the end of his term different from the beginning. I really don't think Trump cares about keeping republicans in office.
    - hobs 3y ago
      It's true that he cares about himself first, but he only stumps for republicans (as long as they support him) and he packed the federal and supreme court with republicans (and they've won important cases about redistricting rules and other things that keep republicans in power). So saying he doesn't care about keeping republicans in office makes no sense as he's probably cemented them in office in places they have no business being elected for another 30 years.
      - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
        >and he packed the federal and supreme court I can tell where the hypocrisy starts and the eye roll begins.
      - cogman10 3y ago
        I can't say this for certain, but my guess is that Trump's supreme court picks weren't really him looking at potential nominees and instead were done based on the advice of his cabinet. (I'm certain that's how it is for most presidents). Trump will likely appoint a republican friendly cabinet, for sure, which means their goals and agendas will be centered around the party as much as they are for trump. But that said, I just don't think Trump cares about the republican party. He cares about it in as much as it's a vehicle for him to maintain power. Said another way, I don't think trump the person cares about the republican party. I think the trump admin does. If he wins, the only way I really see him personally caring about the next presidency is if he decide to try and run for a 3rd term (like he's floated).
- Cody-99 3y ago
  Changing government policy isn't always an instant process. Most of the FCC rules go through the "notice and comment" process that takes quiet a long time. The net neutrality rule for example has been in the works since at least January 2022 [1]. [1] https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/net-neutrality-will-make-a-comeback-again-in-2022/ https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/net-neutrality-will-make-...
- cal5k 3y ago
  All of the new "rules" being proposed by executive agencies will be subject to court challenge, and some of them (like the FTC's non-compete "rule") will likely be subject to a preliminary injunction. The goal is to get people to think "Yeah! Taking action on non-competes is great! Darn politicized courts!", when in reality this is not something an executive agency should be doing without an act of congress, or it may not even be a matter that falls to the federal government at all. Most employment law, for example, falls to the state in which the worker lives, and some have chosen to ban non-competes via legislation. This is much more democratic than attempting to craft law by executive fiat, even though I tend to agree that non-competes are more harmful than good in many situations.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >This is much more democratic than attempting to craft law by executive fiat What exactly "more democratic" means is a bit unclear to me. Is an act of Congress more democratic than agency policy because more reps voted on it? Is it more democratic because the reps who voted on it were elected rather than appointed by people who were elected like over at those agencies? Or is a policy democratic based on its alignment with the will of the electorate regardless of provenance?
    - cal5k 3y ago
      > Is it more democratic because the reps who voted on it were elected rather than appointed by people who were elected like over at those agencies? The presidency is not an elected autocracy. The extent of his powers are strictly limited to those granted by a) the constitution, and b) acts of congress. Attempts to circumvent these limitations through clever legal theories are undemocratic, doubly so when that circumvention bypasses duly elected state governments. No act of congress has ever explicitly banned non-compete agreements or authorized the FTC to do so, and the plethora of employment law at the state level strongly supports the notion that it wasn't even a federal matter to begin with. Would you argue that it's more democratic or less democratic when powers previously belonging to states are subsumed by the executive in this way? What if the people of Texas believe non-compete agreements are important? Why not just federalize all laws and tell state legislatures to pound sand?
objektif 3y ago
Administration sees they are losing the young vote. Administration checks what can get them more young votes…..
- spywaregorilla 3y ago
  Which is democracy working as intended and not a cynical thing at all.
- triceratops 3y ago
  Politicians doing what voters want?! What a radical concept!
  - objektif 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - MrZongle2 3y ago
    Funny how they seem to rack up most of these high-profile accomplishments in election years....
    - triceratops 3y ago
      Tell me you've never started an assignment the day before it's due.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Ahh yes courting the young vote, that group famous for going out to the polls in large numbers. The 16-25 age group is really into FCC regulation and anti-TikTok right now.
  - objektif 3y ago
    Check to see if Biden loses what will most likely cause it.
tootie 3y ago
Not to be glib, but it's just Democrats. They are not immune from corporate interests, but they are not wholly owned by them. And really, corporate interests are American interests so long as they don't needlessly harm citizens.

