7 ms·

>So, I would be beyond shocked if this was an election year issue of substance. Because it isn't an election year issue. This has been in the works since at le

>So, I would be beyond shocked if this was an election year issue of substance. Because it isn't an election year issue. This has been in the works since at least 2022.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-... The rule making process takes time! >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 (!). ... 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? IMO it seems likely ISPs knew the rules were likely to come back so they avoided most of the practices that would generate outrage (throttling streaming and other popular services unless you pay an additional fee). I have no doubt if they could get away with it they would haha. Many providers did roll out zero rating programs. As for why this is important just because ISPs aren't currently doing it on a large scale doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to prohibit it. We already know what happens in the long run when ISPs are allowed to double dip https://restofworld.org/2024/south-korea-twitch-exit-problems-stream/ https://restofworld.org/2024/south-korea-twitch-exit-problem...

pseudalopex 2y ago
> IMO it seems likely ISPs knew the rules were likely to come back so they avoided most of the practices that would generate outrage (throttling streaming and other popular services unless you pay an additional fee). And several states passed their own laws.
- rixthefox 2y ago
  [flagged]
tivert 2y ago
> The rule making process takes time! No, it doesn't take this much time. It's just that net neutrality wasn't a priority for the Biden administration, so they dragged their feet until the very last minute. IIRC, there's been a flurry of rule-making just now because they are running up against a Congressional Review Act deadline.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  > It's just that net neutrality wasn't a priority for the Biden administration, so they dragged their feet until the very last minute. The FCC was deadlocked until September 2023 and started this process a few days later. Maybe they could have started in 2022 if Biden had nominated someone else after Republicans blocked his 1st choice. But Democrats believed Republicans would block anyone who would restore net neutrality.
  - tivert 2y ago
    > The FCC was deadlocked until September 2023 and started this process a few days later. I am aware of that. > Maybe they could have started in 2022 if Biden had nominated someone else after Republicans blocked his 1st choice. But Democrats believed Republicans would block anyone who would restore net neutrality. And they were proven wrong, and didn't even try to test their theory until half his term was over. That counts as "not a priority" in my book.
    - EasyMark 2y ago
      I think you expect that government works "fast" and that is usually not the case unless it's a dire emergency. The wheels of government are just slow. Net Neutrality is important to codify/enact and that's what they've done, I'm certainly not going to complain about it. There are a lot of other nits I have to pick with Biden's policies but this isn't one of them, better late than never like it was going to be under a second Trump term, and could be again.
    - fnordpiglet 2y ago
      That’s not entirely what happened. The prior candidate didn’t withdraw until March 2023. Biden nominated Gomez in May 2023. Presumable the two months intervening included negotiations and background. That doesn’t sound like a priority issue.
OkayPhysicist 2y ago
> The rule making process takes time! It really didn't have to in this case. It would have been perfectly acceptable to crib California's NN law, ctrl-r "California" "United States of America" and call it a day.
- throwup238 2y ago
  The FCC has a legally mandated process (see Administrative Procedure Act) including a public comment period that is open to judicial review. They can’t just copy California’s law and call it a day, they have to actually take public comments into consideration. If they don’t follow this process the courts will overturn the rules.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  No, literally, there is a legal requirement for certain process; debates over whether it was properly followed tied the Trump repeal up in court for a while though it was eveentually resolved in favor of the Administration. Not even bothering to follow the clear objective formal requirements of that process (the question about Trump was more about good faith in the substance) would make it trivial to defeat in court.
- Forgeties79 2y ago
  They couldn’t seat the fifth person (democrat) because the GOP was blocking it. As soon as the person was seated, they moved forward with restoring net neutrality. Hands were tied until then because they couldn’t get the 3-2 vote. They didn’t have 5 until September 2023 so it’s been just over half a year
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    Republicans and Manchin.
    - Forgeties79 2y ago
      Good catch
parineum 2y ago
> I have no doubt if they could get away with it they would haha. Many providers did roll out zero rating programs. This isn't a hypothetical, this is the case now and it's not happened. The reason is because of public backlash which is a market effect.
- kelnos 2y ago
  It had nothing to do with market effects. Some states and even quite a few local governments made their own net neutrality laws once the Trump admin nixed it federally. Complying with NN laws in some places but not others would have been way too complicated, so they just let it be. NN being saved by consumer backlash doesn't really make sense in the US, anyway, where many (most?) people only have one or two choices for internet service. ISPs don't really need to care if their customers don't like their policies.
  - parineum 2y ago
    > It had nothing to do with market effects. Some states and even quite a few local governments made their own net neutrality laws once the Trump admin nixed it federally. Complying with NN laws in some places but not others would have been way too complicated, so they just let it be. If that's the case, which I doubt it is, it's not like it's expensive to charge some customers more money and not others, no need for FCC regulation then, right?

