27 ms·

FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

• paulhauggis 12y ago
  What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. I wouldn't sign a contract without reading it (and having the person on the other side telling me all of the reasons why I should), and neither should you. But apparently, the general population (and many here) will. I watched the entire live broadcast and the pros played only on emotion (safety, helping out the disadvantaged,etc) and did not really mention any of the regulations. Facts and rationality was only brought up by the opposition. *edited: I see the down votes. The pro-NN astro-turfing is high here. This is just my opinion. If there is nothing to fear, you shouldn't be trying to silence it.
  • pyrophane 12y ago
    Any idea when or how these additional 700 regulations will be published?
    • at-fates-hands 12y ago
      Two of the dissenting commissioners attempted to get the bill published so people could see how bad it was going to be - without success. Also add in the fact the FCC is supposed to be a independent office, and Obama has been meddling them since he got into office: http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/25/fccs-ajit-pai-on-net-neutrality-a-soluti/ http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/25/fccs-ajit-pai-on-net-n... Regulating the internet like a utility is quite possibly the worst thing you can imagine, and now its come to reality.
      • supergeek133 12y ago
        This is what scares me, what was there to hide?
        • ubernostrum 12y ago
          There isn't. Everything gets published. The vote on the rule change came after a public comment period. This thread is just full of HN's intellectually-challenged users waving their hands and saying "ooooOOOOoooo GOVERNMENT! SCARY GOVERNMENT! BE AFRAID OF SCARY GOVERNMENT! ooooOOOOoooo!"
          • ForHackernews 12y ago
            I don't even think it's HN users. There's a bunch of zero-day accounts in here parroting anti-NN talking points.
          • TallGuyShort 12y ago
            Can you provide a link to the 700 regulations? Can't find one anywhere else.
            • ForHackernews 12y ago
              The full regulations should be published within the next few days. They won't go into effect immediately, and the public (and Congress) will certainly get to comment, and suggest revisions.
            • TallGuyShort 12y ago
              Holy hell - why the down votes? "Everything is public" made it sound like the regulations had been published. I just wanted to know where. What's wrong with asking for a citation?
              • supergeek133 12y ago
                I'm with you, it's like asking for the ability to read something is blasphemous. Never did either of us say we were against it, but the flood of downvotes. Oh my.
          • at-fates-hands 12y ago
            So this doesn't scare you at all? The plan gives a Washington bureaucracy a blank check to decide how Internet service providers deploy and manage their networks, from the last mile all the way through the Internet backbone. Take interconnection as just one example. The plan states that the FCC can determine when a broadband provider must establish physical interconnection points, where they must locate those points, how much they can charge for the provision of that infrastructure, and how they will route traffic over those connections. That is anything but light touch regulation. And the plan extends the FCC’s interventionist gaze well beyond this part of the network. Small wonder that some pro-regulation activists are already deeming the FCC the “Department of the Internet. http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pai-press-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pai-press-stmt-president-ob...
      • ForHackernews 12y ago
        > Regulating the internet like a utility is quite possibly the worst thing you can imagine, and now its come to reality. Why? My electricity and water work a hell of a lot better than my cable internet.
        • deleted 12y ago
          [deleted]
          • ForHackernews 12y ago
            In many states, power-production has been decoupled from power-delivery. For example, in Illinois[0], customers can choose which company to buy their power from but maintaining the lines and delivering that power is still the responsibility of Commonwealth Edison, the old monopoly utility. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me, and it's not that dissimilar from Comcast delivering my packets, while I choose to buy my content from Netflix or Hulu or Amazon. [0] http://www.pluginillinois.org/default.aspx http://www.pluginillinois.org/default.aspx
        • paulhauggis 12y ago
          Yes, but both electricity and water don't really require innovation in the future. I can't remember the last time I wanted higher speed water in my house.
          • ForHackernews 12y ago
            You almost couldn't be more wrong about that. Providing electricity and water are both massively complex undertakings, and ongoing innovation[0] is crucial to providing service for a growing population, and meeting the ecological challenges of tomorrow. California is in the middle of an epochal drought[1], and you're saying we don't need innovation in water? [0] http://energy.gov/oe/services/technology-development/smart-grid http://energy.gov/oe/services/technology-development/smart-g... [1] http://ca.gov/drought/ http://ca.gov/drought/
          • FireBeyond 12y ago
            Right. We have zero issues with water availability in the world. I guess those billions being poured into desalination, water recycling and alternatives are all, forgive the pun, money down the drain? And you're absolutely right - we have zero need for alternative energy sources (although on that, it's kinda true - I've no particular issue with nuclear fission per se, though we need to figure out something better in regards to storage, and nuclear fusion is something that merits a huge deal of research into commercial viability).
      • dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Two of the dissenting commissioners attempted to get the bill published There is no bill. And, under the normal regulatory process, there is nothing to be published until the authority responsible for regulation approves something -- its true that the FCC could have delayed action and issued another NPRM. But regulations are published fairly quickly once adopted by the issuing authority, not generally effective immediately, and subject to revision by the issuing authority or overriding by Congress once they are published, so the idea that this will go into effect without people knowing what is in it is incorrect, as is the idea that there is anything unusual about the process here. Having failed to drum up opposition to the general idea of regulation, opponents have attempted to paint the process as unusual and nefarious, but that just isn't an argument that has a grounding in reality. > Regulating the internet like a utility is quite possibly the worst thing you can imagine Even the worst possible regulation of the internet isn't even in the top 50% of the worst things I can imagine.
    • dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Any idea when or how these additional 700 regulations will be published? If the past experience on similar FCC actions (including, e.g., the last Open Internet Report and Order) is a good guide, they'll be published in the next several days, and the biggest delay in getting them published will be the opposing commissioners getting finished writing up their dissenting views, which will be published alongside what is adopted.
      • dd36 12y ago
        *Comcast getting finished writing their dissenting views...
  • paulhauggis 12y ago
    In addition to this, Chairman Wheeler refused to testify before congress about Net Neutrality. I would just like more transparency. With all of the Snowden leaks, why aren't we demanding transparency? Do we really just want to give our rights away like this?
    • ForHackernews 12y ago
      Honestly, I don't blame him. We have a GOP-controlled Congress, so testifying would just be an hours-long exercise in getting yelled at by old people who don't understand technology or believe in science, but love an opportunity for political grandstanding against an Obama-appointee.