zer00eyz 3y ago

FCC rules... The other day it was FTC and banning non competes, there's also talk right now on the home page regarding KYC and an executive order. I would love for us to be able to get back to making laws in the US. Executive orders and agency rulings are a bad way to run a "democratic republic"

redserk 3y ago
It's worth noting that these agencies and their powers did not spring up out of thin air. Various elected Congress sessions wrote the laws that created and empowered these agencies to create rules. This is a reasonable implementation of a "democratic republic" as Congress still has oversight.
- chrisfinazzo 3y ago
  Yet the Chevron decision empowers agencies to make rules independent of Congress in cases where the rules don't already exist or are unclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura.... Unsurprisingly, Kavanaugh and the rest of the conservatives would prefer this approach be relegated to history. Of course, the areas of particular interest that he cites as examples (securities e.g, finance, communications, and environmental laws) just happen to be those where the two parties could not possibly be further apart in their approaches. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    It seems to me that the Chevron doctrine has essentially created a fourth branch of government with minimal democratic oversight. It feels like an end run around the constitution. In many cases the agencies exercise legislative, executive, and judicial powers all at the same time.
    - chrisfinazzo 3y ago

geuis 3y ago

Here's the FCC announcement (pdf) for those interested: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-restores-net-neutrality https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-restores-net-neutrality

reaperman 3y ago
I'm looking for full text of the actual action / implementation. Like the document containing the text that they actually voted on, specifically. Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40160960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40160960
- TechDebtDevin 3y ago
  Vote first, plan the project later. Allocate money to your donors then let them figure out how to go over budget and ask for 1.5X more in 5 years. All congressional laws are essentially money laundering operations now where the main priority is getting govt funds to your best donors. Gg.

andy_xor_andrew 3y ago

great, what are the odds they reverse the reversal next year in a hypothetical new administration?

anderber 3y ago
I'd say 50/50
tootie 3y ago
By "they" you mean voters. This policy isn't top priority for very many voters, but the battle lines on this are clear. Trump will overturn (he already did once). Biden will protect it. A vote for Trump is a vote to overturn.
- qingcharles 3y ago
  Obama set the FCC on a course to lower jail and prison phone call prices (which is understood to decrease recidivism by keeping prisoners in contact with their support systems). Trump came in and replaced the FCC head with this guy: https://nypost.com/2017/08/10/fcc-chairman-under-fire-for-conflict-of-interest-in-sale-of-prison-phone-company/ https://nypost.com/2017/08/10/fcc-chairman-under-fire-for-co...
paulddraper 3y ago
If there is a new administration, close to 100%.
- devindotcom 3y ago
  yep imo it's dead in that case: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/04/net-neutrality-wont-survive-a-trump-presidency/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/04/net-neutrality-wont-surviv...
kelnos 3y ago
Fortunately this won't be the end of the world, as quite a few states and localities now have net neutrality laws of their own, which would presumably go back into effect if it were deregulated at the federal level again. Of course, the FCC could presumably create a rule that explicitly allows ISPs to do non-neutral shenanigans, and then the DoJ could start suing states, saying the federal rule preempts them. Not sure how that would pan out, though I'm sure the current composition of SCOTUS would be fine backing the FCC in this case, if the challenges got that far.

SeanAnderson 3y ago

I'm happy this reversal occurred, but I am exhausted by the continuous flip-flopping of legislation depending on which party is in charge. Feels like we're stagnating as a nation by going in a circle rather than finding commonality to go forward. Maybe it's always been this way though and I'm just getting old enough to be bothered by it?

bgentry 3y ago
It's partly what happens when such important rules are determined by who is appointed at an executive agency, rather than requiring an act of Congress. The former can be trivially gamed by the party in power after each election, whereas getting Congress to take action on something can be difficult and requires you to first get them motivated to do so at a given moment.
- bearjaws 3y ago
  I'd flip it and say its what happens when Congress has been dysfunctional for over a decade. It's not even possible to get a house bill with net neutrality passed without it included 99 other things that will inevitably get the bill punted on forever. Congress could have drafted this anytime if they had seen fit, but they are "too busy" fighting ideology wars.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - cityofdelusion 3y ago
      There are de-facto one party systems in many cities, counties, and some states. They all suffer from getting nothing done. “Both sides” is a legitimate observation by those who recognize politics as upper class nobility vs the peasants. They run in the same social circles. We’re still primates at our core.
    - seanp2k2 3y ago