pseudalopex 2y ago

> IMO it seems likely ISPs knew the rules were likely to come back so they avoided most of the practices that would generate outrage (throttling streaming and other popular services unless you pay an additional fee). And several states passed their own laws.

rixthefox 2y ago
[flagged]

tivert 2y ago

> The rule making process takes time! No, it doesn't take this much time. It's just that net neutrality wasn't a priority for the Biden administration, so they dragged their feet until the very last minute. IIRC, there's been a flurry of rule-making just now because they are running up against a Congressional Review Act deadline.

pseudalopex 2y ago
> It's just that net neutrality wasn't a priority for the Biden administration, so they dragged their feet until the very last minute. The FCC was deadlocked until September 2023 and started this process a few days later. Maybe they could have started in 2022 if Biden had nominated someone else after Republicans blocked his 1st choice. But Democrats believed Republicans would block anyone who would restore net neutrality.
- tivert 2y ago
  > The FCC was deadlocked until September 2023 and started this process a few days later. I am aware of that. > Maybe they could have started in 2022 if Biden had nominated someone else after Republicans blocked his 1st choice. But Democrats believed Republicans would block anyone who would restore net neutrality. And they were proven wrong, and didn't even try to test their theory until half his term was over. That counts as "not a priority" in my book.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    I think you expect that government works "fast" and that is usually not the case unless it's a dire emergency. The wheels of government are just slow. Net Neutrality is important to codify/enact and that's what they've done, I'm certainly not going to complain about it. There are a lot of other nits I have to pick with Biden's policies but this isn't one of them, better late than never like it was going to be under a second Trump term, and could be again.
  - fnordpiglet 2y ago
    That’s not entirely what happened. The prior candidate didn’t withdraw until March 2023. Biden nominated Gomez in May 2023. Presumable the two months intervening included negotiations and background. That doesn’t sound like a priority issue.

OkayPhysicist 2y ago

> The rule making process takes time! It really didn't have to in this case. It would have been perfectly acceptable to crib California's NN law, ctrl-r "California" "United States of America" and call it a day.

throwup238 2y ago
The FCC has a legally mandated process (see Administrative Procedure Act) including a public comment period that is open to judicial review. They can’t just copy California’s law and call it a day, they have to actually take public comments into consideration. If they don’t follow this process the courts will overturn the rules.
dragonwriter 2y ago
No, literally, there is a legal requirement for certain process; debates over whether it was properly followed tied the Trump repeal up in court for a while though it was eveentually resolved in favor of the Administration. Not even bothering to follow the clear objective formal requirements of that process (the question about Trump was more about good faith in the substance) would make it trivial to defeat in court.
Forgeties79 2y ago
They couldn’t seat the fifth person (democrat) because the GOP was blocking it. As soon as the person was seated, they moved forward with restoring net neutrality. Hands were tied until then because they couldn’t get the 3-2 vote. They didn’t have 5 until September 2023 so it’s been just over half a year
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  Republicans and Manchin.
  - Forgeties79 2y ago
    Good catch

parineum 2y ago

> I have no doubt if they could get away with it they would haha. Many providers did roll out zero rating programs. This isn't a hypothetical, this is the case now and it's not happened. The reason is because of public backlash which is a market effect.

kelnos 2y ago
It had nothing to do with market effects. Some states and even quite a few local governments made their own net neutrality laws once the Trump admin nixed it federally. Complying with NN laws in some places but not others would have been way too complicated, so they just let it be. NN being saved by consumer backlash doesn't really make sense in the US, anyway, where many (most?) people only have one or two choices for internet service. ISPs don't really need to care if their customers don't like their policies.
- parineum 2y ago
  > It had nothing to do with market effects. Some states and even quite a few local governments made their own net neutrality laws once the Trump admin nixed it federally. Complying with NN laws in some places but not others would have been way too complicated, so they just let it be. If that's the case, which I doubt it is, it's not like it's expensive to charge some customers more money and not others, no need for FCC regulation then, right?