      • Eric_WVGG 12y ago
        This. There was widespread belief that Wheeler was a cable industry stooge. Wheeler and Obama deserve some credit for making this happen in an obstructionist environment. http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-bad-pick-a-former-lobbyist-at-the-f-c-c http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-bad-pick-a...
      • paulhauggis 12y ago
        This is a poor excuse for a lack of transparency and is unacceptable.
        • nknighthb 12y ago
          Congressional testimony is not the same thing as transparency. In my experience, it's just the opposite.
      • supergeek133 12y ago
        Transparency shouldn't be dictated based on which party controls congress. Not to mention it's not just the GOP that's full of old people that have zero technology grasp.
      • travie7273 12y ago
  • api 12y ago
    Almost nobody in Washington reads anything. They just rubber stamp stuff written for them by bureaucrats, think tanks, and lobbyists. Question is who wrote this stuff: telecoms, Google, the NSA, ???
    • Zancarius 12y ago
      How about all of the above? I'm willing to bet there are provisions in there for further NSA-related cruft. I'm also suspicious that this will set the stage for increasing the tax burden on consumers, but that remains to be seen.
    • walexander 12y ago
      Don't forget the MPAA and RIAA.
      • Zancarius 12y ago
        You know, it's funny you mention this... I was thinking last night about how I haven't heard much from these two organizations over the whole net neutrality debate. But then I started wondering why the FCC commissioners kept using the phrase "legal content" in the context of these regulations. Maybe I'm a touch paranoid, but it almost sounds too coincidental. Gosh, I hope it's not true, but now that you mention it, they probably handed more than an olive branch to these two clowns.
        • api 12y ago
          Even if such a thing were included, it is utterly unenforceable without breaking encryption and rendering all e-commerce and other secure uses of the Internet compromised.
    • sbov 12y ago
      Also the free press and new america's open technology institute. Google and the 2 of them offered a revision in language to close a loophole, which would imply all 3 had access to it.
    • deelowe 12y ago
  • Zancarius 12y ago
    Funny how something intended to prevent ISPs from throttling content turned into a debate about helping out the disadvantaged, etc. It worries me that issues like this are co-opted to turn them into a one-size-fits-all batch of regulations sidelining their original intent. On the other hand, it's my understanding that the FCC will enter a period of public comments after voting on the rules but prior to enacting them. So there's also a chance for further revisions to take place, but I'm not overly optimistic given the 300+ pages of regulations for what should have been a fairly simple issue. I suspect if the rules are too far-reaching, they'll be mired in litigation for years. Hopefully the regulations will be released to the public so we can start disseminating them today or tomorrow. Although the FCC doesn't commonly release rules it's voting on prior to a vote, I do think this illustrates a dysfunction of government agencies and transparency. Maybe that's something we should change.
    • sigzero 12y ago
      Congress can also slap them down I believe.
      • Zancarius 12y ago
        Also true. But then you run into the problem of Congress actually doing something. And even if they do, the President can still veto it. I suppose they could try to defund the FCC, but I guarantee that would never happen.
        • thanksgiving 12y ago
          If the FCC had no funds to enforce regulations, what's to stop me from squatting prime spectrum property that Verizon spent so much money on?
          • Zancarius 12y ago
            Honestly, I wasn't outright suggesting the FCC should be defunded (that blurb was sarcasm; I should have labeled it as such). That would be a bad thing. ;) However, I can say with a straight face that I know plenty of people who might make that sort of suggestion...
  • unprepare 12y ago
    The grass is always greener. Seriously though, I think there was a lot of hype built up around net neutrality(for good reason) and it ended up clouding the discussion. Quickly it became a dichotomy, you must be either for Title II and whatever the FCC decides that entails, or you must be against any change to the status quo. Now that we are passed that dichotomy, we are faced with the reality that we have little control over the FCC and how it chooses to enforce regulations. That is understandably making many people nervous. I look forward to the regulations being published and sincerely hope that it works out as many people hoped it would a few months ago, but someone rather late in the process pointed out to me that the FCC loves to censor things like television, and it wouldn't be insane to think they would consider doing the same with the internet (one only has to look to England to see how real that possibility is) I don't really know anymore, I'm more unsure about all of this than ever - i really hope nothing nasty surfaces because of this decision, but what can we do at this point but sit and wait and then try to change it all again if we object.
    • supergeek133 12y ago
      Yep, that's all most of us want. Transparency. The FCC is un-elected, that's always scary. Not that our elected officials know better. Haha.
      • unprepare 12y ago
        I agree On one hand- the FCC is non-elected and thus the people have less control of them On the other hand, this also means they don't need to seek funding for running a campaign which theoretically could insulate them from what we see with our elected officials currently pandering to business interests. Time will tell with this decision i suppose, whats important from my perspective is that change happens quickly if there are any major objectionable pieces of these new regulations
        • supergeek133 12y ago
          Agreed. It's safe to say public pressure got this into place, so hopefully we come back around when we see the rest.
  • dragonwriter 12y ago
    > What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. Regulatory orders aren't generally published before being approved by the initiating authority (preliminary notices that are subject to revision before being approved are published when those are approved by the authority, as was the case with the NPRM on this issue published last year. The final decision based on the NPRM and public comment received since the NPRM, is what was voted on today, which will then be published. This is the processed followed by basically every regulatory body for virtually every regulatory action in the US government (sometimes there isn't an advanced notice like the NPRM, however.)
    • cratermoon 12y ago
      That spin, "Obama's secret plan to control the Internet!" has been bouncing around the right-wing echo chambers in more or less blunt forms since the FCC first proposed the rules. The spin doctors consistently fail to mention your point: the new rules went through the exact same process as all the previous rule-making.
  • guelo 12y ago
    So when ex-Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai said the FCC is replacing Internet freedom with government control and then blamed Obama, that wasn't playing on emotion?
    • paulhauggis 12y ago
      "replacing Internet freedom with government control" This is what is happening. The government is now regulating the Internet. Where is the emotion? "then blamed Obama" He played a clip in which Obama talked about what he wanted. The FCC complied and now we have Internet regulation (exactly what Obama wanted). Again, these are facts, not emotion. I also think it's funny that you mention one line of potential emotion when the pro-regulation speeches were almost all emotion.