mise_en_place 3y ago

> Safeguard National Security – The Commission will have the ability to revoke the authorizations of foreign-owned entities who pose a threat to national security to operate broadband networks in the U.S. The Commission has previously exercised this authority under section 214 of the Communications Act to revoke the operating authorities of four Chinese state-owned carriers to provide voice services in the U.S. Any provider without section 214 authorization for voice services must now also cease any fixed or mobile broadband service operations in the United States. That seems rather vague. The timing is also rather interesting, given the forced divestiture of TikTok.

pdabbadabba 3y ago
> That seems rather vague. The timing is also rather interesting, given the forced divestiture of TikTok. This is just a press release. The actual decision is more than 400 pages long and will come out in the next few days. Here's the draft of the order released three weeks ago: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf (Of course, parts of this will inevitably be vague as well.) The timing is almost certainly a coincidence. They started the process of adopting these rules as soon as they could after democrats regained a majority of seats on the FCC last year and got them done as fast as they could.
- reaperman 3y ago
  I'm not sure that's the order itself or just a very detailed "fact sheet" about the orde. It seems like it references the content of the order in great detail, allowing someone to figure it out, but I don't see the raw text of the rule there unless I just don't understand what FCC rules look like. I read a lot of FTC rules and court documents, but this the first time I'm looking for the full text of something the FCC voted on or was something close to it (like an earlier version of the exact document they voted on).
  - nobody9999 3y ago
    https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf

bastard_op 3y ago

[flagged]

karaterobot 3y ago

I'm fully in support of net neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the first place. From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, there weren't major protests, news about it even largely disappeared from the front page of HN (!). So, I would be beyond shocked if this was an election year issue of substance. What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? Has the lack of net neutrality caused issues that I just have not heard about?

notatoad 3y ago
>What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? there's usually some principled people in the government, and every now an then when an issue is obscure enough they can manage to get something done without the other side caring too much. what's the impetus for blocking this?
- dantheman 3y ago
  it's not needed, the fcc doesnt have the authority, keeping the government away from internet is a good thing
  - polygamous_bat 3y ago
    > keeping the government away from internet is a good thing See, I would have agreed more with this if most of our internet infrastructures were not controlled by three megacorps with more power than many small to medium sized economies in the world. As it stands, the only valid option is to fight fire with fire.
    - barney54 3y ago
      And what has happened after the Trump FCC un-wound the previous net neutrality rules? Did the internet go to hell?

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40159776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40159776

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

theoperagoer 3y ago

ISPs should be allowed to throttle traffic for services. Otherwise, the result is going to be increased costs for all end-users.

wtallis 3y ago
I think you need to provide a lot more explanation and clarification of what you mean; your comment as written sounds like nothing more than a hollow talking point. What kind of throttling in what situations would be prohibited by these regulations and how would that cause increased costs?
- gwbas1c 3y ago
  Maybe DDOS protection? IE: Things that ensure that a malicious user can't negatively impact other users on the network.
  - wtallis 3y ago
    Have you ever seen even a draft of a proposed regulation that didn't already have clear exceptions for that?
Cody-99 3y ago
No they shouldn't. I don't think that logic makes any sense at all. No one is paying increased costs because their neighbor is watching netflix, youtube, or browsing reddit. Users already pay for internet service they shouldn't have to pay again because the ISP wants to be greedy and double dip from fees to avoid throttling.
- theoperagoer 3y ago
  If netflix traffic is straining ISPs to the point of requiring hardware upgrades etc., I think it is fair for ISPs to ask them to pay some of that cost.
  - 3y ago

fallingknife 3y ago

I feel like this is positive, but it doesn't really go far enough to have an impact on the internet as it exists today. The network itself being neutral doesn't make much difference at all to the average user when the majority of internet usage is through private platforms that are not bound by any such rules. We need to have some utility style regulation for the large web platforms too.

richwater 3y ago

Remember when the Internet freaked out and "when dark" to protest how the lack of NN would ruin the internet?....and then nothing changed? The boy who cried wolf...again.