      • innguest 12y ago
        It boils down to that much: emotive people that can't reason without reacting are the majority, and they are easily swayed by politicians who are swayed by professional talkers (lobbyists) that know how to appeal to politicians' emotions. We will never convince emotive people to think, because they are so overwhelmed by fear. To think for oneself means to shed cultural ties and to stop identifying oneself with a group. We are all individuals and that's the only identity we all share in the world. The minority that realizes this will forever be prisoner to the irrational mob majority that act like tribesmen and incessantly demand group privileges.
      • toyg 12y ago
        > The government is now regulating the Internet. No, the government is regulating carriers. When talking about "the Internet", people usually mean both actual wires (carrier infrastructure) and websites (content). If anything, with Title II the FCC is actually forcing companies to keep content less regulated, preventing commercially-motivated censorship. > He played a clip in which Obama talked about what he wanted. The FCC complied Obama tried long and hard to stay out of this mess, but Verizon's and Comcast's actions have been more and more outrageous every year. I have a lot of complaints about the Obama administration, but everyone knows this is just the result of some carriers' continuous brinkmanship.
  • lmg643 12y ago
    Tom Wheeler was a career lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries. I assume those firms are getting what they want, sort of like how Obamacare is good for insurance companies (they are only "allowed" to sell expensive plans, with government subsidies for those who can't afford them). I liked this stat from Wheeler's bio: "Wheeler was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame in 2003, and in 2009, as a result of his work in promoting the growth and prosperity of the cable television industry and its stakeholders, was inducted into the Cable Television Hall of Fame. He is the only member of both halls of fame."
    • supergeek133 12y ago
      I remember when this guy was appointed, everyone flipped out because of his history and called it a bad move. Now this happens and he's the messiah! Haha.
      • TheHypnotist 12y ago
        Teraflop just posted this above your comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8999657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8999657 So while you are right, you are muddying who you consider to be "everyone".
        • supergeek133 12y ago
          It's a figure of speech, and I believe it was top news on here at the time.
    • teraflop 12y ago
      According to a recent comment, the truth about Wheeler's lobbying activities is more complex than that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8999657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8999657
    • daeken 12y ago
      Tom Wheeler was a cable lobbyist when cable TV was unheard of -- 1976-1984. He fought for the underdogs there, whether or not you like where cable has gone. It's much the same with his record in cell lobbying, though he was there for a bit more of the maturing of the tech -- 1992-2004. He helped promote two nascent industries; how is this a bad thing?
  • innguest 12y ago
    > the pros played only on emotion [...] Facts and rationality was only brought up by the opposition. That's my rule of thumb for knowing which side is right. There's always one side that makes emotional arguments, and another side that makes factual arguments. This simple heuristics is inaccessible to over half the population, who are collectivists. Also notice, most of those collectivists do not believe they should oversee their representatives (corollary from the fact that they don't). They believe politicians are a "set and forget" thing that you input tax-money/votes and without oversight, out comes exactly what was asked for. There's only one solution that I can see. People who want to be led and believe in godonearth, I mean, government, should be allowed to live their communist fantasy; but they should not be allowed to demand that others do so too - this much is fascism. As soon as that schism is feasible, you will see the progressive dwindling of brainless taxpayers and the fattening of the free side; but as long as everyone is forced to participate in this immorality, no change will come.
    • Agustus 12y ago
      I have no idea why this is being downvoted, this is a legitimate comment. If there were ever a point that the emotional argument will try and force others out, this demonstrated it.
      • adricnet 12y ago
        Not a downvote, but the idea that an issue only has "two sides" is itself a fallacy, a bad argument sometimes used to confuse. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
      • djur 12y ago
        You don't think "godonearth, I mean, government" and calling half the population "collectivist", "communist", "fascist", and "brainless" might be a little bit emotional? I downvoted it because it was a content-free screed full of political shibboleths and mantras.
        • innguest 12y ago
  • rayiner 12y ago
    The final rule won't be materially different from what was in the NPRM: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017642393 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017642393. And the whole proceeding has been documented publicly in Docket 14-28: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28. The Administrative Procedure Act, which requires the whole notice-and-comment dog and pony show, also makes it pretty easy to overturn regulations if the final regulation isn't adequately foreshadowed by the NPRM. And this will be heavily litigated, so you can bet the FCC is trying to do this by-the-book. One might make the argument that there should be public comment on the final text, but that would be intractable. It's taken 9 months just to do one round of notice and comment.
    • forgottenpass 12y ago
      > http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28. There it is! I found the docket number but didn't know the right website to find the filings. Thanks for the link. 99 pages tho.
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  • copsarebastards 12y ago
    > What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. This is a huge problem. It is literally impossible for lawmakers and regulators to read everything they put into law, as many bills are hundreds of pages long. Does anyone have any viable solutions to this problem? The only attempt to solve this problem that I know of was in early 18th Century England, when they set a limit on the word count of laws. But this was widely criticized (including being lampooned in Gulliver's Travels) and didn't last long. It seems like this is a pretty intractible problem.
    • trose 12y ago
      The guy you're replying to is scare mongering. We're at the step now where the FCC is opening the regulations up for public comment. Obviously they aren't going to release their footnotes before they've iterated on the regulations internally. All of the negative comments on here are essentially "why haven't we seen this yet?!?!?!" on the day they decided its ready for people to see. It's all quite childish bickering bordering on obvious public opinion manipulation.
    • bmelton 12y ago
      > Does anyone have any viable solutions to this problem? Lawmakers could either abstain or vote No until they've read and understood the legislation. The problem is that votes aren't generally cast on understanding, or even how the law will affect the welfare of the populace, but on party lines, with not enough exceptions. On the cure for that, I am equally clueless.
  • pdabbadabba 12y ago
    This "we haven't even seen the rules yet" line is really just a meaningless talking point promoted by NN opponents. In the world of government regulation, is is absolutely the norm for regulations to be voted on before being made public. But that does not mean the process is not transparent: the Commission has been conducting an open proceeding for months (years, really) where they have explained their proposals to the pubic, and allowed anyone in the country to submit comments. The commissioners and their staff then look over the comments they have received, draft an order that responds to the important points raised in the comments, vote on it, and then make it public as a binding rule. Perhaps this is counterintuitive to some, and maybe it's not the best way to make rules. But there is nothing at all abnormal about it -- this is simply the process that we call "notice-and-comment rulemaking" which Congress enshrined in law almost 100 years ago when it passed the Administrative Procedures Act. Anyone who tells you that this is weird, or that the Commission is trying to pull a fast one by waiting to publish the rules, is either misinformed or intentionally trying to mislead you. As for the meeting itself: of course it's theater. The real policy work doesn't happen in the meeting, it happens in the formal notice and comment proceeding that has been happening on paper for many many months. The meeting is primarily a political opportunity.