Mountain_Skies 3y ago
You're being down voted for telling the truth, which is extremely inconvenient. Notice all the debate in this thread is about partisan score keeping and no one is able to explain why they want these rules back after all their predictions of terrible doom failed to happen. They need them back so they can claim doom was just around the corner if they hadn't been passed. The longer they went without being in effect, the more difficult it would be to explain why the doom never came to be. It is 100%, Grade A partisan score keeping to preserve future doomsaying without being called out on this absolutely failed predictions. Looks as bad for the doomsayers as a Bush administration's doomsaying about Weapons of Mass Destruction piling up in Iraq, ready to attack the US if we didn't invade. Incredible what people will let their partisan brains twist reality into. Of course, when this is used against them in the future, they'll scream like banshees, claiming it's unprecedented. This is the power of a brain addicted to partisanism.
amelius 3y ago
This is a bit like removing a traffic light from an intersection and then after a day saying "see, nothing happened, we don't need regulation from traffic lights". Laissez faire, everything will be alright.
- richwater 3y ago
  > and then after a day It's been ~5.5 years since "the internet was doomed" by the FTC[0] How long are we supposed to wait for your doom prophecy to realize? [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-agency-to-vote-to-repeal-net-neutrality-rules-fcc-chief-idUSKBN1DL21A/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-exclusive/ex...
  - 3y ago

exabrial 3y ago

I mean great. I don't really want the things it's trying to ban, so good? But this is sorta like plastic straw bans: 0.0000000001% actual impact, all while making HUGE headlines, while doing absolutely zero to solve root systemic issues: Entrenched Local Monopolies by telco providers. So yeah, good, glad my Nebula won't be slower than my YouTubes, while all along I just wanted to ditch the assholes in the first place and use a different ISP.

tentacleuno 3y ago
> glad my Nebula won't be slower than my YouTubes To be fair, wouldn't this still be the case? Google peer with many ISPs, and have a lot of server / networking prowess, so the YouTube experience is normally pretty good across the board. Nebula, on the other hand, is a fairly new player from my understanding.
- mdasen 3y ago
  Yes, YouTube might have better CDN solutions, but ISPs can't unfairly discriminate against Nebula. Nebula is a new player, but presumably they're using CDNs with good reach. The point isn't that Google can't build a better CDN. The point is that we don't want ISPs creating a situation where they've inked a deal with Google to prevent good performance from YouTube competitors. We don't want a situation where "YouTube is the exclusive 4K video provider on ISP-X."
  - tentacleuno 3y ago
    > The point isn't that Google can't build a better CDN. The point is that we don't want ISPs creating a situation where they've inked a deal with Google to prevent good performance from YouTube competitors. We don't want a situation where "YouTube is the exclusive 4K video provider on ISP-X." Definitely not, and I would never advocate for that -- I was perhaps being slightly pedantic in the above comment :-)
- lolinder 3y ago
  Nebula fares just fine on my internet at 1080p and 2x speed.

thinkerswell 3y ago

[dead]

Zenzero 3y ago

As much as I support the decision are we just going to keep playing this game flipping back and forth across administrations?

ImJamal 3y ago
Yes until the congress actually does their job and passes a law.

tbeseda 3y ago

https://archive.li/ITyf1 https://archive.li/ITyf1

martinbaun 3y ago
Thanks
- pc86 3y ago
  You're welcome

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

feoren 3y ago

This flip-flopping happens because there is no commonality to find. One of the only (effectively) two major political parties of the United States is completely uninterested in governing. They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. Their only goal is the piecemeal selloff of government powers to the highest bidder, and they convince their stalwart followers of this by making sure they get their daily dose of other people suffering. As long as others are suffering, their base will support the wholesale takeover of government by the rich. The other half is pretty bad at governing, but at least they try to govern. So when they're in power, the first thing they have to do is try to build back up the institutions that have been disabled or dismantled by the party of government-cannibals. Don't ask me which half is which. You know.