    • tertius 12y ago
      Rather than being out of the ordinary it needs to pause applause until we know what the rules are. I can't make a solid determination if I agree until I have seen the rules. From what I know already I'm not in favor. I.e. the trepidation felt vs. those who are pro-titleII.
    • paulhauggis 12y ago
      "the Commission has been conducting an open proceeding for months (years, really) where they have explained their proposals to the pubic, and allowed anyone in the country to submit comments" As we all have seen in the past, the proposals they explain and the final rules that become law are usually different. We should be able to see these proposals. "Perhaps this is counterintuitive to some" This just illuminates why this process needs to be changed. "counterintuitive" is a nice way of describing our lack of freedom and the lack of transparency in choices that will directly effect all of our lives.
  • TallGuyShort 12y ago
    >> But apparently, the general population (and many here) will. Sadly, yes. I recently purchased a home and was shocked at the logical inconsistency in the contract and the inability of ANYONE at the mortgage company to explain some of the clauses. And I often broken links in terms of service that sites make you accept. It's quite sad. What's the point of any of it?
  • tzs 12y ago
    > I wouldn't sign a contract without reading it (and having the person on the other side telling me all of the reasons why I should), and neither should you. But apparently, the general population (and many here) will. You were told this was wrong yesterday, and I know you saw that because you responded. Why are you still repeating it? Once again, we will all have plenty of time to read these regulations before they are enacted. Here is how this works, and how it has worked for well over 50 years, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, at most or all agencies, not just the FCC. 1. Someone at the agency decides to propose rules. 2. They circulate those rules within the agency for discussion, and they may modify them based on that discussion. 3. When they feel that the rules are ready for consideration as an official proposal, they bring them to a vote among before the Commissioners. (Well, for the FCC it is the Commissioners. I have not idea what the corresponding group at, say, the FAA, is called. It would be cool if they were the Aviators, but it is probably something lame). 4. If the rules pass this vote, the agency then publishes them in the Federal Register as a "Notice of Proposed Rule Making" (NPRM). A public commentary period, normally 60 days, begins. 5. People then comment on the rules. They comment on other people's comments. 6. If there are a lot of comments, the agency might extend the commentary period. 7. When the commentary period ends, the agency considers the comments, and decides if it is going to go ahead and enact the rules, or start over, or not regulate at all at this time. We just finished step #3 and #4 is starting. The published proposal has to include the objections raised by the Commissioners who voted against them, with responses to those objections by those who supported the proposal, so there will be a short delay before publication and the start of the comment period.
    • Zebra20 12y ago
      1. This is the news release from today: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-ru... on the last page, you can see the docket number, which is 14-28. 2. This is the docket page for 14-28. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28 3. In the FCC filings section, you can see that the NPRM was filed May 2014. This sets the comment period to July 2014, and the comment reply period to September 2014. 4. There is an order issued in July 2014 that denies extension of the comment period. 5. I conclude that we are in fact, on step #7, and are just waiting on the Report and Order to be filed, at which time the regulations are enacted. 6. Furthermore, Wheeler's statement talks about an 'Order'. http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a2 http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a2 Am I wrong in my reasoning? Aren't these rules, whatever they are, about to become active?
  • pyrocat 12y ago
    "Pro-NN astro-turfing" hahaha ok dude, sure. Which side of this issue is more likely to have hired giant PR firms to hire astroturfers? And which side is more likely to actually have grassroots support? I'll give you a hint, the pro-consumer side is probably not the one with the giant PR firm.
  • hgsigala 12y ago
    take the time to read this http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0226/DOC-332260A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015... Order forbears 27 provisions of title II and over 700 associated regulations. Will not impose rate regulation, tariffs, burdensome administrative filing requirement or network sharing requirements. The proposed Order would apply fewer sections of Title II than have applied to mobile voice networks for over twenty years.
• pgrote 12y ago
  When will the whole thing be published?
  • strictnein 12y ago
    No idea if this is accurate, but I read that there is still some hammering out of details that may mean it will be a couple of weeks.
• shmerl 12y ago
  Congratulations, but it's far from enough to improve things. It will just prevent some abuse. Now, as a next step they should pass unbundling of the last mile.
  • theandrewbailey 12y ago
    Really, that's the only regulation that was needed. All the other concerns that the other regulations targeted would be taken care of.
    • cubano 12y ago
      Exactly. Disbanding the last-mile monopolies would introduce the market forces needed to fix almost all the problems that most people think need fixing, although the corporate plutocrats would quickly scramble to consolidate things again, as they did during the cell phone explosion.
      • tw04 12y ago
        There's nothing to consolidate when last mile is unbundled. Cell companies consolidated because spectrum is a finite resource that they could possess sole ownership of. The consolidation of ISPs already happened when last mile unbundling was removed from the market. If they open it back up, buying an ISP is literally buying their staff. If the founders are smart, they cash out and just start up a new business doing the exact same thing competing with whoever was dumb enough to buy them.
        • cubano 12y ago
          > If the founders are smart, they cash out and just start up a new business doing the exact same thing competing with whoever was dumb enough to buy them. Interesting, but I'm sure we all know that part of the buyout would, of course, be a non-compete.
  • malchow 12y ago
    Shmerl, love to learn more about what you mean by this. Do you mean a rule that a network could not sell to consumers both TV and internet access and phone?
• supergeek133 12y ago
  So everyone hates Comcast enough to let them pass this with little fanfare, we can all only hope now that all of the regulations are consumer friendly and not some other interest. The willingness of everyone to let this happen without being able to see EVERYTHING scared me!
  • dragonwriter 12y ago
    > So everyone hates Comcast enough to let them pass this with little fanfare "Little fanfare"? Have you been living under a rock since the NPRM on this issue was published last year?
    • supergeek133 12y ago
      Were you able to read the regulation before it was passed? Not that we could change anything, but weren't you in the least bit interested? By little fanfare I mean the fact that everyone read his editorial, and cheered and let it be. Again, I think most people agree this is the right move, but we talk about how it's important for the internet to be open and neutral but I didn't hear much screaming and yelling to see everything before it passed. So no, I haven't been living under a rock. I guess I just expected more out of the community.
      • dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Were you able to read the regulation before it was passed? Not that we could change anything, but weren't you in the least bit interested? Sure, I'm interested; I'm also aware enough of the regulatory process to not expect to see anything published between a NPRM and the next official regulatory action, even though that next action is likely to be a final rule/order and even though there are likely to be interesting drafts produced in the process (whether or not the process is in a regulatory venue where there is a single decision-maker to approve official action or a vote of a multimember commission.) Similarly, while I'm interested, I don't expect to see copies of drafts of decisions while a court is considering a case. > By little fanfare I mean the fact that everyone read his editorial, and cheered and let it be. Aside from being a misuse of "little fanfare", that's also factually incorrect; lots of people -- both supporters and opponents of net neutrality -- reacted to the editorial with specific concerns that the content of that the outline presented of the direction of the proposal, and by many reports some of those responses had an effect on the final form of the regulations. No doubt both supporters and opponents will continue to have reactions to the details of the adopted regulations.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  • sigzero 12y ago
    What "word" would that be in this case?
  • strictnein 12y ago
    What word? Really no idea.
    • dragonwriter 12y ago
      Several good candidates in that quote. "Freedom" and "intrusion" are probably the best candidates.
      • sigzero 12y ago
        Except I do think he knows what those words mean.
      • strictnein 12y ago
        And he's deleted it now, so maybe he didn't even know.
• thebouv 12y ago
  The devil is in the details as they say. I really want to see the full list of regulations passed. Though I'm sure the jargon will send me for a loop.
• mudil 12y ago
  FCC has now "fixed" something that was not broken, and gov't is now regulating internet. I am on this one with Mark Cuban, who is scared shitless of this gov't take over. Speaking of shitless, is everyone ready for decency standards?
  • smileysteve 12y ago
    Netflix was having to make back market deals (with companies with conflicts of interest) to have the isp's customers (who were paying for access to) have access to their service. How was this "not broken"?
    • cheald 12y ago
      No, they didn't. Netflix had plenty of options for transit to Comcast - they didn't have to use Cogent. But it would have cost them a lot more. Cogent is famous for both cut-rate transit and peering disputes with last-mile providers. The fact that they bought from Comcast rather than someone like Level3 or XO should tell you that they rate they got from Comcast was better than what they'd have gotten from another transit provider. If you serve content on the internet, you have to buy transit from someone. Edit: Would the downvoters like to point out what's wrong about my assertion?
      • mackal 12y ago
        Netflix does use Level 3. At least for their connections to Verizon FiOS customers. Who also observe shit performance.
        • cheald 12y ago
          The Verizon/Level3 Netflix performance issue is also the consequence of a peering dispute between Level3 and Verizon, by admission of both Verizon and Level3 - not a consequence of Verizon specifically throttling Netflix traffic. It's very important that the distinction be made between saturated interlinks and throttling of specific origins; many people seem to think that it's the latter that's been done here, when the issue is consistently interlink capacity disputes between last-mile ISPs and T1 providers. To put it another way, unless these new rules require that ISPs hook up as much interlink as their T1 peers ask for, these rules won't fix shitty Netflix performance on last-mile networks who are engaged in peering disputes with Netflix's transit providers.
• hgsigala 12y ago
  This is great news. Over a years worth of fighting on this one.
  • strictnein 12y ago
    So you've read all the new regulations? Which one is the best?
    • product50 12y ago
      Stop being so cynical. Not sure what is up with this community. When FCC was reluctant to do anything on net neutrality everyone here was up in arms. Now that FCC has passed something, you are still up in arms. So much cynicism - for all you know most of the regulations passed might be pro-consumer. At least I would like to believe that it is better than the current model - which in itself is a good step forward.
      • strictnein 12y ago
        You're stating that you think the US government can create 700 new Internet regulations and not mess things up? I'm stating that I think the US government is mainly made up of morons, especially in regards to technical issues. The cynicism is from the fact that there are 300+ pages to do what would apparently be a fairly simple change, so there's more to it than just the "Net Neutrality for everyone!" bit.
        • mfringel 12y ago
          What leads you to believe that it's a fairly simple change?
        • daughart 12y ago
          The Affordable Healthcare Act was gigantic and created by morons, but by most metrics is improving the American healthcare system. The argument that the government can not act in a way that improves things, even if it is not the perfect solution, is contrary to fact. EDIT: I treat down-votes in the absence of a counter-argument as up-votes.
• theandrewbailey 12y ago
  Chairman Wheeler proves that he isn't a dingo.
  • quasarj 12y ago
    Actually, if you watch any of the various hearings and what-not that he's been in, talking about his plans (and previous attempts) to preserve net neutrality, I think it was pretty clear he was on the right track all along. Surprising, I know, given his background, but still.
    • theandrewbailey 12y ago
      I was skeptical up until I read a few weeks ago that he started doing something like cable internet in the 80s, but was shut out of the system. He saw one of his colleagues strike it rich with dial up AOL, while his tech (although much faster) failed in the market. I sort of imagined that today's decision was his revenge on the industry. http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutra...
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• ebbv 12y ago
  There's a lot of echoing of telco FUD in here. Let's get some things straight: - The FCC is unelected, but so is the EPA, FBI, CIA, DOD, DOJ, etc. We can't elect everybody who works in government. That wouldn't work. - This does not mean the FCC is uncontrollable or unanswerable for what it does. It answers to both the executive and legislative branches of government, and of course anything it does can be subject to the courts as well. So it is checked by all three branches of government. - With all the shenanigans and expensive lawyers the telcos have at their disposal, it shouldn't surprise you that 700 regulations were involved in this. What do you think, a one page paper that says "The Internet is Neutral. Don't throttle traffic on it." is enough? Of course it's not. Comcast has you sign a user agreement that's dozens of pages long just to use their service. - Regulations are not usually published before they are done. There would be little point because they are constantly changing. I can see the transparency argument that it would be nice to see the proposed regulations being worked on in "real time", but in progress documents like this have a lot of things added and taken out constantly. Something that's not going to stay in could be cited while it's being worked on by pundits to try to sway public opinion against it. There's a balancing act between transparency and muddying the waters. - The regulations will be published. If there is something awful in there it can be dealt with. This isn't the only thing that will ever happen. Laws get repealed and changed all the time. - This is a good thing for anyone who isn't on the board of a telco.