s3r3nity 3y ago
> They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. This is an unfair analysis, and is either naive at best or disingenuous at worst. I'm not a registered Republican, but I AM strongly against an all-powerful centralized body of government that continues to expand exponentially. I would rather focus powers in a more decentralized direction closer to the individuals and the States themselves. e.g. "Think globally - act locally." The parent's comment is the EXACT problem that comes with a central government that is too powerful: you have to be mindful that "your party" will not be in "charge" about ~50% of the time. For a concrete example, I don't like expanding Presidential powers nor extensive use of Executive Orders because likely there will be a president I don't support in that position, and I'd rather her/him NOT have that type of power. States and local communities are more knowledgable about what their constituents need, and the more local you go, the more homogeneous that group becomes - leading to a higher degree of success for those policies. For example, I have never lived on a farm, nor have every lived remotely _near_ a farm...so how can I properly empathize with their needs or considerations in a fair way? States and more local forms of government also provide solid grounds for the greatest real-life A/B test of policies in the world: if you are living in an area that doesn't align with your values and/or needs, you have _so many_ other options to consider settling. e.g. if you like living in California where virtually all the policies and politicians are left of center, then great! You can live there and it doesn't impact me in any way over in where I live.

mvkel 3y ago

The quote "markets can stay irrational for longer than you can stay solvent" comes to mind. Governments can stay irrational longer than you can stay vigilant. It's frustrating that a decision can be made at great effort in support of net neutrality, only for a new bill to easily be introduced that undermines it yet again. I guess that's a feature of democracy, not a bug. But I can imagine these battles gets harder and harder to win as time progresses.

pictureofabear 3y ago
If Congress stepped in to mandate it, the flip-flopping wouldn't happen. You said it. This is a feature of the US government. It allows prototyping of policies before codifying them.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Is that actually true or would the flipping just happen every time the majority party changes?
  - kelnos 3y ago
    Despite the required process for changing regulations in a log of executive branch agencies, I feel like laws Congress passes are a bit more durable. Even with a different majority, there's still horse-trading that needs to go on to get things done, and it's not always easy to push through things that are unpopular with the minority party. With executive branch agencies, whoever is in the White House pretty much has complete control, modulo rules that slow things down, anyway.
komali2 3y ago
IMO this is why communities should do everything they can to build their own infrastructure independent of these massive institutions that can't possibly represent their needs - some being comcast, others being the USA federal government. I find the concept of "the People's internet" fascinating https://urbanomnibus.net/2019/10/building-the-peoples-internet/ https://urbanomnibus.net/2019/10/building-the-peoples-intern... not to mention distributed networks like this are more rugged in the face of disaster.

EcommerceFlow 3y ago

The whole net neutrality discussion seems pretty hypocritical in hindsight, since huge portions of people who furiously supported NN stayed silent or encouraged censorship after 2016 (including the sitting president of the united states) on Facebook, Twitter, IG, etc. Why would someone only advocate for an open, unrestricted internet at the hardware/ISP level? The whole point of NN was to ensure ISPs couldn't act as gatekeepers, yet people are fine with trillion dollar tech companies (that hold enormous market share) gatekeeping certain content now?

dvngnt_ 3y ago
Makes sense to me. ISPs acting like a utility service should not offer special deals to some companies in a way that harms competition. A social media site enforcing their terms of service appears entirely different.
- EcommerceFlow 3y ago
  If ISP's are the utility pipes, platforms are the water and control what flows through them. The whole point of NN is to stop ISPs from "playing favorites" since they hold too much power over what we can access. But if you ignore the fact that a few big tech companies (which hold a MUCH bigger market share compared to comcast/other big ISPs) basically decide what gets seen and what gets hidden, it's the exact same problem in a different disguise.
  - a_wild_dandan 3y ago
    ISPs are roads, and websites are businesses and homes.
  - Majora320 3y ago
    These are categorically different situations. In many places, people literally only have 1 or 2 choices for their ISP - not so for social networks. The degree to which the logic of neutral platforms applies depends on the availability of other options and the cost to switch; in the ISP case, the options are very limited and the cost is monetary and very high, and in the case of social networks the cost is low and purely social and there are many available options.

StuffMaster 3y ago

[flagged]

asynchronous 3y ago
[flagged]

IamLoading 3y ago

[flagged]

chriscappuccio 3y ago

What a huge waste of time, effort and resources

MiguelHudnandez 3y ago
Remember when Comcast throttled Netflix to ISDN speeds because... hey... no net neutrality? Those were good times. Comcast's perspective was that Netflix was using "their pipes" for free. Those "pipes" are what their paying customers are paying for. Not to mention the hefty government subsidies that go to cable companies to establish internet service in the first place. A google search today reveals plenty of VPN providers offering workarounds Comcast's throttling which is still going on today. ISPs should deliver bits in a way that's fair to their paying customers. Period.
- iwontberude 3y ago
  In my eyes, we will see a resurgence of P2P and home-hosted services. The reason is that without net neutrality, only companies like Akamai, Netflix, Google, and Meta are able to consistently deliver their bits to customers with low latency and high bandwidth. We have to pay a premium to the VPNs in order to connect to our friends and not get packet loss and jitter. It's one of the main reasons game servers have become so centralized in my opinion.

surge 3y ago

The FTC chair and this honestly is the best reason to vote for the Biden Administration (I feel like at this point whose in office largely doesn't matter 98% of the time, they're too old and or self absorbed to be heavily involved). Really just voting for the people they put in charge of everything below them, which was always the case, just more so now.

quasse 3y ago
This has generally been my opinion on the office of the President. The actual quality of the administration comes from the level underneath the chief executive and I have been very pleased with the people in this administration. The FTC, Department of Interior and FCC all seem like they have very competent (and non-corrupt!) people running them. Can't say I have strong feelings on Biden but I think he's shown good sense in who he appoints to actually manage the Executive Branch.
- surge 3y ago
  Now if only Buttigieg was a more than a do nothing position and the FAA/FDA, etc stopped acting like captured agencies and do their jobs. Boeing is like what, our one major airline manufacturer and because they're part of the military industrial complex, they get a free pass and get to murder whistle blowers after asking them to stay an extra day in town.
- mkoubaa 3y ago
  I agree for all departments except the state department which seems to be as incompetent as they come
kelnos 3y ago
I think these are great reasons to vote for Biden (or Democrats in general), but... I mean... the best reasons? I'd think the best reason would be not putting the country back into the hands of a wannabe dictator who has said he will target his political opponents if he's re-elected. That seems quite a bit more high stakes than the good work that the FTC and now FCC have been doing on Biden's watch.

vampiresdoexist 3y ago

I’m very surprised by some of the comments here questioning the value of restoring net neutrality. Times have changed.

ohdannyboy 3y ago
It's probably because none of the hysterics or doomsday propaganda actually came to pass.
- vampiresdoexist 3y ago
  Hm. I would encourage a different, less intense angle here. It’s possible the doomsday didn’t come to pass because a lot of passionate people worked very hard to make sure we avoided it.
  - ohdannyboy 3y ago
    Possible, but is there any reason to believe so? I'm open to hear it. The whole point was that companies like Comcast don't give a crap what we think and will engage in this anti competitive behavior unless the FCC stops them. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt they would if it was in their financial interest. But can we agree that it is also possible that market incentives aligned and the infographics depicting tv-bundle-like internet packages weren't actually around the corner? To me it seems like the easier explanation. The incentive could be as simple as Comcast not wanting a new monopoly court case or to start being classified as a utility in areas where they have no real competition.
    - vampiresdoexist 3y ago
      Sure, maybe those bundles weren’t right around the corner. But the fight for NN probably incentivized the MBA grads to not explore those options with fervor. And it’s very reasonable to assume that avoiding a monopoly case or being classified as a utility is enough of an incentive. But I have a preference for putting up the defenses on all fronts when it comes to ISPs and their unlimited creative chicanery.

ostenning 3y ago

This battle has been happening for a better part of a decade and won’t seem to go away. Every time it’s defeated it seems to pop back up.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> This battle has been happening for a better part of a decade Closer to 3; it started almost immediately after the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and the FCC first adopted nondiscrimination prinicples that underlie net neutrality as a basis for policy (but not as regulation) in 2004.
devindotcom 3y ago
in a sense it goes back to 1966 https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/30/commission-impossible-how-and-why-the-fcc-created-net-neutrality/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/30/commission-impossible-how-...