  • supergeek133 12y ago
    I think many of us here call it a generally good move, we just wanted to see everything that was proposed before it was passed. Not that we could do anything about it.
    • ebbv 12y ago
      We'll see it all soon (as in the next couple weeks) and if there's something awful in there we can start calling for revision.
      • cubano 12y ago
        Nothing is going to happen in the next couple of weeks. There are going to be lawsuits galore that will hold up any significant changes to internet services for years.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• chetanahuja 12y ago
  Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Reading comment threads, a person new to the issue might get the impression as if the US government just nationalized comcast. I'm finding it hard to believe that the regular HN crowd has suddenly turned virulently anti Title II. This definitely smells like a coordinated campaign to spread FUD.
  • travie7273 12y ago
    Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. IBM, Intel, and Cisco are against it. My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations. It's odd that people like you can't fathom that there are two sides to this issue.
    • Selfcommit 12y ago
      Your account was created 15 min ago and has 6 Karma - Can you back up who you are at all?
      • CzechsMix 12y ago
        That's a little Ad hom for my taste. If he's making bad points, attack and refute those. Not him.
        • wpietri 12y ago
          As another brand new account, I could see why you'd say that. But in practice, our understanding of what people say is rooted in who they are. If somebody wants to write a book making a formal, evidence backed argument on something, I'm less concerned with who they are. But when somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentences, asking who they are and what their motivations are is much more reasonable. Especially on a topic where, as with this one, billions of dollars are on the line. There are now plenty of people whose whole job is to argue a party line that may have no relation to the truth or to what the speaker believes. There's literally no point in having a serious discussion with, say, a tobacco company PR rep, because they are paid to mislead people forever, to never be convinced, and to distort the dialog as long as possible. With somebody like that, treating them like an honest interlocutor is not only a waste of time, but I believe it actively harms the discussion.
• zxcvcxz 12y ago
  What I'm worried about is that the internet could become like radio, requiring anyone who wants to broadcast (hook up a server) to obtain a license to do so. All people have the right to connect as many devices as they want to the internet, and connect their own server(s) on their own network to the public internet, and allow others to use their servers for any and all purposes including to connect to the internet. People have the right to serve and distribute content on the public internet from their own network or server and any other network/server giving them permission to do so. People have a right to serve and distribute content in a way that a maximum number of devices can access it with ease. I believe the rapid social change we're experiencing regarding progressive thought (marijuana legalization, gay marriage, stem cells, etc) is because people have these rights. The longer we have these rights the more our society will change as a collective and many of the mistakes that the government and other overseers have made will be corrected.
  • warfangle 12y ago
    Fortunately, radio is covered under Section III of the telecommunications act and not Section II, which is limited to common carriers (of which radio, television, and cable television obviously are not).
  • nknighthb 12y ago
    "Broadcast" and "hook up a server" are in no way similar under the relevant laws and regulations. Radio broadcast is licensed because of the general problem of limited spectrum. The Internet's point-to-point nature has no such problem. Meanwhile, the FCC already regulates all electrical devices -- including servers, your PC, and even light bulbs -- to prevent interference. So, bad news, your fear came true -- in 1934.
  • rndmind 12y ago
    Although I am similarly skeptical, this type of regulation would be next to impossible when considering the architecture of computer networks.
  • dragonwriter 12y ago
    > What I'm worried about is that the internet could become like radio, requiring anyone who wants to broadcast (hook up a server) to obtain a license to do so. Both the regulatory rules and the authorizing statute behind that requirement are related to broadcast, and have nothing to do with Tite II classification; and not even all radio requires that (there is unlicensed spectrum.) So, while that's a fine thing to worry about, its not really related to the FCC action classifying retail broadband as a Title II telecommunication service.
• gameshot911 12y ago
  Amazing that a change of this magnitude rests on a 5-person vote.
  • tdicola 12y ago
    Not really, there are two people in the world who have the power to completely obliterate it with a full scale nuclear strike. A small committee of people making a proposal, giving 9 months to comment on it, then vote on it sounds like a normal procedure to me.
  • byuu 12y ago
    The 2000 presidential election was decided on a 5-4 vote. What bothers me more are that these votes are always evenly split among party lines. It doesn't matter which side you are on, when one seat flipping means business-as-usual does a complete 180. What sensible person would want to invest in a country so polarized and with such an uncertain future?
• xnull2guest 12y ago
  Unfortunately the Net Neutrality 'debate' was another lose-lose situation for the United States. What we wanted wasn't for the big telecom duopoly to be forced to either run their business as a tiered service or as a regulated utility. What we wanted was for the US Government to exercise its Anti-Trust capabilities and bust the universally hated Comcast and Time Warner into a bunch of small companies, and set "Goldilocks" regulation so that it's easy for small and new ISPs to compete on both price and service. Additional laws preventing corporations from discriminating by content, protocol, or customer may also have been nice, but would have been that extra nice something. Are Comcast and Time Warner going to be somehow less shitty now? Are they going to monitor our communications less? Are they going to provide better prices and better customer service? Are they going to cease fraudulently charging customers? No. Of the two options the FCC chose the better one. But it's America's fatal flaw that all problems have two political solutions, neither of which address real issues or people's needs.
  • duaneb 12y ago
    It's not the job of the government to make companies less shitty, it's their job to protect the free market so OTHER companies can reduce the shittiness of e.g. comcast. This is just the first step. I'd also like to point out that splitting up Ma Bell hardly solved the problem.
    • BinaryIdiot 12y ago
      > It's not the job of the government to make companies less shitty, it's their job to protect the free market so OTHER companies can reduce the shittiness of e.g. comcast. While you're correct you also need to remember that it was the government who helped create many of these monopolies in the first place. Trying to force the market to become more open for smaller companies arguably could have been the best move to make. But that doesn't really matter now.
    • rsync 12y ago
      "I'd also like to point out that splitting up Ma Bell hardly solved the problem." Really ? I'm not an expert, but one item that comes to mind is that my children have never heard the term "long distance" and never will. That's pretty swell.
• Friedduck 12y ago
  Unless you're going to fund the infrastructure costs publicly you're always going to have a few large players that can sustain the capital investment necessary to build. I don't see that happening any time soon ("socialized internet!") So I applaud the FCCs move. What blows me away is that lobbyists have convinced average joes that this is a bad thing. I don't think people grasp how much control a company could exert over what you see simply by prioritizing traffic.
• scarmig 12y ago
  My initial instinct is to be excited for this, but to be honest I have only a very cursory understanding of the issues. Reflecting on my motivations, I would say 90% of my support comes from the signal of Comcast squealing about it, and 10% comes from WMF and EFF support. Which I grant is arational, but it's probably a major driving force behind much of the support in the tech community. So, to opponents: you're likely to have a more effective argument if you can convince me that this isn't correcting a government-guaranteed fiefdom of monopoly power to Comcast, and that the political forces opposing it aren't pawns of Comcast.
• keslag 12y ago
  Okay, as a Canadian with no dog in this fight, this seems to be a good thing for America. So I'm having a very hard time understanding the opposition. The arguments for title II are pretty clear and logical. The arguments against include giving up personal freedoms (You live in America, you've been giving up most of your personal freedoms willing for the pack two decades) and this isn't one of them. There are some comments about the extra rules that no one has seen, but this is standard FCC practice. Lawsuits will bear this out. Then there are a lot of illogical arguments that don't hold up. Does anyone have a clear argument against this. My argument would be that there is no last mile access, so competition won't increase, so this is at best a half measure until we get either some disruption in the space, or they finally open up that last mile. So what are the actual logical, non-fearmongering arguments?
  • xrange 12y ago
    As an American, with an uncertain dog in this fight, could someone explain the pro side to net neutrality? I can certainly see that in theory if your ISP is providing you a bit pipe, they shouldn't treat different bits differently. But the status quo seems like it has been working remarkably well for the last 20 years (at least from my perspective). It seems like the big hub-bub is that one of the hated cable companies is slowing down Netflix traffic to extract a ransom from Netflix. A.) Is this really a government concern that potentially some people won't be able to stream "House of Cards" without buffering? And then we're also worried about the fact that your ISP could decide at some time in the future to pull the same extortion stunt on other services that are less trivial (examples of the worst case scenario might be good, and why it hasn't happened so far). B.) Apparently there exists a technical fix by using a VPN, so then if you are really inconvenienced, you could use this, or potentially another ISP (satellite seems like it should be available to most people with only one cable provider, right?). C.) Why wouldn't the customers complain to/blame their ISPs just as much as Netflix? I have a hard time caring about the plight of either the big cable companies or Netflix (or Facebook, Google, any other billion dollar enterprise). ...I'm know I'm ignorant on this issue, but I can't help to think that both sides are blowing things out of proportion.
    • 12y ago
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  • darkstar999 12y ago
    > if I'm paying extra for a service - I should get extra, and this prevents it. No it doesn't. ISPs can still charge you for the bandwidth they provide. If you want gigabit service, that's going to cost more than megabit service.
• bcheung 12y ago
  Can someone clarify "paid prioritization" and "fast lane"? If I buy the 50Mbps ISP plan and someone else buys the 10Mbps isn't that a faster lane / paid prioritization? What about if a company decides to put their server in a datacenter instead of hosting out of their office? Aren't they paying for better access? What about CDNs? Aren't those "fast lanes"? It doesn't seem like this is the intent but based on how it is worded, it seems like it would apply.
  • forgottenpass 12y ago
    Offering different levels of service to be purchased at the types of endpoints you describe is not the target of this. It is (generally) about network peering, and throttling based on deep packet inception.
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
• Shivetya 12y ago
  Curious how the American Disabilities Act will be applied to the internet through these regulations. It could mean anything from requiring all content providers to meet unknown rules to providing special equipment in homes as part of service requirements. Let alone, what is protection from discrimination when it comes to the internet? This is the problem with such open ended rules, there are no real limits. Why no public review?
  • adventured 12y ago
    What, you don't trust one of the least trust-worthy governments in modern history? You don't trust the government that is actively, hyper aggressively abusing nearly every aspect of human privacy one can imagine? Comeon now, this is a gentle, freedom loving, privacy loving government. They would never put anything in those 300 clandestine pages enabling vast expansion of censorship or spying powers.
• ck2 12y ago
  Yay we maybe have neutral, expensive internet but no healthcare for many millions of people suffering. We have very strange priorities.
  • darkstar999 12y ago
    Fixing healthcare is a much, much larger problem. Totally irrelevant to this conversation.
• malchow 12y ago
  I would be curious to get emails from network ops people who really think today's move was not a good idea, but who do support the traditional, open, handshake peering internet. (I am asking because I am advising a very senior policymaker in Washington.) ji -at- malchow -dot com-
• billions 12y ago
  Unpopular opinion below - downvote constructively! Last mile deregulation was the only thing that was needed. 10s of last mile providers would have battled for that $50/month. Comcast would be irrelevant in 10 years. Tom Wheeler knew this and this was what he fought to keep. In the mounting public pressure, this was the compromise.
  • elchief 12y ago
    100% of what I've read online about the net neutrality debate was disallowing differential charges, but now it's magically about the last mile?
    • forgottenpass 12y ago
      It is completely outside the avenue the FCC perused on this fight. However, it has not gone undiscussed over the years. It's just had lower traction at a policy level and taken a backseat to conversations on the more-likely scenarios. I'm not surprised if people comment they would have preferred that approach.
• QuantumRoar 12y ago
  Congratulations to all the people who've put so much effort into this. It's a good day for the internet. I hope some day something like this will happen in Germany as well.
  • 72deluxe 12y ago
    Out of interest, what is the situation like in Germany with regard to the networks?
    • QuantumRoar 12y ago
      Mostly depressing. Basically the Telcos are acting in the same way as the ones in the USA. But we didn't have such an uproar from the people without which, I assume, the new NN rules couldn't be established in the USA. Politicians are influenced mostly from the telcos and seem to follow their line of argument. We do have some services that would violate net neutrality rules, like the circumvention of data caps sold by Deutsche Telekom (totally different from T-Mobile US) for users of Spotify. In addition there doesn't seem to be much hope for the internet's infrastructur. Germany has one of the world's worst FTTH market penetration. It's literally non-existent. Telcos try to use the old copper lines and cable to avoid investing and they seem quite succesful in convincing the government that fibre optics is not necessary. The last frustration came from a government agenda a few months ago. It states that until 2018 everyone should have 50MBit/s. But it doesn't state by which means or whether this applies to the downlink or peak speed or whatever. Many people fear that the telcos will meet the goal by simply putting up some LTE towers with data caps and "theoretical peak transfer rate" of 50Mbit/s. The agenda's goal would be met, since it's formulated so vaguely. However, we are just postponing the necessary FTTH build-out, while the big telcos make stupidly high profits from infrastructure that has amortized decades ago. There's also the issue with peering. Up until recently Deutsche Telekom was basically non-existent at the DE-CIX (Germany's largest Internet Exchange). Now they have a little band-width there. However, as Deutsche Telekom was once a state-owned company (still partially state-owned) and owns basically all copper infrastructur (ISPs can rent the last-mile), they are on a high horse and expect everyone to pay for peering, similar to Comcast. So yeah, up until recently, Germany and the USA could have a shittiness contest when it comes to the inet. Now, the winner is more clear.