_heimdall 3y ago

Interesting to see this come through effectively at the same time as the law granting powers that allows the government to ban TikTok and others in the future. I can't help but assume there's a connection there. I also don't know why the new law allowing a ban on foreign influenced social media would be necessary if the FCC decides again that it can regulate ISPs as utilities. Weren't the powers there already strong enough to force an ISP-level ban on a service deemed a national security threat?

pseudalopex 3y ago
Your assumption is wrong. The net neutrality fight is older than TikTok. The process for this vote started in September. It would have started in 2021 if Biden's FCC nominee was approved. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act does not involve the FCC. Regulating ISPs as utilities does not empower the FCC to force ISPs to block services. Never mind regulate app stores and hosting services.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  I wasn't actually proposing that the FCC would have the power to remove apps from the app store, only that they could force ISPs to block specific servers. I was thinking the FCC regulations would have that power to implement such a ban based on national security, though I could be wrong. I'd have to look back at the Patriot Act as well, I'd expect that to offer similar powers but I don't remember for sure.

demondemidi 3y ago

After countless useless online protests it just randomly gets restored.

pyuser583 3y ago

I thought Net Neutrality was a “has been” idea … Opponents have been doing a victory lap for some time. COVID especially showed how much better the US Internet expands and contracts based on demands. As far as I know, nobody has accused ISPs of throtteling Netflix. The whole idea behind CDNs is we should stop treating all Internet users as equals, and connect based on geography. Not dystopian censorship, but the sort of thing neutrality enforcers would have to approve.

wmf 3y ago
Several ISPs used intentional congestion to extort Netflix into paying peering fees they shouldn't have to pay. AFAIK Netflix is still paying.
clarkdale 3y ago
This is why Netflix built fast.com
snailmailman 3y ago
Many plans do throttle. On my “unlimited data” cell phone plan, YouTube, Netflix, etc all can only really load at 480p, even in areas where speeds are fast enough for hd video. In those areas, I can use a vpn and easily get hd video. Although, the cell network is pretty terrible where I am, and more often than not there is no hope for streaming hd video.
- itopaloglu83 3y ago
  It’s really infuriating when T-Mobile forces YouTube down to 420p and then says (roughly) “you can get 720p with only $10 a month” condescendingly.
- fingerlocks 3y ago
  Mobile carriers have always been excluded from net neutrality, but even so, this doesn’t apply anyway. NN regulates the L3 peering agreements

jojobas 3y ago

Common Carrier ISPs when?

qwerty456127 3y ago

It's going to be sad yet funny to see the same agency repeal it again once (and if) Donald Trump wins the coming elections.

jacob019 3y ago

T-Mobile has a variety of plans that selectively throttle video streaming for known streaming services. I wonder if this will force them change it.

deviantbit 3y ago

These are not the net neutrality rules I personally was looking for. They allow a base traffic speed with data caps, and then you buy a la carte for the additional speeds you want. They still allow prioritizing traffic. There is nothing neutral in these new rules. The rules under Obama were far better, and strangely better under Trump. They have taken the privacy provisions back that were allowed previously. Please read the fine print, and call your congress person, and senator and let them know you demand true net neutrality, and your privacy needs to be protected, with emergency services only having priority above other traffic. Please read these new rules.

euroderf 3y ago

While they're at it they could restore the FCC fairness doctrine, repealed in 1987.