• arenaninja 12y ago
  I wonder how this will affect T-mobile's offering with free music streaming services
• paulhauggis 12y ago
  Something everyone is forgetting is the FCC regulation of radio. It was a little like Net-neutrality today. Radio stations needed to be regulated because they could crank up the wattage and overpower smaller radio stations. It needed to be regulated and the intent was to just focus on the infrastructure, not the content. What happened? Speech deemed immoral is banned from the radio waves and content is clearly being regulated. I fear the same thing will eventually start happening with the Internet, which I personally do not want.
  • zymhan 12y ago
    Radio waves are different than wireline Internet. The FCC regulates radio because there is a limited amount of usable frequencies, and these are supposed to belong to the people, so they need to be distributed and managed by a central organization. Any since the Supreme Court has ruled that the FCC has the legal authority to enforce censorship, we're stuck with it. Radio is also different because it is a broadcast medium. Any person who turns on their radio will hear what is being broadcast. Internet communication is much more analogous to a phone or mail conversation than radio or TV. The Internet is totally different. No one has (reasonably) claimed that Title II regulation provides for the FCC to censor what is transmitted. The FCC doesn't censor phone calls now, why would they censor the Internet using the same rules?
    • paulhauggis 12y ago
      "Radio is also different because it is a broadcast medium. Any person who turns on their radio will hear what is being broadcast. Internet communication is much more analogous to a phone or mail conversation than radio or TV." It's not though. A phone conversation is only one person (or less than 10) at a time. You can broadcast a message on the Internet that can reach millions of people. Twitter, Facebook, and even HN are broadcast mediums. "The FCC doesn't censor phone calls now, why would they censor the Internet using the same rules?" The Phone is not a broadcast medium and does not have the same power as the Internet. "The Internet is totally different. No one has (reasonably) claimed that Title II regulation provides for the FCC to censor what is transmitted. " Although I don't think content is regulated, we still haven't seen any of the regulations passed today. *edit: are astro-turfers out again? I was merely stating my opinion on the topic..and was down voted. Is this an example of an open and free Internet?
• Frondo 12y ago
  I'm in the camp that the astroturf is running high right now; but moreover, the claim that "we haven't seen it!!" is also, I think, meaningless and irrelevant. I keep thinking about that Richelieu quote, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." My suspicion is, the people clamoring about not seeing the regulations, given a chance to see them, would still find something to object to, because, like a lot of other people here suspect, the point isn't a rational objection, the point is to collect a paycheck by faking widespread grassroots outrage.
  • kijin 12y ago
    Trying to discredit a good-enough proposal by yelling "But it's not perfect!" is typical of modern politics. And the tactic is terrifyingly effective. We in the hacker community should know better than anyone else that iteration, not a once-and-for-all solution, is the key to ultimate success. Unfortunately, it is difficult even for well-educated people to throw off the influence of the dominant political rhetoric. The fact that our political systems are designed to make iteration difficult doesn't help, either. But the U.S. government ain't going anywhere for the foreseeable future, and neither is Comcast. Today's announcement is little more than an MVP. There'll be plenty of opportunity for iterative --and sometimes even revolutionary -- improvement in the years and decades to come.
    • Frondo 12y ago
      There's even a saying that gets at what you're going for: The perfect is the enemy of the good. Is this the perfect government regulation? Probably not. Better than the old way? Oh yes. Same thing for Obamacare. Perfect way to give health care to a nation? Definitely not. Better than it was before? As someone who was ineligible for health insurance due to a surgery I'd had in my 20s, oh yes. (On a side note, and as a general rule, I look to see: are big, entrenched, unpopular companies fighting a regulation? If they are, that's a sign that it's probably a regulation that's good for consumers, probably one I'd support.)
• somanim 12y ago
  Like it will make a difference. what is to stop them from manipulating packets if there is no visibility into what they do with our packets. Let alone that the average consumer doesn't even understand the concept of throttling or why it is bad for them.
• Shivetya 12y ago
  a thank you note from Obama to reddit https://imgur.com/dZqiFrX https://imgur.com/dZqiFrX
• Zei33 12y ago
  > Commissioner Michael O’Reilly criticized the proposal to reverse Title II: “I see no need for net neutrality rules. I am far more troubled the commission is charting for Title II.” He continued, calling the move a “monumental and unlawful power grab.” More interested in politics than his job.
• db102892 12y ago
  test
• db102892 12y ago
  One need only look back at the Bell Telephone example to know that problems in the current Internet/ISP environment are not true problems. But the FCC "fix", which will incorporate the same operating standards, will create many of the same problems that kept the phone system from making major advances for about 50 years. Then, in 1984, it all changed -- for the better. If the government wants to experiment with its theories on "net neutrality", let it first test those theories on the operation of the Post Office.
• eatdatcake 12y ago
  I hope you guys save this page and open it up ten years from now to read your own comments again. When you read my comment again, say these words to yourself: "I asked for it."
• eatdatcake 12y ago
  I hope you guys save this page and open it up ten years from now to read your own comments again.\ When you read my comment again, say these words to yourself: "I asked for this."
• em3rgent0rdr 12y ago
  one question, can I now run a media server of my own legal content in my home with the full upstream bandwidth I pay in my contract?
• randomname2 12y ago
  So will internet prices go up now, just like with cable, where the FCC initially got involved to keep prices down?
• MnMike 12y ago
  Free markets lead to better profits, better profits lead to better innovation. Better innovation leads to cheaper prices. I guess no one learned from the last multi-hundred page bill (that no one was allowed to see) that didn't "lower prices" as it was chanted with religious zeal. Self-righteous power grabs in the name of the common good are always more important than actual consequences in reality.