codewiz 3y ago
As a United States immigrant, I had never heard of the fairness doctrine before. My first thought is: how would it be compatible with the freedom of the press granted by the First Amendment?
- BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
  There's a ton of precedence for fraud protection law blocking perverse applications of the first amendment. The right to free speech is not a right to commit fraud or slander against another. If it were, society would fall into catastrophic disarray. I can say what I want, but if I lie to you or try to trick or swindle you there are allowed to be consequences. It should be obvious here that even the most succinctly and universally stated rights have certain correct limits needed to protect society from individual selfishness. So the fairness doctrine can be seen as compatible with the first amendment in exactly the same way that consumer protection laws against false advertising are compatible with the first amendment, because it is observably the case that a media institution selectively using its platform to attempt to control and direct the public mindset in a particular direction is itself a form of intentional public harm for selfish interests.
  - Dracophoenix 3y ago
    > For example, the right to free speech is not a right to commit fraud or slander against another. If it were, society would fall into catastrophic disarray. Fraud and slander are not illegal purely on the basis of content of the speech used to conduct the activities. A sufficiently culpable and provable malicious intent must also exist. It's not fraud or slander to state an opinion one sincerely believes in, and obtain money or credibility for it. > So the fairness doctrine can be seen as compatible with the first amendment in exactly the same way that consumer protection laws against false advertising are compatible with the first amendment in a world where it is observably the case that a media institution selectively using its platform to direct the public mindset is itself a form of intentional public harm for selfish interests. I don't think you understand what the fairness doctrine was in practice or why it existed. It's regulation of private conduct. It didn't begin with television, but rather radio at the end of WW2 in an attempt to prevent future Father Caughlins from having access to a private audience over the airwaves. GE and RCA were not their targets. If anything, the fairness doctrine stifled competitive and independent media over the airwaves, with most such individuals and organizations functionally limited to local broadcast where they could get away with it and newsletters. The doctrine never applied to Voice of America or "friendly" news organizations and the FCC wasn't compelled to apply it equally across the political spectrum (so much for equal liberty under the law!). If one wanted to provide supportive commentary on the Kennedy's invasion of Vietnam without a competing voice denouncing it, one was free to do so without fear of a costly suit or a revoked broadcasting license. Just like most regulations, the fairness doctrine was little more than a selectively used cudgel for political purposes. Even the Wikipedia page for the topic cites members of previous administrations making admitting to it.

xondono 3y ago

The amount of pro-net neutrality in here is a clear demonstration of the opinion forming power of John Oliver, by dressing the issue as affecting users instead of companies. A lot of people seem very confused about what “neutrality” means, and it’s consequences. As an analogy, VAT is an equal tax (everyone pays the same VAT) but it’s a very non-progressive tax (it burdens poor people more than rich people. Your ISP doesn’t really care about your speed, it could increase yours and all your neighbors speed by a big chunk and it won’t really notice it. The problem is that to handle a Netflix they need to do a massive investment. Yes, non net neutrality is about creating differentiated “highways”, but you are not going on that “highway” no matter what. The discussion is if internet is considered infrastructure (as roads are) and thus they should be built with everyones money, no matter how specific they are to a single company, or if we should leave it to the market. I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why a company that makes massive amounts of money from the internet shouldn’t be paying a higher proportion of the infrastructure costs than a user.

nabla9 3y ago
Net neutrality laws are not an US only thing. EU (The Net Neutrality Regulation 2015) and many other countries have net neutrality laws. >I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why a company that makes massive amounts of money from the internet shouldn’t be paying a higher proportion of the infrastructure costs than a user. Because ISP is in business of selling internet access to consumer. ISP can sell different tiers of service to the consumer, but can't sell the product twice. Netflix pays huge sum in their end. This is how money flows: customer--->[ISP]-->|backbone|<---Netflix >The framework we adopt today does not prevent broadband providers from asking subscribers who use the network less to pay less, and subscribers who use the network more to pay more You see.
- xondono 3y ago
  > Because ISP is in business of selling internet access to consumer. ISP can sell different tiers of service to the consumer, but can't sell the product twice. Netflix pays huge sum in their end. The network is not some amorphous blob. If a new streaming company called Notflix enters the market (with dedicated hardware), ISPs will have to build dedicated infrastructure that connects that competitor to the network. One of the obvious ways of gaining a foothold in the market is to go where other services have poor connectivity and setup shop there. Of course the ISP that sets up that infrastructure will take big cut for their work, as they should. With Net Neutrality in effect, the supply side of heavy use internet services becomes constrained, creating a barrier of entry for new competitors. It’s just plain old regulatory capture.

jayde2767 3y ago

This makes my week! Long overdue and finally the middle finger back to Comcast/Universal, Verizon, Spectrum, and AT&T etc. The regulations should never have been tampered with.

paulddraper 3y ago
What's the value of the middle finger?

iwontberude 3y ago

Woah, this is amazing! So tired of having to pay VPNs or Akamai to not have insane packet loss to other peers. P2P is coming back!

theknocker 3y ago

[dead]

sprague 3y ago

A little-discussed consequence of this rule is that it opens the door for the FCC and others to monitor your internet traffic.